case doctrines in pale of comm. sarmiento

8/17/2019 Case Doctrines in Pale of Comm. Sarmiento

1/47

INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL ETHICS

1. DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS V. BAYOT, 74 Phil. 749 (1944)

It is highly unethical for an attorney to adertise his talents or s!ill as a "erchant adertises his #ares$La# is a %rofession and not a trade$ The la#yer degrades hi"self and his %rofession #ho stoo%s to andado%ts the %ractices of "ercantilis" &y adertising his serices or o'ering the" to the %u&lic$

The "ost #orth and e'ectie adertise"ent %ossi&le( een for a young la#yer is the esta&lish"ent of a#ell)"erited re%utation for %rofessional ca%acity and *delity to trust$ This cannot &e forced &ut "ust &ethe outco"e of character and conduct$

2. LEDESMA V. CLIMACO, G.R. !. 12"1#, $%&' 2", 1974

+hat is readily a%%arent therefore( is that %etitioner #as less than duly "indful of his o&ligation ascounsel de ofcio$ He ought to hae !no#n that "e"&ershi% in the &ar is a %riilege &urdened #ithconditions$ It could &e that for so"e la#yers( es%ecially the neo%hytes in the %rofession( &eing a%%ointedcounsel de ofcio is an ir!so"e chore$ ,or those holding such &elief( it "ay co"e as a sur%rise thatcounsel of re%ute and of e"inence #elco"e such an o%%ortunity$ It "a!es een "ore "anifest that la# isindeed a %rofession dedicated to the ideal of serice and not a "ere trade$ It is understanda&le then #hya high degree of *delity to duty is re-uired of one so designated$

. CUI V. CUI, 11SCAR 9 (19"2)


2/47

In this .urisdiction ad"ission to the /ar and to the %ractice of la# is under the authority of the Su%re"e

Court$ According to Rule 012 such ad"ission re-uires %assing the /ar e3a"inations( ta!ing the la#yer4soath and receiing a certi*cate fro" the Cler! of Court( this certi*cate &eing his license to %ractice the%rofession$ The acade"ic degree of /achelor of La#s in itself has little to do #ith ad"ission to the /ar(e3ce%t as eidence of co"%liance #ith the re-uire"ents that an a%%licant to the e3a"inations has5successfully co"%leted all the %rescri&ed courses( in a la# school or uniersity( o6cially a%%roed &y theSecretary of Education$5

4. VILLEGAS V. LEGASPI 11 SCRA 9 (19"2)

A%%earance &y legislators &efore C,I should &e li"ited to cases #here said courts e3ercise a%%ellate .urisdiction$

#. ERIUE* V. GIMEE*, 1+7 Phil. 92 (19+)

Under the %roision of Sections 7780( 0927 and 0921 of the Reised Ad"inistratie Code the %roincial*scal is the legal adiser of the "ayor and council of the arious "unici%alities of a %roince and it is hisduty to re%resent the "unici%ality in any court e3ce%t #hen he is dis-uali*ed &y la#$ +hen he isdis-uali*ed to re%resent the "unici%ality( the "unici%al council "ay engage the serices of a s%ecialattorney$

. SALCEDO V. -ERADE*, 1 Phil. 724 (19#)

It is right and %lausi&le that an attorney( in defending the cause and rights of his client( should do so #ithall the faor and energy of #hich he is ca%a&le( &ut it is not( and #ill neer &e so for hi" to e3ercise saidright &y resorting to inti"idation or %roceeding #ithout the %ro%riety and res%ect #hich the dignity of the


3/47

courts re-uire$ The reason for this is that res%ect of the courts guarantees the sta&ility of their institution$+ithout such guaranty said institution #ould &e resting on a ery sha!y foundation$

7. ALAI V. ALAUYA, 2" SCRA "7 (1979)

The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for :u&lic O6cials and E"%loyees ;RA 9


4/47

:atent La# and other la#s a%%lica&le( as #ell as the %resentation of eidence to esta&lish facts inoledthat %art of the functions of the :atent Director are .udicial or -uasi).udicial( so "uch so that a%%eals

fro" his orders and decisions are( under the la#( ta!en to the Su%re"e Court$

In su"( the %ractice of la# coers any actiity in or out of court( #hich re-uires the a%%lication of la#(legal %rocedures( %rinci%les or %ractice and calls for legal !no#ledge( training and e3%erience$ And( onlythe Su%re"e Court has the e3clusie and constitutional %o#er #ith res%ect to ad"ission to the %ractice of la#$

1+. UI V. IRIS BOIFACIO, SCRA " (19)

All the facts ta!en together leads to the inesca%a&le conclusion that res%ondent #as i"%rudent in"anaging her %ersonal a'airs$ Ho#eer( the fact re"ains that her relationshi% #ith Carlos Ui( clothed as it#as #ith #hat res%ondent &elieed #as a alid "arriage( cannot &e considered i""oral$ ,or i""oralityconnotes conduct that sho#s indi'erence to the "oral nor"s of society and the o%inion of good andres%ecta&le "e"&ers of the co""unity$ >oreoer( for such conduct to #arrant disci%linary action( thesa"e "ust &e grossly i""oral( that is( it "ust &e so corru%t and false as to constitute a cri"inal act orso un%rinci%led as to &e re%rehensi&le to a high degree$

11. DELES V. ARAGOA, 27 SCRA (199)

State"ent "ade in the course of .udicial %roceedings are a&solutely %riileged F that is( %riilegedregardless of defa"atory tenor and of the %resence of "alice F if the sa"e are releant( %ertinent or"aterial to the cause in hand or su&.ect of the in-uiry$ And that( in ie# of this( the %erson #ho "a!esthe"F such as a .udge( la#yer( or #itness F does not there&y incur the ris! of &eing found lia&lethereon in a cri"inal %rosecution or an action for the recoery of da"ages$


5/47

12. BLA*A V. ARCAGEL, 21 SCRA 1 (197)

A la#yer has a "ore dyna"ic and %ositie role in the co""unity than "erely co"%lying #ith the "ini"altechnicalities of the statute$ As a "an of la#( he is necessarily a leader of the co""unity( loo!ed u% to asa "odel citi?en$ His conduct "ust( %erforce( &e %ar e3cellence( es%ecially so #hen( as in this case(he volunteers his %rofessional serices$

1. *ORETA V. SIMPLICIAO, 44 SCRA 1 (2++4)

>e"&ershi% in the &ar is a %riilege &urdened #ith conditions$ A la#yer has the %riilege and right to%ractice la# only during good &ehaior and can only &e de%ried of it for "isconduct ascertained anddeclared &y .udg"ent of the court after o%%ortunity to &e heard has &een a'orded hi"$

The Court has characteri?ed a la#yers act of notari?ing docu"ents #ithout the re-uisite co""issiontherefore as re%rehensi&le( constituting as it does not only "al%ractice &ut also the cri"e of falsi*cationof %u&lic docu"ents$

14. A/1 FIACIAL SERVICES, IC. V. VALERIO, 22 SCRA 1

Deli&erate failure to %ay .ust de&ts and the issuance of #orthless chec!s constitute gross "isconduct( for#hich a la#yer "ay &e sanctioned #ith sus%ension fro" the %ractice of la#$ La#yers are instru"ents forthe ad"inistration of .ustice and anguards of our legal syste"$ They are e3%ected to "aintain not onlylegal %ro*ciency &ut also a high standard of "orality( honesty( integrity and fair dealing so that the%eo%les faith and con*dence in the .udicial syste" is ensured$ They "ust at all ti"es faithfully %erfor"their duties to society( to the &ar( the courts and to their clients( #hich include %ro"%t %ay"ent of *nancial o&ligations$ They "ust conduct the"seles in a "anner that reects the alues and nor"s of the legal %rofession as e"&odied in the Code of :rofessional Res%onsi&ility$


6/47

1#. 2++ BAR E0AMIATIO BAR MATTER O. 1222, 421 SCRA 7+

:enalties( such as dis&ar"ent( are i"%osed not to %unish &ut to correct o'enders$ +hile the Court is eer"indful of its duty to disci%line its erring o6cers( it also !no#s ho# to sho# co"%assion #hen the %enaltyi"%osed has already sered its %ur%ose$ In cases #here #e hae deigned to lift or co""ute the su%re"e%enalty of dis&ar"ent i"%osed on the la#yer( #e hae ta!en into account the re"orse of the dis&arredla#yer and the conduct of his %u&lic life during his years outside of the &ar$


7/47

AD>ISSION TO :RACTICE1. I RE LAUEVO, SCRA 24# (197#)

Section 7 of Rule 012 of the Reised Rules of Court of 0@98( in connection( a"ong others( #ith thecharacter re-uire"ent of candidates for ad"ission to the /ar( %roides that 5eery a%%licant forad"ission as a "e"&er of the /ar "ust &e $$$ of good "oral character $$$ and "ust %roduce &efore theSu%re"e Court satisfactory eidence of good "oral character( and that no charges against hi" inoling

"oral tur%itude( hae &een *led or are %ending in any court in the :hili%%ines$5It should &e stressed that once the &ar e3a"iner has su&"itted the corrected note&oo!s to the /arCon*dant( the sa"e cannot &e #ithdra#n for any %ur%ose #hatsoeer #ithout %rior authority fro" theCourt$

2. FIRST LEPATO CERAMICS, IC. V. CA, 27 SCRA #19 (1994)

The /oard of Inest"ent is the agency tas!ed #ith ealuating the feasi&ility of an inest"ent %ro.ect andto decide #hich inest"ent "ight &e co"%ati&le #ith its deelo%"ent %lans$ The e3ercise of

ad"inistratie discretion is a %olicy decision and a "atter that can &est &e discharged &y the goern"entagency concerned and not &y the courts$ In ,eli%e s"ael( r$ J Co$( Inc$ s$ De%uty E3ecutie Secretary(#e hae already said and no# still reiterate that )3 3 3 #hile the ad"inistration gra%%les #ith the co"%le3and "ultifarious %ro&le"s caused &y un&ridled e3%loitation of these resources( the .udiciary #ill standclear$ A long line of cases esta&lish the &asic rule that the courts #ill not interfere in "atters #hich areaddressed to the sound discretion of goern"ent agencies entrusted #ith the regulation of actiitiesco"ing under the s%ecial technical !no#ledge and training of such agencies$


8/47

. I RE CUAA, 94 Phil. #4 (19#4)

The .udicial function of the Su%re"e Court in ad"itting candidates to the legal %rofession( #hichnecessarily inoles the e3ercise of discretion( re-uiresB ;0= %reious esta&lished rules and %rinci%les ;7=concrete facts( #hether %ast or %resent( a'ecting deter"inate indiiduals and ;1= a decision as to#hether these facts are goerned &y the rules and %rinci%les

4. URODA V. $ALADOI, " Phil. 171

There is nothing in E3ecutie Order No$ 92 #hich re-uires that counsel a%%earing &efore said co""ission

"ust &e attorneys -uali*ed to %ractice la# in the :hili%%ines in accordance #ith the Rules of Court$ Infact( it is co""on in "ilitary tri&unals that counsel for the %arties are usually "ilitary %ersonnel #ho areneither attorneys nor een %ossessed of legal training$

#. OMICO MIIG 3 IDUSTRIAL CORP. V. VALLE$OS, SCRA 2"# (197#)

The contract of %rofessional serices entered into &et#een %riate res%ondent and the %etitioners( #hilethe for"er #as still a .udge of the Court of ,irst Instance( constituted %riate %ractice of la# and incontraention of the e3%ress %roision of Section 1K of Rule 012 of the Reised Rules of Court$ Theaforecited Rule #as %ro"ulgated &y this Court( %ursuant to its constitutional %o#er to regulate the%ractice of la#$ It is &ased on sound reasons of %u&lic %olicy( for there is no -uestion that the rights(duties( %riileges and functions of the o6ce of an attorney)at)la# are so inherently inco"%ati&le #ith thehigh o6cial functions( duties( %o#ers( discretions and %riileges of a .udge of the Court of ,irst Instance$78 This inhi&itory rule "a!es it o&ligatory u%on the .udicial o6cers concerned to gie their full ti"e andattention to their .udicial duties( %reent the" fro" e3tending s%ecial faors to their o#n %riate interestsand assure the %u&lic of their i"%artiality in the %erfor"ance of their functions$ These o&.ecties aredictated &y a sense of "oral decency and the desire to %ro"ote the %u&lic interest$


9/47

. PEOPLE V. VILLAUEVA, 14 SCRA 1+9 (19#)

Essentially( the #ord %riate %ractice of la# i"%lies that one "ust hae %resented hi"self to &e in theactie and continued %ractice of the legal %rofession and that his %rofessional serices are aaila&le tothe %u&lic for a co"%ensation( as a source of his lielihood or in consideration of his said serices$

7. DIA AOUEVO V. BERCASIO, " SCRA "1 (197#)

The rule dis-ualifying a "unici%al .udge fro" engaging in the %ractice of la# see!s to aoid the eil of %ossi&le use of the %o#er and inuence of his o6ce to a'ect the outco"e of a litigation #here he is

retained as counsel$ Co"%elling reasons of %u&lic %olicy lie &ehind this %rohi&ition( and .udges aree3%ected to conduct the"seles in such a "anner as to %reclude any sus%icion that they are re%resentingthe interests of a %arty litigant$

Although eery o6ce in the goern"ent serice is a %u&lic trust( no %osition e3acts a greater de"and on"oral righteousness and u%rightness of an indiidual than a seat in the udiciary$ A "agistrate of the la#"ust co"%ort hi"self at all ti"es in such a "anner that his conduct( o6cial or other#ise( can &ear the"ost searching scrutiny of the %u&lic that loo!s u% to hi" as the e%ito"e of integrity and .ustice$

". DE GU*MA V. VISAYA RAPID TRASIT CO., " Phil. 49 (199)

No hard and fast rule can &e stated #hich #ill sere een as a guide in deter"ining #hat is or #hat is nota reasona&le fee$ That "ust &e deter"ined fro" the facts in each case$

:rofessional serices( to %re%are and adocate .ust clai"s for co"%ensation( are as legiti"ate as sericesrendered in court in arguing a cause to conince a court or .ury that the clai" %resented or the defenseset u% against a clai" %resented &y the other %arty ought to &e allo#ed or re.ected$ :arties in such cases


10/47

re-uire adocates and the legal %rofession "ust hae a right to acce%t such e"%loy"ent and to receieco"%ensation for their serices nor can courts of .ustice ad.udge such contracts illegal( if they are free

fro" any taint of fraud( "isre%resentation( or unfairness$

9. CAYETAO V. MOSOD, 2+1 SCRA 21+ (1991)

:ractice of la# "eans any actiity( in or out of court( #hich re-uires the a%%lication of la#( legal%rocedure( !no#ledge( training and e3%erience$ 5To engage in the %ractice of la# is to %erfor" those acts#hich are characteristics of the %rofession$ Generally( to %ractice la# is to gie notice or render any !indof serice( #hich deice or serice re-uires the use in any degree of legal !no#ledge or s!ill$5 ;000 ALR71=

1+. I RE EDILLO, "4 SCRA ##4 (197")

Integration does not "a!e a la#yer a "e"&er of any grou% of #hich he is not already a "e"&er$ He&eca"e a "e"&er of the /ar #hen he %assed the /ar e3a"inations$ All that integration actually does isto %roide an o6cial national organi?ation for the #ell)de*ned &ut unorgani?ed and incohesie grou% of #hich eery la#yer is a ready a "e"&er$/ar integration does not co"%el the la#yer to associate #ith anyone$ He is free to attend or not attendthe "eetings of his Integrated /ar Cha%ter or ote or refuse to ote in its elections as he chooses$ Theonly co"%ulsion to #hich he is su&.ected is the %ay"ent of annual dues$ The Su%re"e Court( in order tofurther the State4s legiti"ate interest in eleating the -uality of %rofessional legal serices( "ay re-uirethat the cost of i"%roing the %rofession in this fashion &e shared &y the su&.ects and &ene*ciaries of theregulatory %rogra" F the la#yers$

11. TA$A V. CUSI, $R., #7 SCRA 1#4 (1974)


11/47

The %o#er to e3clude un*t and un#orthy "e"&ers of the legal %rofession ste"s fro" the inherent %o#erof the Su%re"e Court to regulate the %ractice of la# and the ad"ission of %ersons to engage in that

%ractice$ It is a necessary incident to the %ro%er ad"inistration of .ustice$ An attorney)at)la# is an o6cerof the court in the ad"inistration of .ustice and as such he is continually accounta&le to the Court for the"anner in #hich he e3ercises the %riilege #hich has &een granted to hi"$ His ad"ission to the %racticeof la# is u%on the i"%lied condition that his continued en.oy"ent of the right conferred( is de%endentu%on his re"aining a *t and safe %erson to e3ercise it$ +hen it a%%ears &y acts of "isconduct( that hehas &eco"e un*t to continue #ith the trust re%osed u%on hi"( his right to continue in the en.oy"ent of that trust and for the en.oy"ent of the %rofessional %riilege accorded to hi" "ay and ought to &eforfeited$ The la# accords to the Court of A%%eals and the Court of ,irst Instance the %o#er to inestigateand sus%end "e"&ers of the &ar$

12. ALCALA V. VERA, # SCRA + (1974)

5An attorney is not &ound to e3ercise e3traordinary diligence( &ut only a reasona&le degree of care ands!ill( haing reference to the character of the &usiness he underta!es to do$ ,alli&le li!e any other hu"an&eing( he is ans#era&le to eery error or "ista!e( and #ill &e %rotected as long as he acts honestly and ingood faith to the &est of his s!ill and !no#ledge$ >oreoer( a %arty see!ing da"ages resulting fro" a

.udg"ent aderse to hi" #hich &eca"e *nal &y reason of the alleged fault or negligence of his la#yer"ust %roe his loss due to the in.ustice of the decision$ He cannot &ase his action on the unsu&stantiatedand ar&itrary su%%osition of the in.ustice of the decision$ ;Tu?on s$ Donato( K2 O$G$ 982=$5

1. CATIMBU-A V. CRU*, 12 SCRA 19+ (19"1)

The %er"ission of the *scal is not necessary for one to enter his a%%earance as %riate %rosecutor$ In the*rst %lace( the la# does not i"%ose this condition$ +hat the *scal can do( if he #ants to handle the case%ersonally is to disallo# the %riate %rosecutors %artici%ation( #hether he &e a la#yer or not( in the trial


12/47

of the case$ On the other hand( if the *scal desires the actie %artici%ation of the %riate %rosecutor( hecan .ust "anifest to the court that the %riate %rosecutor( #ith its a%%roal( #ill conduct the %rosecution

of the caseB under his su%erision and control$ ,urther( +e "ay add that if a non)la#yer can a%%ear asdefense counsel or as friend of the accused in a case &efore the "unici%al trial court( #ith "ore reasonshould he &e allo#ed to a%%ear as %riate %rosecutor under the su%erision and control of the trial *scal$

14. -YDRO RESOURCES COTRACTORS CORP. V. PAGALILAUA, 172 SCRA 99 (19"9)

A la#yer( li!e any other %rofessional( "ay ery #ell &e an e"%loyee of a %riate cor%oration or een of the goern"ent$ It is not unusual for a &ig cor%oration to hire a sta' of la#yers as its in)house counsel(%ay the" regular salaries( ran! the" in its ta&le of organi?ation( and other#ise treat the" li!e its other

o6cers and e"%loyees$ At the sa"e ti"e( it "ay also contract #ith a la# *r" to act as outside counselon a retainer &asis$ The t#o classes of la#yers often #or! closely together &ut one grou% is "ade u% of e"%loyees #hile the other is not$ A si"ilar arrange"ent "ay e3ist as to doctors( nurses( dentists( %u&licrelations %ractitioners( and other %rofessionals

1#. RAMOS V. RADA, # SCRA 179 (197#)

No o6cer or e"%loyee shall engage directly in any %riate &usiness( ocation( or %rofession or &econnected #ith any co""ercial( credit( agricultural or industrial underta!ing #ithout a #ritten %er"ission

fro" the head of De%art"entB :roided( That this %rohi&ition #ill &e a&solute in the case of those o6cersand e"%loyees #hose duties and res%onsi&ilities re-uire that their entire ti"e &e at the dis%osal of theGoern"ent

1. BELTRA V. ABAD, 12 SCRA 4#2 (19"4)


13/47

Only those licensed &y the Su%re"e Court "ay %ractice la# in this country$ The right to %ractice la# is nota natural or constitutional right &ut is a %riilege$ It is li"ited to %ersons of good "oral character #ith

s%ecial -uali*cations duly ascertained and certi*ed$ The e3ercise of this %riilege %resu%%oses %ossessionof integrity( legal !no#ledge( educational attain"ent and een %u&lic trust( since a la#yer is an o6cer of the court$ A &ar candidate does not ac-uire the right to %ractice la# si"%ly &y %assing the &are3a"inations$ The %ractice of la# is a %riilege that can &e #ithheld een fro" one #ho has %assed the&ar e3a"inations( if the %erson see!ing ad"ission had %racticed la# #ithout license$

17. BACARRO V. PIATACA, 127 SCRA 21" (19"4)

One of the indis%ensa&le re-uisites for ad"ission to the :hili%%ine /ar is that the a%%licant "ust &e of

good "oral character$ This re-uire"ent ai"s to "aintain and u%hold the high "oral standards and thedignity of the legal %rofession( and one of the #ays of achieing this end is to ad"it to the %ractice of thisno&le %rofession only those %ersons #ho are !no#n to &e honest and to %ossess good "oral character$5As a "an of la#( ;a la#yer= is necessary a leader of the co""unity( loo!ed u% to as a "odel citi?en$5 Hesets an e3a"%le to his fello# citi?ens not only for his res%ect for the la#( &ut also for his clean liing$

Thus( &eco"ing a la#yer is "ore than .ust going through a la# course and %assing the /ar e3a"inations$One #ho has the lofty as%iration of &eco"ing a "e"&er of the :hili%%ine /ar "ust satisfy this Court(#hich has the %o#er( .urisdiction and duty to %ass u%on the -uali*cations( a&ility and "oral character of candidates for ad"ission to the /ar( that he has "easured u% to that rigid and Ideal standard of "oral*tness re-uired &y his chosen ocation$

1". DIAO V. MARTIE*, 7 SCRA 47# (19)

Ad"ission to the /ar o&tained under false %retenses "ust &e reo!ed$ :assing such e3a"ination is notthe only -uali*cation to &eco"e an attorney)at)la# ta!ing the %rescri&ed courses of legal study in theregular "anner is e-ually essential$


14/47

19. I RE ARGOSI5O, 27+ SCRA 2 (1997)

The %ractice of la# is a %riilege granted only to those #ho %ossess the strict intellectual and "oral-uali*cations re-uired of la#yers #ho are instru"ents in the e'ectie and e6cient ad"inistration of

.ustice$ It is the s#orn duty of this Court not only to 5#eed out5 la#yers #ho hae &eco"e a disgrace tothe no&le %rofession of the la# &ut( also of e-ual i"%ortance( to %reent 5"is*ts5 fro" ta!ing the la#yer4soath( there&y further tarnishing the %u&lic i"age of la#yers #hich in recent years has undou&tedly&eco"e less than irre%roacha&le$

2+. COLLATES V. REOMERO, 2++ SCRA #"4 (19"1)

The Code of :rofessional Res%onsi&ility a%%lies to la#yers in goern"ent serice in the discharge of theiro6cial tas!s ;Canon 9=$ ust as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for :u&lic O6cials re-uires%u&lic o6cials and e"%loyees to %rocess docu"ents and %a%ers e3%editiously ;Sec$ K( su&%ars$ Mc andMd and %rohi&its the" fro" directly or indirectly haing a *nancial or "aterial interest in any transactionre-uiring the a%%roal of their o6ce( and li!e#ise &ars the" fro" soliciting gifts or anything of "onetaryalue in the course of any transaction #hich "ay &e a'ected &y the functions of their o6ce ;See$


15/47

THE LA+ERS DUTIES TO SOCIET1. MOTECILLO V. GICA 6G.R. !. L/"++ O8!': 21, 1974;

+e concede that a la#yer "ay thin! highly of his intellectual endo#"ent$ That is his %riilege$ And( he"ay su'er frustration at #hat he feels is others4 lac! of it$ This is his "isfortune$ So"e such fra"e of "ind( ho#eer( should not &e allo#ed to harden into a &elief that he "ay attac! a court4s decision in#ords calculated to .ettison the ti"e)honored a%horis" that courts are the te"%les of right$ He should

gie due allo#ance to the fact that .udges are &ut "en and "en are enco"%assed &y error( fettered &yfalli&ility$

2. I RE GUTIERRE* 6A.M. !. L/. $%l< 1, 192;

The %ractice of la# is a %riilege accorded only to those #ho "easure u% to certain rigid standards of

"ental and "oral *tness$ ,or the ad"ission of a candidate to the &ar the Rules of Court not only

%rescri&e a test of acade"ic %re%aration &ut re-uire satisfactory testi"onials of good "oral character$

These standards are neither dis%ensed #ith nor lo#ered after ad"issionB the la#yer "ust continue to

adhere to the" or else incur the ris! of sus%ension or re"oal$

. OROCE V. COURT OF APPEALS 6G.R. !. 12#7. O8!': 19, 199";

Eduardo ,la"inianos( a la#yer( contu"acious acts of entering the Gil"ore %ro%erty #ithout the consent

of its occu%ants and in contraention of the e3isting #rit or %reli"inary in.unction issued &y the Court of

A%%eals and "a!ing utterances sho#ing disres%ect for the la# and this Court( are certainly un&eco"ing


16/47

of a "e"&er of the :hili%%ine /ar$ Under the Code of :rofessional Res%onsi&ility( he is %rohi&ited fro"

counseling or a&etting actiities ai"ed at de*ance of the la# or at lessening con*dence in the legal

syste"$

4. DE YSASI V. LRC 6G.R. !. 1+4#99 M=:h 11, 1994;

Rule 0$8 of the Code of :rofessional Res%onsi&ility e3%licitly %roides that 5;a= la#yer shall encourage hisclient to aoid( end or settle the controersy if it #ill ad"it of a fair settle"ent$5 On this %oint( #e *ndthat &oth counsel herein fell short of #hat #as e3%ected of the"( des%ite their ao#ed duties as o6cersof the court$ The records do not sho# that they too! %ains to initiate ste%s geared to#ard e'ecting ara%%roche"ent &et#een their clients$ On the contrary( their acer&ic and %rotracted e3changes could not

&ut hae e3acer&ated the situation een as they "ay hae found faor in the e-ually hostile eyes of theirres%ectie clients$

#. PA$ARES V. ABAD SATOS 6G.R. !. L/29#4 !>'?': 29, 199;

The coo%eration of litigants and their attorneys is needed so that needless clogging of the court doc!ets#ith un"eritorious cases "ay &e aoided$ There "ust &e "ore faithful adherence to Rule


17/47

a&out the *ling of %leadings$ It is not enough that he %re%ares the" he "ust see to it that they are duly

"ailed$ Such inattention as sho#n in this case is ine3cusa&le$

7. DE ROY V. COURT OF APPEALS 6G.R. !. "+71" $=&%=:< 29, 19"";

It is the &ounden duty of counsel as la#yer in actie la# %ractice to !ee% a&reast of decisions of the

Su%re"e Court %articularly #here issues hae &een clari*ed( consistently reiterated( and %u&lished in the

adance re%orts of Su%re"e Court decisions ;G$ R$ s= and in such %u&lications as the Su%re"e Court

Re%orts Annotated ;SCRA= and la# .ournals$

". FAR EASTER S-IPPIG CO. V. COURT OF APPEALS 6G.R. !. 1++". O8!': 1, 199";

/eing an o6cer of the court( a la#yer has a res%onsi&ility in the %ro%er ad"inistration of .ustice$ Li!e the

court itself( he is an instru"ent to adance its ends )) the s%eedy( e6cient( i"%artial( correct and

ine3%ensie ad.udication of cases and the %ro"%t satisfaction of *nal .udg"ents$ A la#yer should not only

hel% attain these o&.ecties &ut should li!e#ise aoid any unethical or i"%ro%er %ractices that i"%ede(

o&struct or %reent their reali?ation( charged as he is #ith the %ri"ary tas! of assisting in the s%eedy and

e6cient ad"inistration of .ustice$

9. $OSE V. COURT OF APPEALS 6G.R. !. L/"#"1 M=:h 1, 197;

In this .urisdiction( in not a$ fe# instances( this Court ordered a ne# trial in cri"inal cases on grounds not

"entioned in the statute( i? retraction of #itness( negligence or inco"%etency of counsel$ I"%roident

%lea of guilty( dis-uali*cation of an attorney de o*cio to re%resent the accused in the trial court( and

#here a .udg"ent #as rendered on a sti%ulation of facts entered into &y &oth the %rosecution and the

defense$ Characteristically( a ne# trial has &een descri&ed as a ne# inention to te"%er the seerity of a

.udg"ent or %reent the failure of .ustice$


18/47

1+. PEOPLE V. PIEDA 6G.R. !. L/2222 $%l< 21, 197;

A %rosecuting attorney( &y the nature of his o6ce( is under no co"%ulsion to *le a %articular cri"inalinfor"ation #here he is not coninced that he has eidence to %ro% u% the aer"ents thereof( or that the

eidence at hand %oints to a di'erent conclusion$

11. PEOPLE V. MADERA 6G.R. !. L/#1 M=< 1, 1974;

The %rosecutor4s *nest hour is not #hen he #ins a case #ith the coniction of the accused$ His *nest hour

is still #hen( oerco"ing the adocate4s natural o&session for ictory( he stands u% &efore the Court and

%leads not for the coniction of the accused &ut for his ac-uittal$ ,or indeed( his no&le tas! is to %rosecute

only the guilty and to %rotect the innocent$

12. TA V. GALLARDO 6G.R. !@. L/4121/14 O8!': #, 197;$

The role of the %riate %rosecutors( u%on the other hand( is to re%resent the o'ended %arts( #ith res%ectto the ciil action for the recoery of the ciil lia&ility arising fro" the o'ense$

1. PEOPLE V. SEDAYDIEGO 6G.R. !. L/2#4 3 G.R. !. L/2# $=&%=:< 2+, 197";

Section 01( Rule 007 of the Rules of court( in allo#ing a Court of ,irst Instance to conduct a %reli"inary

inestigation( does not dis-ualify it fro" trying the case after it had found %ro&a&le cause and after the*scal( as directed &y the Court( had *led the corres%onding infor"ation$ The rule assu"es that the udge(

#ho conducted the %reli"inary inestigation( could i"%artially try the case on the "erits$

14. MISAMI V. SA $UA 6A.M. !. 141" A%%@8 1, 197;


19/47

Certainly( the fact that the sus%icion could &e entertained that far fro" liing true to the conce%t of a

%u&lic o6ce &eing a %u&lic trust( he did "a!e use( not so "uch of #hateer legal !no#ledge he

%ossessed( &ut the inuence that lay"en could assu"e #as inherent in the o6ce held not only to

frustrate the &ene*cent statutory sche"e that la&or &e .ustly co"%ensated &ut also to &e at the &ec! and

call of #hat the co"%lainant called alien interest( is a "atter that should not %ass unnoticed$ Res%ondent(

in his future actuations as a "e"&er of the &ar$ should refrain fro" laying hi"self o%en to such dou&ts

and "isgiings as to his *tness not only for the %osition occu%ied &y hi" &ut also for "e"&ershi% in the

&ar$

1#. PCGG V. SADIGABAYA 3 MEDO*A 6G.R. !@. 1#1"+9/12. A:il 12, 2++#;

Interention only includes an act of a %erson #ho has the %o#er to inuence the su&.ect %roceedings$M88+e hold that this second "eaning is "ore a%%ro%riate to gie to the #ord interention under Rule 9$1

of the Code of :rofessional Res%onsi&ility in light of its history$ The eils sought to &e re"edied &y the

Rule do not e3ist #here the goern"ent la#yer does an act #hich can &e considered as innocuous such

as 3 3 3 drafting( enforcing or inter%reting goern"ent or agency %rocedures( regulations or la#s( or

&rie*ng a&stract %rinci%les of la#$

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/151809_12.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/151809_12.htm#_ftn44


20/47

THE LA+ERS DUTIES TO THELEGAL :RO,ESSION

1. RIVERA VS. AGELES, 6A.C. !. 2#19. A%%@8 29, 2+++;

The Court is not o&liious of the right of a la#yer to &e %aid for the legal serices he has e3tended to hisclient &ut such right should not &e e3ercised #hi"sically &y a%%ro%riating to hi"self the "oney intendedfor his clients$ There should neer &e an instance #here the ictor in litigation loses eerything he #on tothe fees of his o#n la#yer$

2. $OSE S. DUCAT, $R. >@. ATTYS. ARSEIO C. VILLALO, $R. =& CRISPULO DUCUSI, 7SCRA 22 (2+++)

Public confdence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct o amember o the Bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and comport himsel in such a manner that would

promote public confdence in the integrity o the legal proession. Members o the Bar are expected toalways live up to the standards o the legal proession as embodied in the ode o Proessional!esponsibility inasmuch as the relationship between an attorney and his client is highly fduciary innature and demands utmost fdelity and good aith.

Canon < of the Code of :rofessional Res%onsi&ility "andates that a la#yer shall at all ti"es u%hold theintegrity and dignity of the legal %rofession$ The trust and con*dence necessarily re%osed &y clientsre-uire in the la#yer a high standard and a%%reciation of his duty to the"$


21/47

. TA >@ SABADAL, 12 SCRA + (199)

The legal %rofession e3acts the highest ethical conduct of all its "e"&ers( and good "oral character eenfor a%%licants for ad"ission to the /ar$ He could at least hae sho#n his *tness for ad"ission &y sho#ingadherence to and o&serance of the standards of conduct re-uired &y all #ho as%ire to %rofess the la#$

4. I RE PARA*O, "2 Phil. 2+ (194")

The Su%re"e Court and the :hili%%ine /ar hae al#ays tried to "aintain a high standard for the legal%rofession( &oth in acade"ic %re%aration and legal training( as #ell as in honesty and fair dealing$ TheCourt and the licensed la#yers the"seles are itally interested in !ee%ing this high standard and one of

the #ays of achieing this end is to ad"it to the %ractice of this no&le %rofession only those %ersons #hoare !no#n to &e honest( %ossess good "oral character( and sho# %ro*ciency in and !no#ledge of the la#&y the standard set &y this Court &y %assing the /ar E3a"inations honestly and in the regular and usual"anner$

#. SATAS PAGA >. ATTY. DIOISIO RAMOS, 1+7 SCRA 1 (19"1)

5The la#yer should aid in guarding the /ar against the ad"ission to the %rofession of candidates un*t or

un-uali*ed &ecause de*cient in either "oral character or education$ He should strie at all ti"es to

u%hold the honor and to "aintain the dignity of the %rofession and to i"%roe not only the la# &ut also

the ad"inistration of .ustice$5 "

9$ I RE DISBARMET PROCEEDIGS AGAIST ATTY. DIOSDADO . GUTIERRE*, # SCRA 1192)


22/47

Of all classes and %rofessions( the la#yer is "ost sacredly &ound to u%hold the la#s$ He is their s#orn

serant and for hi"( of all "en in the #orld( to re%udiate and oerride the la#s( to tra"%le the" underfoot and to ignore the ery &onds of society( argues recreancy to his %osition and o6ce and sets a%ernicious e3a"%le to the insu&ordinate and dangerous ele"ents of the &ody %olitic$

7. FLORA ARIDO >@. ATTY. $AMES LISAGA, #" SCRA "# (1974)

>utual &ic!ering and un.usti*a&le recri"inations( &et#een &rother attorneys detract fro" the dignity of the legal %rofession and #ill not receie any sy"%athy fro" this court$

". LAPUT VS. REMOTIGUE, SCRA 4# (192)


9. CAMAC-O VS. PAGULAYA, 2" SCRA 1 (2+++)

"awyer should not communicate upon sub#ect o controversy with a party represented by counsel, muchless should he underta$e to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should only deal with his

counsel. "awyer must avoid everything that may tend to mislead party not represented by counsel andshould not advise him as to law.

1+. ROBISO >@ VILLAFUERTE, (G.R. !. L/#4 $=&%=:< , 1911)



23/47

11. TA TE BEG >. TIMOTEO DAVID, 12 SCRA "9 (19")

The la#yer "ay not see! or o&tain e"%loy"ent &y hi"self or through others for to do so #ould &eun%rofessional5

The co""erciali?ation of la# %ractice is conde"ned in certain canons of %rofessional ethics ado%ted &ythe A"erican /ar Association$ 5Un%rofessional conduct in an attorney is that #hich iolates the rules orethical code of his %rofession or #hich is un&eco"ing a "e"&er of that %rofession

12. DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS >. BAYOT, 74 Phil. #79 (1944)S'8i!& 2# ! R%l' 127 e3%ressly %roides a"ong other things that 5the %ractice of soliciting cases atla# for the %ur%ose of gain( either %ersonally or thru %aid agents or &ro!ers( constitutes "al%ractice$5 It ishighly unethical for an attorney to adertise his talents or s!ill as a "erchant adertises his #ares$ La# isa %rofession and not a trade$

1. ULEP >@ T-E LEGAL CLIIC, 22 SCRA 7" (199)

The canon of the %rofession tell us that the &est adertising %ossi&le for a la#yer is a #ell)"eritedre%utation for %rofessional ca%acity and *delity to trust( #hich "ust &e earned as the outco"e of

character and conduct$ Good and e6cient serice to a client as #ell as to the co""unity has a #ay of %u&lici?ing itself and catching %u&lic attention$ That %u&licity is a nor"al &y)%roduct of e'ectie serice#hich is right and %ro%er$

14. I RE SYCIP, 92& SCRA 1 (1979)

The heirs of a deceased %artner in a la# *r" cannot &e held lia&le as the old "e"&ers to the creditors of a *r" %articularly #here they are non)la#yers$. A %artnershi% for the %ractice of la# cannot &e li!ened to


24/47

%artnershi%s for"ed &y other %rofessionals or for &usiness$ ,or one thing( the la# on accountancys%eci*cally allo#s the use of a trade na"e in connection #ith the %ractice of accountancy


25/47

THE LA+ERS DUTIES TO THECOURTS

1. CITY S-ERIFF, ILIGA CITY VS. FORTUADO, 2"" SCRA 19+ (199")

A la#yer should &ear in "ind that a la#yer is( *rst and fore"ost( an o6cer of the court$ Atty$ A&rogena is

RE:RI>ANDED for his failure to infor" this Court of the death of %etitioner and to %erfor" his duty underSection 09( Rule 1 of the Reised Rules of Court$

2. OCCEA VS. MARUE*, + SCRA " (1974)+e hae carefully considered these charges and the ans#ers of interenor( and( on the &asis of the

eidence( +e conclude that interenor I$ $ /ina"ira has deli&erately "ade false allegations &efore this

Court #hich tend to i"%ede or o&struct the ad"inistration of .ustice

+e *nd no rule of la# or of ethics #hich #ould .ustify the conduct of a la#yer in any case( #hether ciil or

cri"inal( in endeaoring &y dishonest "eans to "islead the court( een if to do so "ight #or! to theadantage of his client$ The conduct of the la#yer &efore the court and #ith other la#yers should &e

characteri?ed &y candor and fairness$ It is neither candid nor fair for a la#yer to !no#ingly "a!e false

allegations in a .udicial %leading or to "is-uote the contents of a docu"ent( the testi"ony of a #itness(

the argu"ent of o%%osing counsel or the contents of a decision$

. C-AVE* VS. VIOLA, 19 SCRA 1+ (1991)


26/47

iola alleged in an earlier %leading that his clients #ere "erely lessees of the %ro%erty inoled$ In his

later %leading( he stated that the ery sa"e clients #ere o#ners of the sa"e %ro%erty$ One of these%leadings "ust hae &een false it "atters not #hich one$ +orse( he o'ered no e3%lanation as regardsthe discre%ancy$

A la#yer o#es honesty and candor to the courts$ It cannot &e gainsaid that candidness( es%eciallyto#ards the courts( is essential for the e3%editious ad"inistration of .ustice$ Courts are entitled to e3%ectonly co"%lete candor and honesty fro" the la#yers a%%earing and %leading &efore the"$ Atty$ iola #assus%ended for K "onths

4. C-A IA VS. AGSI, # SCRA 29# (1972)

The Court notes #ith regret that had the counsels( 0 as o6cers of the courts( &ut faithfully co"%lied #ith

their duty to deal #ith the courts in truth and candor( and %ro"%tly "anifested to the a%%ellate court the

a&oe deelo%"ents( all &y une( 0@9K( #hich hae "ade the %rinci%al issue at &ar "oot and

acade"ic( 00 this case #ould then hae &een dis%osed of and need not hae &een certi*ed to this Court(

and the ti"e needed &y it to deote to the %ro"%t dis%osition of "eritorious cases need not hae &een

thus

dissi%ated$ 07

At any rate( it is clear that the ciil case *led &y %lainti')a%%ellant should "erely hae &een sus%ended(not dis"issed although #ithout %re.udice( &y the lo#er court under the Rule ino!ed &y it$ 01 A%%ellee

concedes as "uch( stating that the dis"issal #ithout %re.udice is in e'ect a sus%ension %ending the

outco"e of the cri"inal case$

#. CASALS VS. CUSI #2 SCRA #" (197)


27/47

His inaction unduly %reented and delayed for a considera&le %eriod the Court4s %ro"%t dis%osition of the

%etition$ His unsatisfactory e3%lanation einces a #illful disregard of his sole"n duty as an attorney toe"%loy in the conduct of a case 5such "eans only as are consistent #ith truth and honor( and neer see!to "islead5 the courts$

Court has in seeral instances sus%ended la#yers fro" the %ractice of la# for failure to *le a%%ellants4&riefs in cri"inal cases des%ite re%eated e3tensions of ti"e o&tained &y the"( #ith the re"inder that 5thetrust i"%osed on counsel in accordance not only #ith the canons of legal ethics &ut #ith the soundesttraditions of the %rofession #ould re-uire *delity on their %art$

. COMELEC VS. OYOY, 292 SCRA 2#4 (1992)

If Atty$ /al&uena #as diligent enough( he #ould hae !no#n that the correct na"e of the co"%lainant inthe case referred to is neither Al&erto Nalde?a as indicated in the "otion for reconsideration nor Al&ertoalone as stated in the %etition( &ut AL/ERTO NALDOPA$ >oreoer( the case #as not re%orted in olu"e78K of the Su%re"e Court Re%orts Annotated ;SCRA= as falsely re%resented in the %aragra%h 09 of the%etition( &ut in olu"e 7K8 of the SCRA$ +orse( in &oth the "otion for reconsideration and the %etition(Atty$ /al&uena deli&erately "ade it a%%ear that the -uoted %ortions #ere our *ndings or rulings( or( %ut alittle di'erently( our o#n #ords$ The truth is( the -uoted %ortion is .ust a %art of the "e"orandu" of theCourt Ad"inistrator -uoted in the decision$ Rule 0$7 of Canon 0 of the Code of :rofessionalRes%onsi&ility "andates that a la#yer shall not !no#ingly "is-uote or "isre%resent the te3t of a decision

or authority$

Atty$ ose :$ /al&uena is AD>ONISHED to &e "ore careful in the discharge of his duty to the court as ala#yer under the Code of :rofessional Res%onsi&ility$

7. MOTECILLO VS. GICA, + SCRA 24 (1974)


28/47

Atty$ Del >ar( &y his conte"%tuous acts is in iolation of his duties to the courts$ As an o6cer of the court(it is his s#orn and "oral duty to hel% &uild and not destroy unnecessarily the high estee" and regard

to#ards the court so essential to the %ro%er ad"inistration of .ustice$It is "anifest that del >ar has scant res%ect for the t#o highest Courts of the land #hen on the i"syground of alleged error in deciding a case( he %roceeded to challenge the integrity of &oth Courts &yclai"ing that they !no#ingly rendered un.ust .udg"ent$ In short( his allegation is that they acted #ithintent and "alice( if not #ith gross ignorance of the la#( in dis%osing of the case of his client$Del >ar #as then sus%ended inde*nitely$

". SURIGAO MIERAL RESERVATIO BOARD VS. CLORIBEL, 1 SCRA 1 (197+)

It "ay ha%%en that counsel %ossesses greater !no#ledge of the la# than the .ustice of the %eace or .udge

#ho %resides oer the court$ It "ay also ha%%en that since no court clai"s infalli&ility( .udges "ay grosslyerr in their decisions$ Neertheless( disci%line and self)restraint on the %art of the &ar een under aderseconditions are necessary for the orderly ad"inistration of .ustice$

To add( Atty$ Santiagos language is not argua&ly %rotected it is the surfacing of a feeling of conte"%tto#ards a litigant it o'ends the court &efore #hich it is "ade$ It is no e3cuse to say that thesestate"ents #ere ta!en out of conte3t$ They do not in any "anner .ustify the inclusion of o'ensielanguage in the %leadings$ It has &een said that 5Ma la#yer4s language should &e digni*ed in !ee%ing #iththe dignity of the legal %rofession$5@ It is Sotto4s duty as a "e"&er of the /ar 5Mto a&stain fro" allo'ensie %ersonality and to adance no fact %re.udicial to the honor or re%utation of a %arty or #itness(unless re-uired &y the .ustice of the cause #ith #hich he is charged$

9. DE GARCIA VS. ARDE OF MAATI, 9 SCRA 4 (197)

In the case at &ar( there #as a la%se in .udicial %ro%riety &y %etitioners counsel #ho did not een ta!e thetrou&le of a%%earing of the Court on the ery day his o#n %etition #as reset for hearing( a la%see3%lica&le( it "ay &e assu"ed( &y his co"%aratie ine3%erience and %aucity of %ractice &efore this

Tri&unal$ It su6ces to call his attention to such failing &y #ay of guidance for his future actuations as a


29/47

"e"&er of the &ar$ A .udge should &e courteous to la#yer to "erit res%ect$ He should &e ciil( for it isun&eco"ing of a .udge to utter inte"%erate language during the hearing of a case$

1+. BUEASEDA VS. FLAVIER, 22 SCRA 4# (199)

Anent the issue of the >otion for Dis&ar"ent *led #ith the O"&uds"an( the sa"e is not %ro%er$ It cannot&e *led in this s%ecial ciil action #hich is con*ned to -uestions of .urisdiction or a&use of discretion forthe %ur%ose of relieing %ersons fro" the ar&itrary acts of .udges and -uasi).udicial o6cers$ There is a setof %rocedure for the disci%line of "e"&ers of the &ar se%arate and a%art fro" the %resent s%ecial ciilaction$ Ho#eer( the la#yers of /uenaseda #ere re"inded not &e carried a#ay in es%ousing their clientscause$ The language of a la#yer( &oth oral or #ritten( "ust &e res%ectful and restrained in !ee%ing #iththe dignity of the legal %rofession and #ith his &ehaioral attitude to#ard his &rethren in the %rofession$

11. SATOS VS. CRU*, 1++ SCRA #" (19"+)

The transcri%t of the stenogra%hic notes sho#s that during the for"al inestigation conducted on,e&ruary @( 0@r$ Cano5$ This language of the udge is un&eco"ing of a "unici%al .udge and deseres ad"inistratie %enalty$+HERE,ORE( the res%ondent udge is here&y EQONERATED of the charge of %artiality &ut is found guilty of conduct un&eco"ing a .udge &y uttering inte"%erate language during the trial of the case$ Theres%ondent .udge is here&y i"%osed a %enalty of a *ne e-uialent to one ;0= "onth salary and #arned

that a re%etition of the sa"e or si"ilar o'ense shall &e dealt #ith "ore seerely$

12. PEOPLE VS. TAEO, 2"4 SCRA 2#1 (199")

It is unfortunate that cousel for a%%ellant has "ade hasty accusation against the trial court for the a&oe%ronounce"ent as ta!ing a %artial and &iased %osition and haing ado%ted its o#n &iasedinter%retation of the %hysical eidence$ Counsel should &e re"inded of his duty to o&sere and "aintainthe res%ect due the courts of .ustice and .udicial o6cers$ Argu"ents( #ritten or oral( should &e gracious to


30/47

&oth the court and o%%osing counsel and &e of such #ords as "ay &e %ro%erly addressed &y onegentle"an to another$

1. URBIA VS. MACERE, #7 SCRA 4+ (1974)

Ths Su%re"e Court gae credence to >acerens state"ent as o%%osed to Ur&inas &are allegations #hich#ere not su%%orted &y eidence$ The Su%re"e Court also conde"ned Ur&inas use of disres%ectfullanguage$ A la#yer o#es *delity to the courts as #ell as to his clients and that the *ling on &ehalf of disgruntled litigants of unfounded or friolous charges against inferior court .udges and the use of o'ensie and inte"%erate language as a "eans of harassing .udges #hose decisions hae not &een totheir li!ing ;irres%ectie of the la# and .uris%rudence on the "atter= #ill su&.ect said la#yer to

a%%ro%riate disci%linary action as an o6cer of the Court$ This only unduly &urdens the courts$

14. CASTAEDA VS. AGO, # SCRA #+# (197#)

Des%ite the %endency in the trial court of the co"%laint for the annul"ent of the sheri's sale( .usticede"ands that the %etitioners( long denied the fruits of their ictory in the re%lein suit( "ust no# en.oythe"( for (the res%ondents Agos a&etted &y their la#yer Atty$ Luison( hae "isused legal re"edies and%rostituted the .udicial %rocess to th#art the satisfaction of the .udg"ent( to the e3tended %re.udice of the %etitioners$) ,orgetting his sacred "ission as a s#orn %u&lic serant and his e3alted %osition as ano6cer of the court( Atty$ Luison has allo#ed hi"self to &eco"e an instigator of controersy and a %redator

of conict instead of a "ediator for concord and a conciliator for co"%ro"ise( a irtuoso of technicality inthe conduct of litigation instead of a true e3%onent of the %ri"acy of truth and "oral .ustice$) A counselsassertieness in es%ousing #ith candor and honesty his clients cause "ust &e encouraged and is to &eco""ended #hat the SC does not and cannot countenance is a la#yers insistence des%ite the %atentfutility of his clients %osition$ It is the duty of the counsel to adice his client on the "erit or lac! of hiscase$ If he *nds his clients cause as defenseless( then he is his duty to adice the latter to ac-uiesce andsu&"it rather than traerse the incontroerti&le$ A la#yer "ust resist the #hi"s and ca%rices of hisclient( and te"%er his clients %ro%ensity to litigate$


31/47


32/47

NATURE AND CREATION O,ATTORNE CLIENT RELATIONSHI:

1. REGALA VS. SADIGABAYA, G.R. !. 1+#9", S'8'?': 2+, 199

The ery cornerstone of eery State4s .udicial syste"( u%on #hich the #or!ings of the contentious and

adersarial syste" in the :hili%%ine legal %rocess are &ased ) the sanctity of *duciary duty in the client)la#yer relationshi%$ The *duciary duty of a counsel and adocate is also #hat "a!es the la# %rofession auni-ue %osition of trust and con*dence( #hich distinguishes it fro" any other calling$

2. I RE SYCIP, 92 SCRA1 (1979)

It "ust &e conceded that in the :hili%%ines( no local custo" %er"its or allo#s the continued use of adeceased or for"er %artner4s na"e in the *r" na"es of la# %artnershi%s$ ,ir" na"es( under our custo"(Identify the "ore actie andor "ore senior "e"&ers or %artners of the la# *r"$

. DAROY VS. LEGASPI, 4 SCRA +4 (197#)

5The relation &et#een an attorney and his client is highly *duciary in its nature and of a ery delicate(e3acting and con*dential character( re-uiring a high degree of *delity and good faith5 ;< A"$ ur$ 7d 0K=$In ie# of that s%ecial relationshi%( 5la#yers are &ound to %ro"%tly account for "oney or %ro%ertyreceied &y the" on &ehalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes %rofessional "isconduct$ Thefact that a la#yer has a lien for fees on "oney in his hands collected for his clients does not reliee hi"fro" the duty of %ro"%tly accounting for the funds receied$5


33/47

4. -ILADO VS. DAVID, "4 Phil. #9 (1949)

There is in legal %ractice #hat called 5retaining fee(5 the %ur%ose of #hich ste"s fro" the reali?ationthat the attorney is disa&led fro" acting as counsel for the other side after he has gien %rofessionaladice to the o%%osite %arty( een if he should decline to %erfor" the conte"%lated serices on &ehalf of the latter$ It is to %reent undue hardshi% on the attorney resulting fro" the rigid o&serance of the rulethat a se%arate and inde%endent fee for consultation and adice #as conceied and authori?ed$

#. STOE VS. BA OF COMMERCE, 174 US 412 (1"99)

An attorney( in his ca%acity "erely as such( has no %o#er to "a!e any agree"ent for his client &efore a

suit has &een co""enced or &efore he has &een retained to co""ence one( and if( under suchcircu"stances( he assu"es to act for his %rinci%al( it "ust &e as agent( and his actual authority "usta%%ear$

. GUERRERO VS. -ERADO, " SCRA 7 (197#)

The e3hi&ition of the residence certi*cate is re-uired #heneer a docu"ent is ac!no#ledged &efore anotary$ Such a re-uire"ent "ay ena&le the notary to ascertain the identity of the %erson a%%earing&efore hi" and to un"as! i"%ostors$

7. UY VS. GO*ALES, A.C. !. #2"+, M=:h 2+, 2++4

As a rule( an attorney)client relationshi% is said to e3ist #hen a la#yer oluntarily %er"its or ac-uiesces#ith the consultation of a %erson( #ho in res%ect to a &usiness or trou&le of any !ind( consults a la#yer#ith a ie# of o&taining %rofessional adice or assistance$ It is not essential that the client should haee"%loyed the attorney on any %reious occasion or that any retainer should hae &een %aid( %ro"ised orcharged for( neither is it "aterial that the attorney consulted did not after#ard underta!e the case a&out


34/47

#hich the consultation #as had( for as long as the adice and assistance of the attorney is sought andreceied( in "atters %ertinent to his %rofession$

". RELLORA*A, ET. AL. VS. EASTER TELECOMMUICATIOS P-IL., IC., +9 SCRA #(1999)

5uantu" "eruit( "eaning 4as "uch as he desered4 is used as a &asis for deter"ining the la#yer4s%rofessional fees in the a&sence of a contract &ut recoera&le &y hi" fro" his client$ Recoery of attorney4s fees on the &asis of -uantu" "eruit is authori?ed #hen ;0= there is no e3%ress contract for%ay"ent of attorney4s fees agreed u%on &et#een the la#yer and the client ;7= #hen although there is afor"al contract for attorney4s fees( the fees sti%ulated are found unconsciona&le or unreasona&le &y thecourt and ;1= #hen the contract for attorney4s fee4s is oid due to %urely for"al defects of e3ecution ;8=

#hen the counsel( for .usti*a&le cause( #as not a&le to *nish the case to its conclusion ;K= #hen la#yerand client disregard the contract for attorney4s fees$

9. GOVERMET VS. AGER, #4 Phil. 12 (1929)

The "ost e'ectie #ay &y #hich >ur%hy could %resere the o#nershi% and %ossession of his %rinci%als%ro%erty #as &y acce%ting serice and &y defending the rights of the a&sent o#ners in the courts$ Eeryact of >ur%hy #as ta!en for the &ene*t of the +agners$ Attorney >ueller handled the case for thedefendants as a&ly and conscientiously as any attorney could hae done$

1+. ORBIT TRASPORTATIO VS. CC, #" SCRA 7" (1974)

5The signature of an attorney constitutes a certi*cate &y hi" that he has read the %leading and that tothe &est of his !no#ledge( infor"ation and &elief( there is good ground to su%%ort it and that it is notinter%osed for delay5 #ith the ad"onition therein that 5for a #illful iolation of this rule an attorney "ay&e su&.ected to disci%linary action$5 The coo%eration of litigants and their attorneys is re-uired so thatneedless clogging of the court doc!ets #ith un"eritorious cases "ay &e aoided leaing the courts freeto deote their ti"e and attention to "eritorious and truly contentious cases$ In this( the attorney %lays a


35/47

"a.or role of adising his client to refrain fro" see!ing further a%%ellate reie# and action in %lainlyuntena&le cases$

11. LEDESMA VS. CLIMACO, #7 SCRA 47 (197)

5It is true that he is a court)a%%ointed counsel$ /ut #e do say that as such counsel de o*cio( he has ashigh a duty to the accused as one e"%loyed and %aid &y defendant hi"self$ /ecause( as in the case of the latter( he "ust e3ercise his &est e'orts and %rofessional a&ility in &ehalf of the %erson assigned to hiscare$ He is to render e'ectie assistance$ The accused)defendant e3%ects of hi" due diligence( not "ere%erfunctory re%resentation$ ,or( indeed a la#yer #ho is a anguard in the &astion of .ustice is e3%ected tohae a &igger dose of social conscience and a little less of self)interest$5

12. PEOPLE VS. DAEG, 49 SCRA 221 (197)

+e #ould( neertheless( caution all courts against the fre-uent a%%oint"ent of the sa"e attorney ascounsel de o*cio( for t#o &asic reasonsB *rst( it is unfair to the attorney concerned( considering the&urden of his regular %ractice that he should &e saddled #ith too "any de o6cio cases and( second( theco"%ensation %roided for &y section 17 of Rule 012 of the Rules of Court ;a *3ed fee of :K in ca%italo'ense= "ight &e considered &y so"e la#yers as a regular source of inco"e( so"ething #hich the Ruledoes not enision$ In eery case( the accused stands to su'er &ecause the oer&urdened counsel #ouldhae too little ti"e to s%are for his de o6cio cases( and also #ould &e inordinately eager to *nish suchcases in order to collect his fees #ithin the earliest %ossi&le ti"e$

1. GO*ALES VS. C-AVE*, 2+# SCRA "1 (1992)

That een #hen 5confronted #ith a situation #here one goern"ent o6ce ta!es an aderse %ositionagainst another goern"ent agency( as in this case( the Solicitor General should not refrain fro"%erfor"ing his duty as the la#yer of the goern"ent$ It is incu"&ent u%on hi" to %resent to the court#hat he considers #ould legally u%hold the &est interest of the goern"ent although it "ay run counterto a client4s %osition$ In such an instance( the goern"ent o6ce adersely a'ected &y the %osition ta!en


36/47

&y the Solicitor General( if it still &eliees in the "erit of its case "ay a%%ear in its o#n &ehalf through itslegal %ersonnel or re%resentatie$5

14. OPAREL VS. ABARIA, 4+ SCRA 12" (1971)

The relationshi% &eing one of con*dence( there is eer %resent the need for the latter &eing ade-uatelyand fully infor"ed of the "ode and "anner in #hich their interest is defended$ They should not &e left inthe dar!$ They are entitled to the fullest disclosure of #hy certain ste%s are ta!en and #hy certain"atters are either included or e3cluded fro" the docu"ents they are "ade to sign$ It is only thus thattheir faith in counsel "ay re"ain uni"%aired$


37/47

THE LA+ERS DUTIES INHANDLING CLIENTS CASE

1. SATIAGO VS FO$AS, 24" SCRA " (199#)

Once he agrees to ta!e u% the cause of a client( the la#yer o#es *delity to such cause and "ust al#ays

&e "indful of the trust and con*dence re%osed in hi"$ This "eans that his client is entitled to the &ene*tof any and eery re"edy and defense that is authori?ed &y the la# of the land and he "ay e3%ect hisla#yer to assert eery such re"edy or defense$

2. CATILLER VS POTECIAO, 1"+ SCRA 24 (199#)

+hen a la#yer ta!es a client4s cause( he there&y coenants that he #ill e3ert all e'ort for its %rosecutionuntil its *nal conclusion$ The failure to e3ercise due diligence or the a&andon"ent of a client4s cause"a!es such la#yer un#orthy of the trust #hich the client had re%osed on hi"$

. MILLARE VS MOTERO, 24 SCRA 1 (199#)

Adocacy( #ithin the &ounds of the la#( %er"its the attorney to use any argua&le construction of the la#or rules #hich is faora&le to his client$ /ut the la#yer is not allo#ed to !no#ingly adance a clai" ordefense that is un#arranted under e3isting la#$

4. C-OA VS C-IOGSO, 2# SCRA 71 (199#)


38/47

+hile a la#yer o#es a&solute *delity to the cause of his client( full deotion to his genuine interest( and#ar" ?eal in the "aintenance and defense of his rights( as #ell as the e3ertion of his ut"ost learning and

a&ility( he "ust do so only #ithin the &ounds of the la#$ He "ust gie a candid and honest o%inion on the"erits and %ro&a&le results of his client4s case #ith the end in ie# of %ro"oting res%ect for the la# andlegal %rocesses( and counsel or "aintain such actions or %roceedings only as a%%ear to hi" to &e .ust(and such defenses only as he &eliees to &e honestly de&ata&le under the la#$

#. COSMOS FOUDRY S-OP ORERS UIO VS LO BU, SCRA 1 (197#)

His o&ligation as an o6cer of the court( no less than the dignity of the %rofession( re-uires that he shouldnot act li!e an errand)&oy at the &ec! and call of his client( ready and eager to do his eery &idding$ If hefails to !ee% that ad"onition in "ind( then he %uts into serious -uestion his good standing in the &ar$

. GAMALIDA VS ALCATARA, 2+ SCRA 4" (1992)An attorney4s duty to safeguard the client4s interests co""ences fro" his retainer until the e'ectierelease fro" the case or the *nal dis%osition of the #hole su&.ect "atter of the litigation$ During that%eriod( he is e3%ected to ta!e such reasona&le ste%s and such ordinary care as his client4s interests "ayre-uire$

7. $.P. $UA 3 SOS, IC VS LIAGA IDUSTRIES, IC., 2" SCRA "+7 (1997)

Ti"e and again( this Court has stressed that 5An une3%lained denial of infor"ation and &elief of a "atter

of records( the "eans of infor"ation concerning #hich are #ithin the control of the %leader( or are readilyaccessi&le to hi"( is easie and is insu6cient to constitute an e'ectie denial$ $$$5 and that 5the for" of denial $$$ ado%ted &y the a%%ellants( although allo#ed &y the Rules of Court ;referring to lac! of su6cient!no#ledge or infor"ation= "ust &e aailed of #ith sincerity and in good faith( F certainly neither for the%ur%ose of confusing the aderse %arty as to #hat allegations of the co"%laint are really %ut in issue norfor the %ur%ose of delay$5

". A*OR VS BELTRA, SCRA 21+ (197#)


39/47

>ere assu"%tions cannot &e the &asis of any *nding against any "e"&er of the &ar #ho( as an o6cial of

the court( is %resu"ed to act #ith the ut"ost decoru" and good faith in all his dealings$

9. VISITACIO VS MAIT, 27 SCRA #2 (199)

An attorney see!ing to #ithdra# "ust "a!e an a%%licaiton to the court( for the relation does notter"inate for"ally until there is a #ithdra#al of record at least so far as the o%%osite %arty is concerned(the relation other#ise continues until the end of the litigation$

1+. DE ROY VS CA, 1#7 SCRA 7#7 (199")

It is the &ounden duty of counsel as la#yer in actie la# %ractice to !ee% a&reast of decisions of theSu%re"e Court %articularly #here issues hae &een clari*ed( consistently reiterated( and %u&lished in theadance re%orts of Su%re"e Court decisions ;G$ R$ s= and in such %u&lications as the Su%re"e CourtRe%orts Annotated ;SCRA= and la# .ournals$

11. CUARESMA VS DAUIS, SCRA 11#7 (19)

Eery "e"&er of the &ar should reali?e that candor in the dealings #ith the Court is of the ery essenceof honora&le "e"&ershi% in the %rofession$

12. VDA. DE *UBIRI VS *UBIRI, 1" SCRA 11#7 (19)

The actie %artici%ation of a la#yer in one %arty4s a'airs relating to a %ending case in #hich the saidla#yer is the counsel for the o%%osing %arty is &ra?enly unethical to say the least$ The Canons of LegalEthics ery e3%licitly declare that 5it is un%rofessional to re%resent conicting interests5

1. DELUAO VS CASTEEL, G.R. !. L/219+, D''?': 4, 19"


40/47

It is the duty of the cler! of court F not of the Court F to %re%are the trial calendar$ /ut the assign"entor reassign"ent of cases already %ending in one sala to another sala( and the setting of the date of trial

after the trial calendar has &een %re%ared( fall #ithin the e3clusie control of the %residing .udge$

14. -EIRS OF ELIAS LORILLA VS CA, + SCRA 429 (2+++)

It is a funda"ental conce%t in any .ural syste"( that een at the ris! of occasional errors( .udg"ents of courts should &eco"e *nal at so"e de*nite ti"e *3ed &y la#$ Interest rei %u&licae ut *nis sit liti"$

1#. AVELIO VS PALA5A, 9 SCRA 129 (1971)

As regards res%ondent4s failure to a%%ear in court on the day set for the trial( +e are inclined to acce%t his

clai" that it #as due to the fact that early in the "orning of that date he had 5a seere sto"ach ache(follo#ed &y constant "oing of &o#el and o"iting and that as a conse-uence he &eca"e ery #ea!$5/ut #hile this "ight &e( to a certain e3tent( a good e3cuse for his non)a%%earance in court( it is o&iouslynot su6cient to e3%lain his failure to notify his clients in due ti"e of the date of the trial$

1. DIMA VS ALUMBRES, 229 SCRA 4#9 (1971)

No %arty has a right to an e3tension of ti"e to co"%ly #ith an o&ligation #ithin the %eriod set therefor &yla# "otions for e3tension are not granted as a "atter of course their concession lies in the sounddiscretion of the Court e3ercised in accordance #ith the attendant circu"stances the "oant is not

.usti*ed in assu"ing that the e3tension sought #ill &e granted( or that it #ill &e granted for the length of ti"e suggested &y hi"$ It is thus incu"&ent on any "oant for e3tension to e3ercise due diligence toinfor" hi"self as soon as %ossi&le of the Court4s action on his "otion( &y ti"e in-uiry of the Cler! of Court$ Should he neglect to do so( he runs the ris! of ti"e running out on hi"( for #hich he #ill haeno&ody &ut hi"self to &la"e$

17. SAULOG VS CUSTOMBUILT MAUFACTURIG CORP., 2 SCRA 1 (19")


41/47

:ursuant to Section 0( Rule 7 of the Rules of Court( &oth client and counsel "ust a%%ear at the %re)trial$ This is "andatory$ ,ailure of the client to a%%ear is ground for dis"issal$

+e hae not oerloo!ed Section 7( Rule 7 of the Rules of Court( #hich says that 5a %arty #ho failed toa%%ear at the %re)trial conference "ay &e non)suited or considered as in default$5

1". PEOPLE VS CASIMIRO, 4# SCRA ##4 (1972)

Any %erson under inestigation for the co""ission of an o'ense shall hae the right to &e infor"ed of hisright to re"ain silent and to hae co"%etent and inde%endent counsel %refera&ly of his o#n choice$ If the%erson cannot a'ord the serices of counsel( he "ust &e %roided #ith one$ These rights cannot &e#aied e3ce%t in #riting and in the %resence of counsel$

19. PEOPLE VS ADERA, $R., 24 SCRA 9+ (2+++)

The right to counsel "ust &e "ore than .ust the %resence of a la#yer in the courtroo" or the "ere%ro%ounding of standard -uestions and o&.ections$ The right to counsel "eans that the accused is a"%lyaccorded legal assistance e3tended &y a counsel #ho co""its hi"self to the cause for the defense andacts accordingly$ The right assu"es an actie inole"ent &y the la#yer in the %roceedings( %articularlyat the trial of the case( his &earing constantly in "ind of the &asic rights of the accused( his &eing #ell)ersed on the case and his !no#ing the funda"ental %rocedures( essential la#s and e3isting

.uris%rudence$ The right of an accused to counsel *nds su&stance in the %erfor"ance &y the la#yer of his

s#orn duty of *delity to his client$ Tersely %ut( it "eans an e6cient and truly decisie legal assistance andnot a si"%le %erfunctory re%resentation$

2+. TOPACIO UEO VS SATOS, #" Phil. ##7 (19)

The &ac!ground of the ad"inistratie inestigation sho#ing the res%ondent4s connection #ith %rohi&itedga"es( under circu"stances of the case( can only &e ta!en into consideration in so far as it relates to the


42/47

%recise charge laid against hi"$ There #as a clear iolation of the la#yer4s oath that he #ould do nofalsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court$


43/47

LA+ERS ,IDUCIAR O/LIGATIONS1. $%' ADORACIO G. AGELES, vs. A88


44/47

. GERVACIO L. LIAG >. ATTY. GILBERTO ERI, 1+7 Phil. "#2 (19+)

Any a"ount receied &y the la#yer fro" the client shall &e held in trust &y the for"er$ Such a"ount shall&e a%%lied s%eci*cally for the %ur%ose it #as gien to the la#yer( and the latter shall account for it$ ,ailureto a%%ly the a"ount to its rightful %ur%ose shall gie rise to the %resu"%tion that the la#yer"isa%%ro%riated the a"ount gien &y the client$

4. VICETE DIA* VS. RUPERTO APUA, 4# Phil. 949 (192)

:u&lic %olicy discountenances co"&inations or agree"ents on the %art of &idders at e3ecution sales( the

o&.ects and e'ects of #hich are to stie co"%etition$

The courts #ill consider an agree"ent &et#een a .udg"ent creditor and one clai"ing an interest in the

thing a&out to &e sold under an e3ecution( that neither shall &id against the other( as oid( unless all

%arties concerned !no# of the arrange"ent and consent thereto$

#. PATERO CALAS V. COURT OF APPEALS 3 FRACISCO -ERRERA, 14 SCRA 1+ (19"") ustice .udges %rosecuting attorneys cler!s of su%erior and inferior courts( and other o6cers and

e"%loyees connected #ith the ad"inistration of .ustice( the %ro%erty and rights in litigation or leied

u%on an e3ecution &efore the court #ithin #hose .urisdiction or territory they e3ercise their res%ectie

functions this %rohi&ition includes the act of ac-uiring &y assign"ent and shall a%%ly to la#yers( #ith

res%ect to the %ro%erty and rights #hich "ay &e the o&.ect of any litigation in #hich they "ay ta!e %art

&y irtue of their %rofession$

. ADREA BALCE CELA$E >@. ATTY SATIAGO SORIA, 22 SCRA 2"1 (1999)


45/47

The attorney)client relationshi% is highly *duciary in nature$ As such( it re-uires ut"ost good faith( loyalty(

*delity and disinterestedness on the %art of the la#yer$ The Code of :rofessional Res%onsi&ility ;C:R=( %articularly Canon 09 thereof( "andates that a la#yer shallhold in trust all "oneys and %ro%erties of his client that "ay co"e into his %ossession$ He shall accountfor all "oney or %ro%erty collected or receied fro" his client and shall delier the funds and %ro%erty of his client #hen due or u%on de"and$

,ailure to return the "oney to co"%lainant u%on de"and gae rise to the %resu"%tion that he"isa%%ro%riated it for his o#n use to the %re.udice of( and in iolation of the trust re%osed in hi" &y hisclient$ It is a gross iolation of general "orality and of %rofessional ethics and i"%airs %u&lic con*dence inthe legal %rofession #hich deseres %unish"ent$

7. ATTY. PRUDECIO S. PETICOSTES , vs. PROSECUTOR DIOSDADO S. IBAE*, +4 SCRA 2"1(1999)

:u&lic o6ce should "a!e a la#yer "ore sensitie to his %rofessional o&ligations &ecause a la#yersdisre%uta&le conduct is "ore li!ely to &e "agni*ed in the %u&lics eye$ +ant of "oral integrity is to &e"ore seerely conde"ned in a la#yer #ho holds a res%onsi&le %u&lic o6ce$

2$ FERMIA LEGASPI DAROY, LYDIA LEGASPI =& AGRIPIO LEGASPI s$ ATTOREY RAMOC-AVES LEGASPI # SCRA +4 (197#)

A la#yer( under his oath( %ledges hi"self not to delay any "an for "oney or "alice and is &ound to

conduct hi"self #ith all good *delity to his clients$ He is o&ligated to re%ort %ro"%tly the "oney of his

clients that has co"e into his %ossession$ He should not co""ingle it #ith his %riate %ro%erty or use it


46/47

for his %ersonal %ur%oses #ithout his client4s consent$ He should "aintain a re%utation for honesty and

*delity to %riate trust$

%. PLARIDEL SOTTO S SAMSO (SASO)

ustices( .udges( "e"&ers of the de%art"ent of %u&lic %rosecution( cler!s of su%erior and inferior courts

and other o6cers of such courts( the %ro%erty and rights on litigation &efore the court #ithin #hose

.urisdiction or territory they %erfor" their res%ectie duties$ This %rohi&ition shall include the ac-uisition

of such %ro%erty &y assign"ent$

The %rohi&ition shall include la#yers and solicitors #ith res%ect to any %ro%erty rights inoled in any

litigation in #hich they "ay ta!e %art &y irtue of their %rofession and o6ce$ Statute %rohi&iting such

sales are designed to curtail any undue inuence of the la#yer u%on his client on account of their

con*dential association$

1+. L=i >. C!%:8 ! A'=l@

Those #ho fail to o&sere honesty and good faith in the %erfor"ance of their duties as %u&lic o6cer and

as a "e"&er of the /ar or for #ilfully or negligently causing da"age to another or for #ilfully causing loss

or in.ury to another in a "anner that is contrary to "orals( good custo"s andor %u&lic %olicy shall &e

held ciilly lia&le$


47/47

11. GO BELTRA VS FERADE*

La#yer cannot ac-uire for hi"self a %ro%erty #hich constitutes the o&.ect of the series of litigation

&et#een the %arties and he re%resents one of the %arties$

case doctrines in pale of comm. sarmiento

Documents