Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed;
In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means,
regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every
defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or
liberty, but by due process of law.
Per the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Duties to society in general to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for the law and legal processes;
Duties to the legal profession to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal
profession;
Duties to the court to be candid with and promote respect for the courts and
judicial officers, and to assist the courts in rendering speedy and efficient justice;
and
Duties to the client to observe candor, fairness and loyalty to the client; hold the
clients money and property in trust, serve the client with competence and
diligence, always mindful of the trust and confidence reposed by the client in him;
N.B. It should be sufficient that the answer contain either the attorneys oath, the
duties of an attorney under Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, or the duties
under the Code of Professional Responsibility, as any of these provisions sufficiently
state the statutory basis of an attorneys duties.
- II Canons 16 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (10%)
C engages the services of attorney D concerning various mortgage
contracts entered into by her husband from whom she is separated,
fearful that her real estate properties will be foreclosed and of impending
suits for sums of money against her. Attorney D advised C to give him her
land titles covering her lots so he could sell them to enable her to pay her
creditors. He then persuaded her execute deeds of sale in his favor
without any monetary or valuable consideration, to which C agreed on
condition that he would sell the lots and from the proceeds pay her
creditors. Later on, C came to know that attorney D did not sell her lots
but instead paid her creditors with his own funds and had her land titltes
registered in his name. Did attorney D violate the Code of Professional
Responsibility? Explain.
The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hernandez v. Go, A.C. 1526,
January 1, 2005, is squarely applicable to this problem. Under the same set of facts,
the Supreme Court held the lawyer to have violated Canons 16 and 17 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which provide as follows:
Canon 16. A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that
may come into his possession.
Canon 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him.
When attorney D acquired the properties of his client, he did not only violate these
canons but also Article 1491 of the Civil Code, which prohibits him to acquire by
purchase even at a public auction or judicial auction, property of his clients the sale
of which has been entrusted to him unless the consent of the client has been given.
- III Canon 18 of the CPR (10%)
Attorney M. accepted a civil case for the recovery of title and possession
of land in behalf of N. Subsequently, after the Regional Trial Court had
issued a decision adverse to N, the latter filed an administrative case
against attorney M for disbarment. He alleged that attorney M caused the
advese ruling against him; that attorney M did not file an opposition to the
Demurrer to Evidence filed in the case, neither did he appear at the formal
hearing on the demurrer, leading the trial court to assume that plaintiff's
counsel (attorney M) appeared convinced of the validity of the demurer
filed; that attorney M did not even file a motion for reconsideration ,
causing the order to become final and executory; and that even prior to
the above events and in view of attorney M's apparent loss of interest in
the case, he verbally requested attorney M to withdraw, but attorney M
refused. Complainant N further alleged that attorney M abused his client's
trust and confidence and violated his oath of office in failing to defend his
client's cause to the very end.
Attorney M replied that N did not give him his full cooperation; that the
voluminous records turned over to him were in disarray, and that
appeared for N, he had only half of the information and background of the
case; that he was assured by N's friends that they had approach the
judge; that they requested him (M) to prepare a motion for
reconsideration which he did and gave to them; however these friends did
not return the copy of the motion.
Will the administrative case prosper? Give reasons for your answer.
Yes. Lawyer M appears negligent because of his failure to file an opposition to the
demurrer, appear at the demurrer hearing, and not filing a motion for
reconsideration. Under the Code, a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without
adequate preparation (18.02). He shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him
and his negligence renders him liable (18.03). Canon 18 provides that the lawyer
shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Thus, the voluminous record is
no justification for the failure of Attorney M to file an opposition to the demurrer to
evidence or failing to attend the hearing thereof.
Giving the motion for reconsideration to the friends of N for filing is another instance
of negligence on the part of Atty. M. He should have filed his motion himself.
(Francisco v. Portugal, A.C. No. 6155, March 14, 2006) Atty. M also violated Canon
No. 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that 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. Furthermore, refusing to
comply with Ns request to withdraw from the case violated the absolute right of the
client to terminate his lawyer at any time with or without cause. (Section 26, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court)
- IV (10%)
When is recovery of attorney's fees based on quantum meruit allowed?
The recovery of attorneys fees on quantum meruit is allowed in the following
circumstances:
When there is no agreement as to attorneys fees.
When the agreement as to attorneys fees is invalid for some reason other than the
illegality of the object of the performance.
When the attorney and the client disregard the contract for attorneys fees.
When the amount of the attorneys fees is found to be unconscionable (Section 24,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court).
Where the stipulated fees are in excess of what is expressly fixed by law.
-VCanon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct (10%)
During the hearing of an election protest filed by his brother, Judge E sat
in the area reserved for the public, not beside his brother's lawyer. Judge
E's brother won the election protest. Y, the defeated candidate for mayor,
2.
3.
4.
5.
Right of First Refusal. A right of first refusal is granted to the lessee in case lessor
intends to sell the leased property. Lessee shall be given priority to buy the property
or match the offer of any potential buyer within a period agreed upon by the
parties. Should the Lessee fail or refuse to purchase the leased property, the Lessor
shall be free to sell the property at a price not lower than that offered to the Lessee.
- IX (10%)
Prepare an affidavit of merits to be attached to a Petition for Relief.
Affidavit of merit should state:
Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence preventing the filing of answer or
appearing in pre-trial or trial; and Valid and substantial cause of action or defense
(Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) S.S.
CITY OF MANILA )
Affidavit of Merit
I, Mr. B, of legal age, single, and a resident of Quezon City, after being duly sworn
to, depose and say that:
I am the defendant in the case entitled A versus B, docketed as Civil Case No.
1234 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 56, for collection of a sum of
money;
On July 7, 2007, while on our way to the court to attend the hearing of said case, we
figured in a vehicular accident when a truck bumped the taxi cab in which my
counsel and I were riding, causing serious physical injuries to my lawyer and myself,
necessitating our hospitalization for two months;
Upon out failure to appear, the Honorable Regional Trial Court proceeded with the
trial and thereafter rendered judgment against me for the amount of P500,000 with
interest from January 10, 2006, plus costs;
Said decision was served on my counsel only on September 15, 2007;
If given the chance to present evidence, I can provide as a valid and substantial
defense that the amount being collected from me by the plaintiff has been fully paid
as shown by a receipt, a machine copy of which is attached hereto as Annex 1 of
this Affidavit; and
I have executed this Affidavit in support of my Petition for Relief from final judgment