Duty to the legal profession

Rivera v Angeles

A.C. No. 2519. August 29, 2000

Ynares-Santiago, J.

Facts: Atty.  Angeles was the legal counsel of Rivera and 2 others in a civil case. Atty. Angeles received almost PhP 50,000 from one of the defendants in the case as partial fulfillment of the judgement. Atty. Angeles, however, never told his clients of the amount he had received and never remitted the same to him, leaving them to discover such fact on their own.

Issue: whether he can be held administratively liable

Held:  Yes. The Supreme Court stresses the importance of integrity and good moral character as part of a lawyer's equipment in the practice of his profession. Thus, acts of deceit and malpractice inexorably diminishes the respect of the litigants for the profession. 1-year suspension.

Ducat Jr. v Villalon

Adm. Case No. 3910. August 14, 2000

De Leon, Jr., J.

FACTS

Villalon is the family lawyer of ducats. the original title of ducat sr was handed to villalon. The handing over has two contradictory versions of reason, first because it is given as part of process to convey the land because of the good services of villalon as villalon claimed, on the other hand, allegedly because the latter

reasoned that he shall check the measurements of the land subject of title as alleged by ducat jr. Ducat sr allegedly because of his want to give the land to villalon executed a deed of sale of the land in favor of villalon. But because it was discovered that the land is registered in the name of ducat jr,a deed of sale was forged to make it appear that there was one, ducusin was the notary public there

Issue:

Ruling: villalon is guilty of gross misconduct for being involved in fraudulent notarization and forgery of signature. Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the Bar. A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, in probity and good demeanor. 1 yr suspension

Tan v Sabandal

B.M. No. 44. November 29, 1983

Melencio-Herrera, J.

Facts

Sabandal was a successful bar examinee in 1978. Without signing the rolls of Attorneys and taking the lawyer’s oath, he has appeared in Court of Agrarian Relations, Civil cases, and Criminal cases in court, stating that he is Atty. Sabandal.

Issue:

Held:

A successful Bar examinee, without having signed in the Roll of Attorneys and had taken the Lawyer's Oath, is also subject to the Codes of Professional Ethics. A successful Bar examinee, not yet being admitted in the Bar, who holds himself out as a lawyer by appearing in courts, is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Even if respondent appeared merely in collaboration with Atty. SenenAngeles in the several cases, that collaboration could only have been ostensibly as a lawyer

In re Parazo

G.R. No. 120348. December 3, 1948

Montemayor, J.

FACTS: Angel J. Parazo, a duly accredited reporter of the Star Reporter, a local daily of general circulation, manifested a story with the headline— "CLAIM 'LEAK' IN LAST BAR TESTS," "Applicants In Uproar, Want Anomaly Probed; One School Favored,"

He stated in said report that students of a private university in Sampaloc

had been seen with copies of the mimeographed questions one week prior to the exams.

ISSUE: Whether or not Parazo may be compelled by the court to reveal his source within the purview of the exemption “interest of the state.”

HELD: Yes, As the conduct of Bar Examinations and the Legal Profession is imbued with General Interest and National Importance, it is but just that the immunity of newspapermen be disregarded as to protecting its sources from investigation as to any anomaly that may be alleged in the conduct of the Bar Examinations.

Narido v Linsangan

A.C. No. 944 . July 25, 1974

Fernando, J.

This case arose from a labor dispute where Atty. Risma represented Narido, an indigent client against her employer De Dios, the client of Atty. Jaime Linsangan. Atty. Risma vehemently opposed the submission of a certain affidavit executed by De Dios because, he believed it is perjured. When submitted, a disbarment case was filed.

Linsangan accused Risma of instigating his client to file an administrative case against him and that it was only filed to spite him and is just a mere scheme to threaten him and to ensure that they has an edge over the labor case.

ISSUE: Whether or not both administrative cases should prosper.

HELD: No. There was no sufficient evidence for perjury and for the instigation. However, Risma is admonished because he was found to collect 15% fees instead of allowed maximum of 10%. Mutual bickering and unjustifiable recriminations, between brother attorneys detract from the dignity of the legal profession and will not receive any sympathy from this court.

Laput v remotigue

A.C. No. 219 . September 29, 1962

Labrador, J.

FACTS
Laput used to be the counsel for Barrera until the latter discharged her because she lost trust and confidence in him due to dubious transactions in a testate proceeding. One of the lawyers retained by Barrera to replace Laput was Remotigue. Remotigue, without notice to Laput, asked the court to direct Laput to turn over certain documents and titles to Barrera so that the latter may properly disposed some estate properties. Laput stubbornly kept the said documents as he claimed that said estate properties are subject to his lien and that he needs to be paid first.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Laput has the right to keep said documents.

HELD:

No. It turns out that Laput’s attorney’s fees were already significantly paid while he was still the counsel for Barrera hence he no longer has a lien to the properties of the estate. Therefore, he cannot retain the certificates of title in question.

Camacho v Pangulayan

 A.C. No. 4807. March 22, 2000

Vitug, J.

FACTS

9 students of AMA were expelled for having apparently caused to be published objectionable features or articles in the school paper. While the civil case was still pending, letters of apology and Re-admission Agreements were separately executed by the expelled students without the knowledge of Atty. Camacho, their lawyer. without his knowledge the PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES Law Firm (lawyers of AMA) procured compromise agreements his clients waived all kinds of claims they may have with AMA

ISSUE                     W/N PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES is liable

HELD                     YES

RATIO

It would appear that when individual letters of apology and Re-admission Agreements were formalized, CAMACHO was already the retained counsel of the expelled AMA students

PANGULAYAN and associates having full knowledge of this fact still proceeded to negotiate with the expelled AMA students and their parents without at least communicating the matter to their lawyer CAMACHO

Hence, PANGULAYAN should be suspended for 3 months

Tan Tek Beng v David

A.C. No. 1261. December 29, 1983

Aquino, J.

Atty. David and Tan Tek Beng, a non-lawyer, entered into an agreement whereby Tan Tek Beng

will supply clients to Atty. David and in exchange thereof, Atty. David shall give Tan Tek Beng 50% of  

the attorney’s fees collected as the latter’s commission. Atty. David also agreed not to deal with clients

supplied by Tan Tek Beng directly without the latter’s consent. The agreement went sour due to allegations

of double-cross from both sides. Tan Tek Beng denounced Atty. David before the Supreme Court but did

not seek the enforcement of their agreement.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. David is guilty of Malpractice.

HELD:

Yes. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through agents or brokers is tantamount to malpractice. It should be kept in mind that lawyers, subject to the exceptions given by the law, are prohibited from sharing his legal fees to those who are not in the legal profession.

In re Sycip

G.R. No. X92-1. July 30, 1979

Melencio-Herrera, J.

FACTS

by the surviving partners of Atty. Alexander Sycip and Atty. Ozaeta, prayed that they be allowed to continue using, in the names of their firms, the names of partners who had passed away.

They contended that the continued use of the name of a deceased or former partner is not prohibited and when permissible by local custom, is not unethical but care should be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced through this use.

Issue:Whether the deceased partner’s name may be retained

Held:

No.

 no practice should be allowed which even in a remote degree could give rise to the possibility of deception.

The public relations value of the use of an old firm name can tend to create undue advantages and disadvantages in the practice of the profession. An able lawyer without connections will have to make a name for himself starting from scratch. The court also made the difference from the law firms and business corporations:

Merely because something is done as a matter of practice does not mean that Courts can rely on the same for purposes of adjudication as a juridical custom.