legal ethics handout- october 4, 2012

8/13/2019 Legal Ethics Handout- October 4, 2012

1/48

LECTURE NOTES ON LEGAL ETHICS

ATTY. MOLLY CR. ABIOG,M.D.

October 4,2012

CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS

OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

VIOLATIONS OF THE NOTARIAL LAW

A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person whosigns it is the same person who executed it and who personally appearedbefore him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are statedtherein. This is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of thesignature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the

document is the partys free act. The duties of a notary public is dictatedby public policy and impressed with public interest. It is not a meaninglessministerial act of acknowledging documents executed by parties who arewilling to pay notarial fees. It is of no moment that the subject SPA was notutilized by the grantee for the purpose it was intended because theproperty was allegedly transferred from complainant to her brother byvirtue of a deed of sale consummated between them. What is beingpenalized is respondents act of notarizing a document despite the

absence of one of the parties. A notarized document is by law entitled tofull credit upon its face and it is for this reason that notaries public mustobserve the basic requirements in notarizing documents. Otherwise, theconfidence of the public in notarized documents will be undermined.Nesa Isenhardt vs. Atty. Leonardo M. Real,A.C. No. 8254, February 15,

2012.

A lawyer cannot escape liability for making an untruthful statement in apublic document for an unlawful purpose when he admitted that hedrafted and notarized another instrument that did not state the trueconsideration of the sale so as to reduce the capital gains and othertaxes due on the transaction. As the second deed indicated an amount

much lower than the actual price paid for the property sold, respondentabetted in depriving the Government of the right to collect the correcttaxes due. Not only did respondent assist the contracting parties in anactivity aimed at defiance of the law, he likewise displayed lack ofrespect for and made a mockery of the solemnity of the oath in anAcknowledgment. By notarizing such illegal and fraudulent document,he is entitling it full faith and credit upon its face, which it obviously doesnot deserve considering its nature and purpose. Respondents actionsviolated not only Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Responsibility, butpertinent sections of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice as well. Thus,

respondent is meted the penalty of revocation of notarial commission andsuspension from the practice of law for a period of two years. PacitaCaalim-Verzonilla v. Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua. A.C. No. 6655. October

11, 2011.

The fact that the affiant previously appeared in person and signed theDeed of Donation before the respondent notary public does not justify the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/8254.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/8254.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/8254.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/8254.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/6655.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/6655.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/6655.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/6655.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/6655.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/8254.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/8254.htm


2/48



October 4,2012

2

respondents act of notarizing the Deed of Donation, considering the

affiants absence on the very day the document was actually notarized.In the notarial acknowledgment of the Deed of Donation, respondentattested that Atty. Linco personally came and appeared before him on

July 30, 2003. Yet obviously, Atty. Linco could not have appeared beforehim on July 30, 2003, because the latter died on July 29, 2003 a daybefore the Deed of Donation was notarized, and respondent was awareof that fact. Clearly, respondent made a false statement and violatedRule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as alawyer. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity ofthe oath in an acknowledgment orjuratis sacrosanct. Respondent shouldnot notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are thevery same persons who executed and personally appeared before him toattest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. Atty. Florita S.

Linco v. Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal. A.C. No. 7241. October 17, 2011.

A notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage andthe family by encouraging the separation of the spouses andextrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership. In preparing andnotarizing an agreement for extrajudicial dissolution of marriage a voiddocument respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility which provides that [a] lawyer shall notengage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Respondent knew fully well that the Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay has no

legal effect and is against public policy. Therefore, respondent may besuspended from office as an attorney for breach of the ethics of the legalprofession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rodolfo

. Espinosa and Maximo A. Glindo v. Atty. Julieta A. Omaa. A.C. No.

9081. October 12, 2011.

GROSS MISCONDUCT

Deliberate failure to pay just debts constitutes gross misconduct, for whicha lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law.Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of

our legal system. They must, at all times, faithfully perform their duties tosociety, to the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include promptpayment of financial obligations. Manuel C. Yuhico vs. Atty. Fred L.Gutierrez,A.C. No. 8391, November 23, 2010.

There is nothing ethically remiss in a lawyer who files numerous cases indifferent fora, as long as he does so in good faith, in accordance with theRules, and without any ill-motive or purpose other than to achieve justiceand fairness. In this case, the barrage of cases filed by the respondentagainst his former client and others close to her was meant to overwhelm

said client and to show her that the respondent does not fold easily afterhe was meted a penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law.tty. Carmen Leonor M. Alcantara, et al. vs. Atty. Eduardo C. de Vera,

.C. No. 5859, November 23, 2010.

Respondent (lawyer) was ordered to reimburse his client Php16,300.00.Nine years after the directive was made, he effected payment.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/7241.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/7241.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/9081.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/9081.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/9081.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/november2010/8391.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/november2010/8391.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/november2010/8391.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/november2010/5859.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/november2010/5859.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/november2010/5859.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/november2010/8391.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/9081.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/9081.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/7241.html


3/48



October 4,2012

3

Respondents belated compliance with the order glaringly speaks of hislack of candor, of his dishonesty, if not defiance of Court orders, qualitiesthat do not endear him to the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers. The lackof any sufficient justification or explanation for the nine-year delay in

complying with the Resolutions betrays a clear and contumaciousdisregard for the lawful orders of this Court. Such disrespect constitutes aclear violation of the lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility. Leonard

W. Richards vs. Patricio A. Asoy,A.C. No. 2655, October 12, 2010.

A lawyer was ordered suspended from the practice of law for two (2)years, because, aside from issuing worthless checks and failing to pay herdebts, she has also shown wanton disregard of the IBPs and Court Ordersin the course of the proceedings. A-1 Financial Services, Inc. vs. Atty.Laarni N. Valerio,A.C. No. 8390, July 2, 2010.

WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDERS

The Supreme Court disbarred a lawyer for gross misconduct and willfuldisobedience of the Court's orders after finding that the latter continuedto practice law despite a five-year suspension order, and failed to complywith its resolutions. Previously, the lawyer was suspended from the practiceof law for five years and ordered to return P3,900.00 to her client in an EnBanc decision dated December 11, 2003 after she was found guilty ofgross misconduct for abandoning her client in bad faith and failing tocomply with the Courts orders. While still suspended, however, she

appeared in three cases using another name (as Atty. Liezl Tanglao) as

stated in a letter-report dated November 12, 2007 of Judge ConsueloAmog-Bocar, presiding Judge of the RTC of Iba, Zambales, Branch 71, tothen Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock. In a resolution dated April 9,2008, the Court ordered the lawyer to comment on Judge Amog-Bocar'sletter-report. However, she failed to file the required comment. On June10, 2009, Court reiterated its order. Despite receipt of the Courts two

resolutions, she still failed to comply. On September 29, 2009, the Courtthus issued a resolution finding her guilty of indirect contempt andordering her to pay a fine amounting to P30,000. It also sternly warned her

that a repetition of the same or similar infractions will be dealt with moreseverely. Despite due notice, she failed to pay the fine. In view of theforegoing, the Supreme Court found her unfit to continue as a member ofthe bar. It held that respondent's conduct evidently fell short of what is

expected of her as an officer of the court as she obviously possesses ahabit of defying this Court's orders. She willfully disobeyed this Court whenshe continued her law practice despite the five-year suspension orderagainst her and even misrepresented herself to be another person inorder to evade said penalty. Thereafter, when she was twice ordered tocomment on her continued law practice while still suspended, nothing

was heard from her despite receipt of two Resolutions form this Court.Neither did she pay the P30,000 fine imposed in the September 29, 2009Resolution.A.C. No. 534, Santeco v. Avance et al, February 22, 2011

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral ordeceitful conduct.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/2655.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/2655.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/2655.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/8390.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/8390.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/8390.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/8390.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/2655.htm


4/48



October 4,2012

4

DISHONEST CONDUCT: Misappropriation of Clients Funds

The Supreme Court disbarred a lawyer for obtaining money from a client

without rendering legal services. Complainant engaged the legal servicesof respondent to assist her and her child in pursuing and protecting theirrights as heirs of her deceased husband who was a British national. Theseservices include claiming insurance proceeds due to the complainantand her child, as well as processing visa applications for travel toEngland. The lawyer solicited various sums from the complainant,allegedly for purposes of defraying expenses in connection with theengagement. The lawyer admitted having received money fromcomplainant but failed to render an accounting or, at least, apprise thecomplainant of the actual expenses incurred. Worse, the lawyer even

inculcated in the mind of the complainant that she had to adhere to thenefarious culture of giving grease money or lagay to the British Embassypersonnel, as if it was an ordinary occurrence in the normal course ofconducting official business transactions as a means to expedite the visaapplications. This runs afoul of the dictum in Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of theCode of Professional Responsibility which states that a lawyer shall not

engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Respondents repeated reprehensible acts of employing chicanery and

unbecoming conduct to conceal her web of lies, to the extent of milkingcomplainants finances dry, and deceitfully arrogating upon herself the

insurance proceeds amounting to P700,000.00 that should rightfullybelong to complainant, in the guise of rendering legitimate legal services,clearly transgressed the norms of honesty and integrity required in thepractice of law. The Court held that she should have never deviated fromthe benchmarks set by Canon 16 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility (CPR) which mandates that a lawyer shall hold in trust allmoneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.Specifically, Rule 16.01 states that a lawyer shall account for all money or

property collected or received for or from the client, and Rule 16.03thereof requires that a lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of aclient when due or upon demand. This being so, respondent should be

purged from the privilege of exercising the noble legal profession. MaritesFreeman v. Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes. A.C. No. 6246. November 15, 2011.

The Supreme Court suspended a lawyer for 2 Years for not remittingmoney to client. Complainant Bayonla, together with her uncle, engagedthe legal services of the lawyer to assist them in collecting their share inthe expropriation compensation from the Air Transportation Office (ATO),Cagayan De Oro City. Bayonla and her uncle inherited land that wasexpropriated in connection with the construction of an airport. Bayonlas

share of the expropriation compensation amounted to P123,582.67 butthe lawyer delivered to her only P79,000, which was short by P44,582.67.The lawyer was found to have violated the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility (CPR), and warned that a similar offense by her will be dealtwith more severely. She was further found guilty of violating the canons ofthe CPR, namely Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.03 of Canon 16, which requirethat a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of her client that
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/6246.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/6246.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/6246.htm


5/48



October 4,2012

5

may come into her possession. Rule 16.01 imposes on the lawyer the dutyto account for all money or property collected or received for or from theclient. Rule 16.03 demands that the lawyer shall deliver the funds andproperty of his client when due or upon demand, subject to the lawyers

lien over the funds, or the lawyers option to apply so much of the funds asmay be necessary to satisfy the lawful fees and disbursements, givingnotice promptly thereafter to the client. Moreover, the Court held that thefiling of the perjury charge by Atty. Reyes against Bayonla and of theestafa charge by Bayonla against Atty. Reyes could not halt or excuse theduty of Atty. Reyes to render an accounting and to remit the amount dueto Bayonla. The Court added that the pendency of such cases does notinhibit the administrative matter from proceeding on its due course. Thecourt further held that: our only concern in the instant case is the

determination of respondents administrative liability and our findings

herein should not in any way be treated as having any material bearingon any other judicial action which the parties may choose to file againsteach other.AC No. 4808, Bayonla v. Reyes, November 22, 2011

A lawyer was suspended for 6 months when he deceived his clients intosigning a deed of sale transferring a portion of their land to him. It is clearfrom the records that respondent deceived the Spouses Floran when heasked them to unknowingly sign a deed of sale transferring a portion oftheir land to him. Respondent also made it appear that the originalowner of the land conveyed her rights thereto to respondent and not tothe Spouses Floran. When the sale of the Spouses Florans land pushedthrough, respondent received half of the proceeds given by the buyerand falsely misled the Spouses Floran into thinking that he will register theremaining portion of the land. Lamentably, the lawyer played on thenavet of the Spouses Floran to deprive them of their valued property.This is an unsavory behavior from a member of the legal profession. Asidefrom giving adequate attention, care and time to his clients case, a

lawyer is also expected to be truthful, fair and honest in protecting hisclients rights. Once a lawyer fails in this duty, he is not true to his oath as alawyer. Respondent lawyer violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 15, and

Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for whichhe is suspended from the practice of law for six months. Nemesio Floranand Caridad Floran v. Atty. Roy Prule Ediza. A.C. No. 5325. October 19,

2011.

Respondent lawyer was found to have violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 ofthe Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondents actions clearly showthat she deceived complainant into lending money to her through theuse of documents and false representations and by taking advantage ofher education and complainants ignorance in legal matters. As

manifested by complainant, he would have never granted the loan torespondent were it not for respondents misrepresentation that she wasauthorized to sell the property and that complainant could register theopen deed of sale if respondent fa ils to pay the loan. By her misdeed,respondent has eroded not only complainants perception of the legal

profession but the publics perception as well. Her actions constitute grossmisconduct for which she may be disciplined. Tomas P. Tan, Jr. v. Atty.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/5325.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/5325.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/5325.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/5325.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/5325.html


6/48



October 4,2012

6

Haide V. Gumba. A.C. No. 9000. October 5, 2011.

Respondent acts of converting his secretary into a mistress; contracting

two marriages with Shirley and Leny, are grossly immoral which no civilizedsociety in the world can countenance. The subsequent detention andtorture of the complainant is gross misconduct which only a beast may beable to do. In fine, by engaging himself in acts which are grossly immoraland acts which constitute gross misconduct, respondent has ceased topossess the qualifications of a lawyer.Rosario T. Mecaral vs. Atty. Danilo S.Velasquez,A.C. No. 8392, June 29, 2010.

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.

Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourageany suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.

Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle acontroversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.

CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN ANEFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE

INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.

Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause ofthe defenseless or the oppressed.

Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he

shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only tothe extent necessary to safeguard the latter's rights.

Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designedprimarily to solicit legal business.

Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarilyprescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.

CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USEONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION ORSTATEMENT OF FACTS.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/9000.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/9000.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/8392.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/8392.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/8392.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/8392.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/9000.htm


7/48



October 4,2012

7

Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement orclaim regarding his qualifications or legal services.

Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumedname shall be used. The continued use of the name of a deceasedpartner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all itscommunications that said partner is deceased.

Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdrawalfrom the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unlessthe law allows him to practice law currently.

Rule 3.04 - A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to

representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for,publicity to attract legal business.

CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THELEGAL SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORMAND IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS,PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORTEFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN

THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATINGTHE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.

CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENTSERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.

The Code of Professional Responsibility does not cease to apply to alawyer simply because he has joined the government service. Where alawyers misconduct as a government official is of such nature as to affect

his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he maybe disciplined as a member of the bar on such grounds. Martin Lahn IIIand James P. Concepcion vs. Labor Arbiter Jovencio Li. Mayor, Jr., A.C.

No. 7430, February 15, 2012.

Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution isnot to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts orthe concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence ofthe accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.

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 tointerfere with his public duties.

Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, acceptengagement or employment in connection with any matter in which hehad intervened while in said service.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/7430.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/7430.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/7430.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/7430.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/7430.htm


8/48



October 4,2012

8

CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY ANDDIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THEINTEGRATED BAR.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is not liable for damages for

recommending disbarment without a full-blown hearing. On February 23,2003, the IBP Board, then composed of Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, Leonard S.De Vera, Romulo A. Rivera, Dante G. Ilaya, Pura Angelica Y. Santiago,Rosario T. Setias-Reyes, Jose Vicente B. Salazar, Manuel M. Mozon,Immanuel L. Sodusta, Carlos L. Valdez, Jr. and Lydia A. Navarro receivedan administrative complaint against Atty. Gacott for gross misconduct,deceit, and gross dishonesty. Designated Investigating CommissionerNavarro summoned the parties to a mandatory conference and requiredthem to submit their position papers where she later based herrecommendation of a penalty of six months suspension from the practice

of law. The IBP Board adopted Commissioner Navarro's findings butincreased the penalty to disbarment which it then transmitted to theSupreme Court. The High Court, however, remanded the case to the IBPBoard for further proceedings in order to give the parties the chance tofully present their case, noting that the Investigating Commissioner shouldhave subpoenaed and examined the witnesses of the parties consideringthe gravity of the charge against Atty. Gacott. Atty. Gacott for his partfiled a complaint for damages against the IBP Board before the RTC,claiming that the High Court's remand of the case to the IBP Board is anaffirmation of the latter's arbitrary abuse of its investigatory power. TheSupreme Court ruled that the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar ofthe Philippines (IBP Board) cannot be held liable for damages forprematurely recommending the disbarment of a lawyer based solely onthe position papers and affidavits of witnesses of the parties and withoutthe benefit of an exhaustive hearing. The Court held that the complaintfor damages filed by Atty. Glen C. Gacott against the IBP Board for thelatter's recommendation of Atty. Gacott's disbarment without a hearinghas no cause of action as the IBP Board merely exercised delegatedpowers to investigate the complaint against Atty. Gacott and submit theirreport and recommendation to the Court. Even though the SupremeCourt had later remanded the disbarment case to the IBP so a full-blown

hearing on the matter could be held, the Court ruled that the IBP Boardcannot be charged for honest errors committed in the performance of itsquasi-judicial function. The Court added that ruling otherwise would resultin lower court judges whose acts the appellate courts have annulled onthe ground of grave abuse of discretion would be open targets fordamage suits. The Court also noted that the IBP Board prepared its report


9/48



October 4,2012

9

and recommendation to the Court based on papers and documentsAtty. Gacott himself presented without reservation for the resolution of thedisbarment case against him. In a concurring opinion, Justice Presbitero J.Velasco, Jr. held that an exhaustive hearing is not necessary in disciplinary

cases, including those for disbarment citing the Rules of Court and theRules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP whichprovide that the determination of whether or not a hearing is necessary isat the discretion of the IBP and its Investigating Commissioner. Cadiz, et al,v. Gacott, GR No. 178941, July 27, 2011

Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a falsestatement or suppressing a material fact in connection with hisapplication for admission to the bar.

Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to thebar of any person known by him to be unqualified in respect to character,education, or other relevant attribute.

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects onhis fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life,behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESSAND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALLAVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.

Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use languagewhich is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon theprofessional employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of anylawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to

those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THEUNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

It has been established that Dela Rosa who is not a member of the Barmisrepresented herself as respondents collaborating counsel. There wasalso sufficient evidence to prove that respondent allowed Dela Rosa to

illegally practice law, appear in court, and give legal assistance torespondents client. This is in violation of Canon 9 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility which states that [a] lawyer shall not, directly or

indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law. The term practiceof law implies customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the publicas a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration


10/48



October 4,2012

10

of his services. Holding ones self out as a lawyer may be shown by actsindicative of that purpose, such as identifying oneself as attorney,appearing in court in representation of a client, or associating oneself as apartner of a law office for the general practice of law. Atty. Edita Noe-

Lacsamana v. Atty. Yolando F. Busmente. A.C. No. 7269. November 23,2011.

Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person theperformance of any task which by law may only be performed by amember of the bar in good standing.

Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legalservices with persons not licensed to practice law, except:

(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associatethat, upon the latter's death, money shall be paid over a reasonableperiod of time to his estate or to persons specified in the agreement; or

(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of adeceased lawyer; or

(c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in aretirement plan even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profitsharing agreement.

CHAPTER III. THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS

CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TOTHE COURT.

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doingof any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled byany artifice.

Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent thecontents 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 provisionalready rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a factthat which has not been proved.

Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not

misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUETO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ONSIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/7269.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/7269.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/7269.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/7269.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/7269.html


11/48



October 4,2012

11

Law Professors; respect for courts. For the disposition of the Court are thesubmissions of 37 respondent law professors in response to the Resolutiondirecting them to show cause why they should not be disciplined as

members of the Bar for issuing a statement which alleged acts ofplagiarism and misrepresentation in the Supreme Court. Even as lawyerspassionately and vigorously propound their points of view they are boundby certain rules of conduct for the legal profession. This Court is certainlynot claiming that it should be shielded from criticism. All the Courtdemands are the same respect and courtesy that one lawyer owes toanother under established ethical standards. All lawyers, whether theyare judges, court employees, professors or private practitioners, areofficers of the Court and have voluntarily taken an oath, as anindispensable qualification for admission to the Bar, to conduct

themselves with good fidelity towards the courts. There is no exemptionfrom this sworn duty for law professors, regardless of their status in theacademic community or the law school to which they belong. Re: Letterof the UP Law Faculty entitled Restoring Integrity: A statement by the

Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the

allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation in the Supreme Court,

A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, March 8, 2011.

A novel issue involved in the present controversy, for it has not beenpassed upon in any previous case before the Supreme Court, is thequestion of whether lawyers who are also law professors can invokeacademic freedom as a defense in an administrative proceeding forintemperate statements tending to pressure the Court or influence theoutcome of a case or degrade the courts. Applying by analogy theCourts past treatment of the free speech defense in other bar discipline

cases, academic freedom cannot be successfully invoked byrespondents in this case. The implicit ruling in jurisprudence is that theconstitutional right to freedom of expression of members of the Bar maybe circumscribed by their ethical duties as lawyers to give due respect tothe courts and to uphold the publics faith in the legal profession and the

justice system. The reason that freedom of expression may be so

delimited in the case of lawyers applies with greater force to theacademic freedom of law professors. It is not contested that respondentprofessors are, by law and jurisprudence, guaranteed academic freedomand indisputably, they are free to determine what they will teach theirstudents and how they will teach. We must point out that there is nothingin the Show Cause Resolution that dictates upon respondents the subjectmatter they can teach and the manner of their instruction. Moreover, it isnot inconsistent with the principle of academic freedom for the Court tosubject lawyers who teach law to disciplinary action for contumaciousconduct and speech, coupled with undue intervention in favor of a party

in a pending case, without observing proper procedure, even ifpurportedly done in their capacity as teachers. Re: Letter of the UP LawFaculty entitled Restoring Integrity: A statement by the Faculty of the

University of the Philippines College of Law on the allegations of plagiarism

and misrepresentation in the Supreme Court,A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, March

8, 2011.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/10-10-4-SC.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/10-10-4-SC.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/10-10-4-SC.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/10-10-4-SC.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/10-10-4-SC.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/10-10-4-SC.htm


12/48



October 4,2012

12

Statement of UP Professors. While the statement was meant to reflect theeducators opinion on the allegations of plagiarism against Justice DelCastillo, they treated such allegation not only as an established fact, but

a truth. They expressed dissatisfaction over Justice Del Castillosexplanation on how he cited the primary sources of the quoted portionsand yet arrived at a contrary conclusion to those of the authors of thearticles supposedly plagiarized. The statement bore certain remarkswhich raise concern for the Court. The first paragraph concludes with areference to the decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary as areprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the HighestCourt of the land. The authors also not only assumed that Justice DelCastillo committed plagiarism, they went further by directly accusing theCourt of perpetrating extraordinary injustice by dismissing the petition of

the comfort women in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. They furtherattempt to educate this Court on how to go about the review of thecase. The insult to the members of the Court was aggravated byimputations of deliberately delaying the resolution of the said case, itsdismissal on the basis of polluted sources, the Courts alleged

indifference to the cause of petitioners, as well as the supposed alarminglack of concern of the members of the Court for even the most basicvalues of decency and respect. The publication of a statement by thefaculty of the UP College of Law regarding the allegations of plagiarismand misrepresentation in the Supreme Court was totally unnecessary,uncalled for and a rash act of misplaced vigilance. Of public knowledgeis the ongoing investigation precisely to determine the truth of suchallegations. More importantly, the motion for reconsideration of thedecision alleged to contain plagiarized materials is still pending before theCourt. We made it clear in the case of In re Kelly that any publication,pending a suit, reflecting upon the court, the jury, the parties, the officersof the court, the counsel with reference to the suit, or tending to influencethe decision of the controversy, is contempt of court and is punishable.The UP Law faculty would fan the flames and invite resentment against aresolution that would not reverse the Vinuya decision. This runs contrary totheir obligation as law professors and officers of the Court to be the first to

uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which they owe fidelityaccording to the oath they have taken as attorneys, and not to promotedistrust in the administration of justice. Re: Letter of the UP Law Facultyentitled Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the University of

the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and

Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court,A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC. October 19,

2010.

Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.

Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.

Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacinglanguage or behavior before the Courts.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/10-10-4-SC.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/10-10-4-SC.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/10-10-4-SC.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/10-10-4-SC.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/10-10-4-SC.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/10-10-4-SC.htm


13/48



October 4,2012

13

A lawyer shouted at the judge during court proceedings, threatening himJudge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you,

challenging the judge to fight, and, after being cited for contempt, evenreturned to the courtroom and disrupted the ongoing proceedings. The

Supreme Court found the lawyer guilty of violating Rule 11.03, Canon 11 ofthe Code of Professional Responsibility and suspended him for a period ofone (1) year. The Supreme Court held that Litigants and counsels,

particularly the latter because of their position and avowed duty to thecourts, cannot be allowed to publicly ridicule, demean and disrespect ajudge, and the court that he represents. The court found that the

lawyers insults were not only against the person, the pos ition and thestature of Judge Baculi, but against the court as well whose proceedingswere openly and flagrantly disrupted, and brought to disrepute by therespondent. The Court reminded the lawyer that it is the duty of a

lawyer, as an officer of the court, to uphold the dignity and authority ofthe courts. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of the judicialinstitution; without this guarantee, the institution would be resting on veryshaky foundations. The Court stressed that [a] lawyer who insults a judgeinside a courtroom completely disregards the latters role, stature and

position in our justice system...tending to erode the public confidence inJudge Baculis competence and in his ability to decide cases. [A]n

objecting or complaining lawyer cannot act in a manner that puts thecourts in a bad light and bring the justice system into disrepute, added

the Court.A.C. No. 8920, Baculi v. Battung, September 28, 2011

Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supportedby the record or have no materiality to the case.

Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to theproper authorities only.

CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS

DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequatelyprepared himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence hewill adduce and the order of its proferrence. He should also be ready withthe original documents for comparison with the copies.

Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the samecause.

A lawyer was suspended for 6 months for forum shopping. In March 2001,Jennifer Ebanen filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal against ServierPhilippines, Incorporated (Servier) docketed as NLRC-NCR-Case No. 30-03-01583-01, alleging constructive dismissal with prayer for reinstatement or


14/48



October 4,2012

14

payment of separation pay, backwages, moral and exemplary damages.On July 5, 2002, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Servier. It held thatEbanen voluntarily resigned from Servier and was, therefore, not illegallydismissed. Ebanen appealed at the National Labor Relations Commission

(NLRC). On March 31, 2003, the NLRC-Third Division affirmed the Decisionof the Labor Arbiter. Thus, Ebanen moved for reconsideration. However,the NLRC denied the same in a Resolution dated May 5, 2003. Unsatisfied,Ebanen filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals whichwas docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 77968. In a Decision dated January 16,2004, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the findings of the NLRC thatEbanen voluntarily resigned and that there was no constructive dismissal.Ebanen moved anew for reconsideration, but was denied in a Resolutiondated April 30, 2004. Unrelenting, Ebanen filed a Petition for Review beforethe Supreme Court. However, in a Resolution dated August 4, 2004, the

Court found no reversible error on the part of the CA, thus, denied saidpetition. Ebanen filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied withfinality in a Resolution dated October 11, 2004. Ebanen filed a Motion forLeave to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolutionsdated August 4, 2004 and October 11, 2004, respectively. On January 19,2005, the Court denied her motion. Persistent, Ebanen filed a Motion toAdmit a Third Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated January19, 2005. On April 20, 2005, the Court denied her motion for being aprohibited pleading and noted without action Ebanens third motion forreconsideration. On July 27, 2005, the Second Division of the SupremeCourt noted without action Ebanens Motion for Leave to AdmitSupplemental Third Motion for Reconsideration dated June 1, 2005, inview of the entry of judgment on February 17, 2005. On February 17, 2005,the Courts Resolution dated August 4, 2004 has already become final

and executory; thus, a corresponding Entry of Judgment has been issued.However, despite said entry of judgment, Ebanen, thru her counsel, Atty.Relamida, filed a second complaint on August 5, 2005 for illegal dismissalbased on the same cause of action of constructive dismissal againstServier, now docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-08-07222-05. Thus, onOctober 13, 2005, Servier, thru counsel, filed a letter-complaint addressedto the then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., praying that respondents be

disciplinary sanctioned for violation of the rules on forum shopping and resjudicata. The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter,in violation of the doctrine of res judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 ofthe Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to exertevery effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficientadministration of justice. By his actuations, respondent also violated Rule12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyers mandate "to delay

no man for money or malice." The Court has, time and again, warnedlawyers not to resort to forum shopping for this practice clogs the courtdockets. Their primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of

justice. Any conduct which tends to delay, impede or obstruct theadministration of justice contravenes such lawyers duty. This we will nottolerate.Alonso and Lazatin v. Relamide, A.C. No. 8481, August 3, 2010

Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to filepleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting


15/48



October 4,2012

15

the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.

Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the executionof a judgment or misuse Court processes.

Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a breakor recess in the trial, while the witness is still under examination.

Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresenthimself or to impersonate another.

Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness norneedlessly inconvenience him.

Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except:(a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of aninstrument, and the like; or(b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to theends of justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, entrust thetrial of the case to another counsel.

CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND

REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES

THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT.

Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality

to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges.

Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media

regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against

a party.

Generally, it holds that newspaper publication of a lawyer as to

pending or anticipated litigation may interfere with affair trial in the Trialcourt and otherwise prejudice the due administrative of justice. It seeksfurther and reminds a lawyer that if the extreme circumstances of aparticular case justify a statement to the public, it is professional to make itanonymously. It is better to avoid any ex parte statement. Trial by publicitymust be avoided. The use of media is inappropriate in order to influencethe outcome of the case.

In order to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must bean allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, nosimply that they might be, by the barrage of publicity.

In Cruz vs. Salva, while the provincial prosecutor has established ajustification for his investigation of the case although the same is onappeal and pending consideration by the Court, however, the Court heldthat the prosecutor committed a grievous error and poor judgment whenhe allowed, even encouraged, the reinvestigation to be conducted withmuch fanfare, publicity and sensationalism. Such actuations of the


16/48



October 4,2012

16

prosecutor constitute contempt of court punishable by public censure.On the other hand, once the litigation is concluded the judge who

decide it is subject to the same criticism as any other public officialbecause then his ruling becomes a public property and is thrown open to

public consumption. In a concluded litigation, a lawyer enjoys widerlatitude of comment on or criticism of the judges decisions or actuation.

Thus, it has been held that a newspaper publication tending to impede,obstruct, embarrass or influence the court in administering the justice in apending case constitutes criminal contempt, but the rule is otherwise afterthe litigation is ended.

Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another

branch or agency of the government in the normal course of judicial

proceedings.

It is basic under the Rules of Court that when a case is alreadywithin the jurisdiction of a court, the lawyer should not cause or seek theinterference of another agency of the government in the normal courseof judicial proceedings.

In Bumanlag vs. Bumanlag, a final word is called for on respondentsstatement in his Explanation inferring that he was led to file his petition withthe President by the fact that his motions for reconsideration were only

denied by the Clerk of Court without any comment whatsoever. As theCourt has had the occasion to state in People vs. Catolico and earliercases, this remark of respondent exposes his lack of appreciation ordisregard of the time-honored usage of the Court that minute resolutions,summons and processes of the Court, upon being only duly adopted andrecorded are transmitted to the interested parties by and upon thesignature of the Clerk of Court who is duly authorized to do so. With thethousands of resolutions approved monthly by the Court, it would undulytax the time and attention of the Chief Justice and members of the Courtto the prejudice of the administration of justice if all such papers otherthan decisions, could be released only upon their own signatures. Thus,the Court held respondent liable and imposed him a reprimand for grossignorance of the law and of the Constitution in having asked the President

to set aside by decree the Courts decision which suspended him for twoyears from the practice of law.

By usinf influence or inducing a judge to render favorablejudgment, counsel betrays the whole legal profession. He reneges on hisoath as an officer of the Court.

When a client engages the services of a lawyer, counsel must:1. Evaluate the merits of the case;2. Require the client to be candid in the narration of facts;3. Gather and review evidence to support the merits of the case;4. Inform the client of the legal options available;5. Give client a fair assessment of the consequences of filing the case;and6. Never assure the client the victory of a case due to influence he

may have upon the judge.

Inappropriate acts of a lawyer giving an impression of influencingthe court and will create an image of distrust in the court.


17/48



October 4,2012

17

CHAPTER IV. THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT

CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THE NEEDY.

The relationship between the lawyer and the client is one specialtrust and confidence, obligating the lawyer to exercise the utmost good

faith and fairness in his relationship with the client. The lawyer-clientrelationship is premised on the Roman law concepts of locatio conductiooperarum(contract of lease of services) where one person lets his servicesand another hires them without reference to the object of which theservices are to be performed, wherein lawyers services may becompensated by honorarium of for hire, and mandato (contract of

agency) wherein a friend on whom reliance could be placed makes acontract in his name, but gives up all that he gained by the contract tothe person who requested him.

SCOPE OF PRACTICE OF LAW

The practice of law means activity, in or out of court, whichrequires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training andexperience. It is not confined to litigation, but encompasses all actswhich are characteristic of the profession, such as giving notice orrendering any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in

any degree of legal knowledge or skill. In the practice of his profession, alicensed attorney at law generally engages in three principal types ofprofessional activity: legal advice and instructions to clients to inform themof their rights and obligations, preparation for clients of documentsrequiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by ordinary layman,and appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess powerand authority to determine rights of life, liberty, and property according tolaw, in order to assist in proper interpretation and enforcement of law.

Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on

account of the latter's race, sex, creed or status of life, or because of his

own opinion regarding the guilt of said person.

Consistent with each individuals absolute right to counsel which may be invoked at all times in civil or criminal cases as an extension of

the fundamental right to due process, the lawyer cannot discriminate anddecline representation solely due to a persons race, sex, creed or statusof life, or due to the lawyers opinion of the persons guilt. As noted by theSupreme Court, even the most experienced lawyers get tangled in theweb of procedure. To demand as much from ordinary citizens whose onlycompelle intrare is their sense of right would turn the legal system into an

intimidating monstrosity where an individual may be stripped of hisproperty rights not because he has no right to the property but becausehe does not know how to establish such right. Thus, a defense counselcannot brand his own clients as the culprits, such discriminationamounting to rank unprofessionalism.


18/48



October 4,2012

18

Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficientcause, an appointment as counsel de officio or as amicus curiae, or a

request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapters for

rendition of free legal aid.

A lawyer who is appointed as counsel de oficio, amicus curiae, orwho is requested to render free legal aid by the Integrated Bar of thePhilippines, cannot decline the appointment or request, except for

serious and sufficient cause. Particularly in criminal cases, courts appoint

lawyers as counsel de oficio to give genuine meaning to the accusedsright to be heard through counsel. Otherwise, the accused could bereduced to being a mere victim of overzealous prosecutors, of the lawscomplexity or of his own ignorance or bewilderment.

The Supreme Court purposely sets strict standards for exemption

from court appointed or IBP-requested legal assistance. Such assistanceshould be more than just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom orthe mere propounding of standard questions and objections. The right tocounsel assumes an active involvement by the lawyer in the

proceedings, particularly at the trial of the case, his bearing constantly inmind of the basic rights of the accused, his being well-versed on the case,and his knowing the fundamental procedures, essential laws, and existing

jurisprudence. Lawyers cannot be excused from the responsibility ofefficient and truly decisive legal assistance ( and not a simple

perfunctory representation), except for the most compelling and cogentreasons. A counsel de oficio is expected to do his utmost as anopportunity to assist in the proper dispensation of justice.

Rule 14.01 and 14.02 are applicable only in criminal cases. In criminalcases, a lawyer cannot decline to represent an accused or respondentbecause in his opinion said person is guilty of the charge or charges filedagainst him. In representing the accused or respondent, where the lawyerhas personal knowledge that the accused is guilty, the lawyermust onlyuse means which are fair and honorable. Protection of the accused fromthe violation of his constitutional rights is one area where the accusedneeds a lawyer, whether innocent or guilty.

Rule 14.01 is not applicable in civil cases because (c) to counsel or

maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just,and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable underthe law.

When may refusal of a counsel to act as counsel de oficio bejustified on grounds aside from the reasons of health, extensive travelabroad, or similar reasons of urgency?

Other justified grounds for refusal to act as a counsel de oficio are:

a. Too many de oficio cases assigned to the lawyer 9 People vs.Daeng,49 SCRA 222);b. Conflict of Interest (Rule 14.03,CPR);c. Lawyer is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or

competently (supra);d. Lawyer is prohibited from practicing law by reason of his public

office which prohibits appearances in court; and


19/48


20/48



October 4,2012

20

Considering the highly fiduciary, delicate, exacting, andconfidential relationship between the lawyer and his client, a highstandard of conduct is demanded from the lawyer, with the vigilanceand attention expected of a good father of a family. The lawyers

performance of his duty in prosecuting or defending his clients causesafeguards both the clients interests as well as the ends of justice bymaintaining the communitys respect for the legal profession.

The lawyers fiduciary duty is what places the law profession in aunique position of trust and confidence, and distinguishes it from anyother calling. The lawyer must therefore conduct himself, especially in

his dealings with his clients, with integrity in a manner that is beyondreproach. His relationship with his clients should be characterized by thehighest degree of good faith and fairness. He should determine hisconduct by acting in a manner that would promote public confidence in

the integrity of the legal profession. Members of the Bar are expected toalways live up to the standards embodied in the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility as the relationship between an attorney and his client ishighly fiduciary in nature and demands utmost fidelity and good faith.NEMESIO FLORAN and CARIDAD FLORAN, vs. ATTY. ROY PRULE EDIZA(October 19, 2011) Atty. Ediza violated this rule when he employed deceitin his dealings and transactions with his client when he received anamount of P125,463.38 for the titling of the remaining portion of the land,other expenses and attorneys fees despite of the several follow-ups.During the IBP conference, the Spouses Floran claimed that they had noknowledge that they executed such document in favor of Atty. Ediza.However, the Spouses Floran later discovered that one of the documentsgiven by Atty. Ediza is a deed of sale for a one hectare land in the sameproperty executed by Epal in favor of Atty. Ediza for a consideration ofP2,000. When the Spouses Floran confronted Atty. Ediza, he initially deniedthe document but then later promised to tear and destroy it. Respondentasserted that the Deed of Sale signed by the Spouses Floran in his favorserved as payment for the dismissal of the case he handled for theSpouses Floran. Atty. Ediza denied that the money he received wasintended for the titling of the remaining portion of the land but such is hisshare relative to the sale of the subject property which was given to him in

generosity for winning the case. Atty. Ediza claimed that the complaintagainst him stemmed from a case where he represented a certain RobertSabuclalao for recovery of land. The land was being occupied by theChurch of the Assembly of God where Nemesio Floran serves as pastor. Itis clear from the records that Atty. Ediza deceived the Spouses Floranwhen he asked them to unknowingly sign a deed of sale transferring aportion of their land to Atty. Ediza. Atty. Ediza also did the same to Epalwhen he gave Caridad several documents for Epal to sign. Atty. Edizamade it appear that Epal conveyed her rights to the land to him and notto the Spouses Floran. Moreover, when the sale of the Spouses Florans

land pushed through, Atty. Ediza received half of the amount from theproceeds given by the buyer and falsely misled the Spouses Floran intothinking that he will register the remaining portion of the land.

Respondent played on the navet of the Spouses Floran to deprivethem of their valued property. This is an unsavory behavior from a memberof the legal profession. Aside from giving adequate attention, care andtime to his clients case, a lawyer is also expected to be truthful, fair and


21/48



October 4,2012

21

honest in protecting his clients rights. Once a lawyer fails in this duty, he is

not true to his oath as a lawyer.

Rule 15.01. - A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall

ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve aconflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith

inform the prospective client.

From the moment that the lawyer is consulted by a prospectiveclient, it is incumbent upon the lawyer to render preliminary conflict

search. This may be done by, among others, examining the causes of

action between the prospective client and the lawyers current clients. A

conflict searchwill enable the lawyer to determine, in the first instance,if he is barred from accepting the representation through conflicts with hispresent clients or the lawyers own interest. The Canons of Professional

Ethics likewise mandate that the lawyer must at the time of retainer,disclose to the client all the circumstances of his relations to the parties,and any interest in or connection with the controversy, which mightinfluence the client in the selection of counsel.

There are two types of Conflict of Interest, (1) Concurrent or MultipleRepresentation and (2) Sequential or Successive Representation in bothcases there should be (1) written consent of al parties concerned; and (2)such consent must be given after full disclosure of the facts of all partiesconcerned. The consent must be informed. Necessarily, the lawyer must

explain to the parties the nature and extent of the conflict and the partiesmust be made to understand all the possible adverse effects of therepresentation.

1. CONCURRENT OR MULTIPLE REPRESENTATION generally occurswhen a lawyer represents clients whose objectives are adverseto each other, no matter how slight or remote such adverseinterest may be. Our Supreme court has established the followingtests to ascertain if concurrent or multiple representationamounts to a conflict of interest:a. Whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim

in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose thatclaim for the other client;

b. Whether the acceptance of a new relation prevent the fulldischarge of the lawyers duty of undivided fidelity or loyalty

to the client;c. Whether the acceptance of a new relation would invite

suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in theperformance of the lawyers duty of undivided fidelity andloyalty;

d. Whether in the acceptance of a new relation, the lawyerwould be called upon to use against client confidentialinformation acquired through their connection.

2. SEQUENTIAL OR SUCCESSIVE REPRESENTATION involvesrepresentation by a law firm of a present client who may havean interest adverse to a prior or former client of the firm. Upondetecting the conflict of interest, the lawyer should immediatelyinform the prospective client to ensure that he would be able toengage the services of another lawyer, and thereby avoid


22/48



October 4,2012

22

prejudice to his cause.

Rule 15.02.- A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege

communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospectiveclient.

The foregoing disqualification rule also applies to prospective clientsof a lawyer. Matters disclosed by a prospective client to a lawyer areprotected by the rule on privileged communication even if theprospective client does not thereafter retain the lawyer or the latterdeclines the employment. The reason for this is to make the prospectiveclient free to discuss whatever he wishes with the lawyer without fear thatwhat he tells the lawyer will be divulged or used against him and for the

lawyer to be equally free to obtain information from the prospectiveclient.

The client must also intend the communication to be

confidential. A confidential communication refers to information

transmitted by voluntary act of disclosure between attorney and client inconfidence and by means which, so far as the client is aware, disclosesthe information to no third person other than one reasonably necessaryfor the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of thepurpose for which it was given.

The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in hisprofessional capacity. The communication made by a client to hisattorney must not be intended for mere information, but for the purpose

of seeking legal advice from his attorney as to his rights or obligations. Ifthe client seeks an accounting service, or business or personal assistance,and not legal advice, the privilege does not attach to a communicationdisclosed for such purpose. The mantle of privileged communicationsextends to the partner, or other persons ( such as staff members) workingwith the lawyer in the same office.

The privilege of attorney-client communications however, does notextend to information on contemplated or future crimes or fraudulentacts. What are covered are statements and communications regarding

the commission of a crime already committed, 9 made by a party whocommitted it to a lawyer, consulted as such) and not communicationshaving to do with the clients contemplated criminal acts, or in aid or

furtherance thereof.

The Supreme Court found no merit in petitioners assertion that Atty.

Binamira gravely breached and abused the rule on privilegedcommunication under the Rules of Court and the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility of Lawyers when he represented [respondent] Helen in thepresent case. Notably, this issue was never raised before the labor

tribunals and was raised for the first time only on appeal. Moreover,records show that although petitioners previously employed Atty. Binamirato manage several businesses, there is no showing that they likewiseengaged his professional services as a lawyer. Likewise, at the time theinstant complaint was filed, Atty. Binamira was no longer under theemploy of petitioners. Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry Corporation andLambert Lim vs. Helen Binamira,G.R. No. 170464. July 12, 2010.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170464.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170464.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170464.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170464.htm


23/48



October 4,2012

23

Rule 15.03. - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except bywritten consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

The only exception provided by the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility to the prohibition against representation of conflictinginterests in the informed written consent of all parties concerned. Withoutthe informed written consent of all parties concerned, the meretermination of the lawyer-client relationship is not sufficient for the lawyerto subsequently represent an interest adverse to the (terminated) client.Even if if there is no other lawyer available to represent prospectiveclient, the lawyer must still obtain the prior informed written consent of allparties before agreeing to undertake the representation.

A lawyer drafted a demand letter on behalf of complainant inconnection with the dishonored checks issued by Ms. Koa. In the ensuingcriminal cases, the lawyer filed a Motion for Consolidation on behalf of Ms.Koa and appeared at the preliminary investigation hearing as Ms. Koas

counsel. He argued that no lawyer-client relationship existed betweenhim and complainant because there was no professional fee paidfor the

services he rendered. Moreover, he further argued that he drafted thedemand letter only as a personal favor to the complainant who is a closefriend.

The Supreme Court held that a lawyer-client relationship can existnotwithstanding the close friendship between complainant andrespondent-lawyer. The relationship was established the momentcomplainant sought legal advice from the lawyer regarding thedishonored checks. By drafting the demand letter, he further affirmedsuch relationship. The fact that the demand letter was not utilized in thecriminal complaint filed and that the lawyer was not eventually engagedby complainant to represent her in the criminal cases is of no moment.Likewise, the non-payment of professional fee will not exculpate thelawyer from liability. Absence of monetary consideration does not

exempt lawyers from complying with the prohibition against pursuingcases with conflicting interests. The prohibition attaches from the momentthe attorney-client relationship is established and extends beyond theduration of the professional relationship. Lydia Castro-Justo v. Atty.Rodolfo Galing. A.C. No. 6174. November 16, 2011.

Rule 15.04. - A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act

as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.

Rule 15.05. - A lawyer when advising his client shall give a candid andhonest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client's case,

neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the case.

This Rule requires that the lawyer must give his client his candid andhonest opinion on the merit or lack of merit of the case, withoutoverstating or understating his evaluation. In order to ensure that the clientis properly informed of all legal remedies and avenues for redress
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/6174.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/6174.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/6174.htm


24/48



October 4,2012

24

available to him, the lawyer must provide the client with an accurateassessment of the prospects of the case. This rule assists the client todecide on the best possible course of action, based on his lawyers

informed evaluation of the merits of his case.

It is the lawyers obligation to know whether a case has someprospect for success, and to accurately convey such prospects to his

client. If, after going through and studying all of the clients papersanddocuments, the lawyers finds that this clients cause is defenseless, then it

is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, ratherthan to traverse the incontrovertible.

Rule 15.06. - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence

any public official, tribunal or legislative body.

The lawyer must rely on the merits of his case, instead of improperlyor illicitly banking on his relationship with a member of the bench or anypublic official, which tends to influence or gives the appearance ofinfluencing the Court. It is unprofessional and dishonorable, to say the

least, to misuse a public office to enhance a lawyers prestige. Publicconfidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by such reprehensible andimproper conduct.

Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the

laws and the principles of fairness.

In taking his oath, the lawyer becomes a guardian of truth and the

rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartialadministration of justice. The layer should therefore act with honesty and

integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the publics

faith in the legal profession. In the extension of this legal duty, the lawyershould impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principlesof fairness. The client cannot dictate to the lawyer the procedure forhandling the case. The lawyer is not a gun for hire and must employ only

fair and honest means to obtain his clients objectives.

Rule 15.08. - A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation

concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whetherhe is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.

A lawyer is not barred from engaging in other professions oroccupations. To obviate confusion of interests and obligations betweenthe lawyer and his client, however, the lawyer must clearly delineate tothe client his different roles and the capacity in which he is acting. Thishelps guarantee that the lawyer would protect his clients interests over his

own personal interests. A further reason for the requirement of previousclarification to the client is that certain ethical considerations operative

in one profession may not be so in the other. For the clients protection

and in the interest of transparency and accountability, the lawyer mustmake clear what his obligations are in relation to the various functions orroles he is fulfilling in relation to his dealings with the client.

CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES


25/48



October 4,2012

25

OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS PROFESSION.

Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or

received for or from the client.

Moneys collected by the lawyer on a judgment favorable to hisclient constitute trust funds and should be immediately paid over to theclient. While it is true that Rule 138, Section 37 of the Rules of Court grantsthe lawyer alien upon the funds, documents and papers of his clientwhich have lawfully come into his possession, such that he may retainthe same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid,and apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof, the lawyer still has theresponsibility to promptly account to his client for such moneys received.Failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct.

The lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally appropriate any funds,moneys, or properties of his client by the mere fact that the client oweshim attorneys fees. He must still prove the existence of his l ien and pursue

the necessary legal remedies to recover his fees. The lawyers failure to

turn over such funds, moneys, or properties to the client despite thelatters demands gives rise to the presumption that the lawyer had

converted the money for his personal use and benefit.Money of the client or collected for the client or other trust property

coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported andaccounted for promptly and should not under any circumstances be

commingled with his own or be used by him.The lawyers admission of hisuse of a client funds for his personal use constitutes substantial evidenceof malpractice.

When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for aparticular purpose ( such as filing fees, registration fees, transportation andoffice expenses), he must render an accounting to the client showing

that the money was spent for the intended purpose. If the lawyer does

not use the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must

immediately return the money to the client.

A lawyers act of obtaining money from his clients under the

respective pretexts that the amount would be deposited in court and thathe would prepare and file the memorandum for them created aresponsibility to account for and to use the amounts in accordance withthe particular purposes intended. For him to deposit the amount in hispersonal account without the consent of the clients and to fail to file thememorandum and not return the money upon demand, constituted aserious breach of his fiduciary duties as their attorney. He reneged on hisduty to render an accounting to his clients showing that he had spent theamounts for the particular purposes intended. He was thereby presumedto have misappropriated the moneys for his own use to the prejudice of

his clients and in violation of the clients trust reposed in him. He could notescape liability, for upon failing to use the moneys for the purposesintended, he should have immediately returned the moneys to his clients.His plain abuse of the confidence reposed in him by his clients renderedhim liable for violation of Canon 16, particularly Rule 16.01 and Canon 17,all of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His acts and actuationsconstituted a gross violation of general morality and of professional ethics


26/48



October 4,2012

26

that impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deservespunishment. Erlinda R. Tarog v. Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort, A.C. No. 8253,March 15, 2011.

Atty. Solidon vs. Atty. Macalalad (Feb. 24, 2010) Atty. Macalalad wasintroduced by Delia to Atty. Solidon and thereafter hired by the latterregarding the judicial titling of a parcel of land of his relatives.Respondent Macalalad then accepted the case to be completed withineight (8) months for a consideration of P80,000. He received P50,000 as aninitial payment and with an agreement that the balance shall be paidupon the delivery of title of the subject property. Six (6) months afterpaying the initial fee, Atty. Solidon tried to follow up the status of the case(thru text messages, phone calls thru acquaintances and relatives further,thru a letter sent by courier)but respondent Macalalad never replied.

Delia was able to contact Respondentand informed her that everythingwas on process. However after lapse of one year, the petition has not yetfiled. Hence Atty. Solidon filed a disbarment case against Respondent forfailure to account all money collected and to inform his client on thestatus of the case. On the other hand, Atty. Macalalad posited that thepetition has not yet filed due to the failure of Atty. Solidon to furnish himthe needed documentary evidence.

The mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to theclient is considered per se a violation. The circumstance that the clientwas also at fault does not exonerate a lawyer from liability for hisnegligence in handling a case. All court rulings drive home the fiduciarynature of a lawyers duty to his client once an engagement for legalservices is accepted. A lawyer so engaged to represent a client bearsthe responsibility of protecting the latters interest with utmost diligence.

The lawyer bears the duty to serve his client with competence anddiligence, and to exert his best efforts to protect, within the bounds of thelaw, the interest of his or her client. Atty. Macalalad did not immediatelyaccount for and promptly return the money he received from Atty.Solidon even after he failed to render any legal service within thecontracted time of the engagement. Atty. Macalalad is suspended for six(6) months And ordered to return the P50,000 with 12% interest until the full

amount is returned.

Hector Trenas vs. People of the Philippines (January 25, 2012)In this

case, appellant received in trust from Elizabeth Luciaja a sum of money

given by her aunt Margarita Alocilja with the express obligation on the

part of the accused-appellant to use said amount for the expenses and

fees in connection with the purchase of a parcel of land, but said

accused-appellant misappropriated and converted to his own benefit the

amount.When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a

particular purpose (such as for filing fees, registration fees, transportationand office expenses), he should promptly account to the client how themoney was spent. If he does not use the money for its intended purpose,he must immediately return it to the client. His failure either to render anaccounting or to return the money (if the intended purpose of the moneydoes not materialize) constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of theCode of Professional Responsibility.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/8253.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/8253.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/8253.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/195002.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/195002.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/195002.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/195002.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/8253.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/8253.htm


27/48



October 4,2012

27

MARITES E. FREEMAN, vs. ATTY. ZENAIDA P. REYES, (November 15,2011) When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particularpurpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client

showing that the money was spent for a particular purpose. And if hedoes not use the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer mustimmediately return the money to his client. In the present case, thecash/check voucher and the temporary receipts issued by respondent,with the letterhead of her law firm, Z.P. Reyes Law Office, indubitablyshowed that she received the total amount of P167,000.00 from thecomplainant, in connection with the handling of the latter's case.Respondent admitted having received money from the complainant, butclaimed that the total amount of P120,000.00 she received was inaccordance with their agreement. Nowhere was it shown that

respondent rendered an accounting or, at least, apprised thecomplainant of the actual expenses incurred. This leaves a quandary asto the discrepancy in the actual amount that respondent should receive,supposedly pursuant to an agreement of engaging respondent to be hercounsel, as there was absence of a formal contract of legal services.Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and

apart from his own and those of others kept by him.

This rule protects the clients interests and ensures that the lawyer

prudently maintains a system for distinguishing, monitoring andaccounting for his own funds, and all of his clients funds that are in his

possession.

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.

While the lawyer may charge a lien over a money judgment

pursuant to Rule 138, Section 37 of the Rules of Court, the lawyer must givenotice to his client that he is charging such lien. Thereafter, the lawyershould file the necessary petition with the Court, as an incident in the mainaction in which his services were rendered, and in which action somethingis due his client from which the fee is to be paid. He cannot unilaterallyappropriate the funds.

Barcenas vs. Atty. Alvero ( April 23, 2010) RULE 16.01-Rule 16.03 were

violated.

The claim of the lawyer that there existed no attorney-client

relationship between him and Barcenas cannot be countenanced sincecase law has it that an attorney may be removed, or otherwisedisciplined, not only for malpractice and dishonesty in the profession, butalso for gross misconduct not connected with his professional duties,making him unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which hislicense and the law confer upon him. The Respondents failure to account

for and return the money when due and upon demand violated the trust


28/48



October 4,2012

28

reposed in him, demonstrated his lack of integrity and moral soundness,and warranted the imposition of disciplinary action. It gave rise to thepresumption that he converted the money for his own use, and this actconstituted a gross violation of profess

legal ethics handout- october 4, 2012

Documents