Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Annulment
of
Marriage
Specialist
5324333/5212667
The solicitation of legal business is not altogether
proscribed. However, for solicitation to be proper,
it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal
profession. If it were made in a modest and
decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the
lawyer and to the bar. Thus the use of simple
signs stating the names of the lawyers, the office
and residence address and fields of practice, as
well as advertisement in legal periodicals bearing
the same brief data, are permissible. Even the use
of calling cards is now acceptable. Publication in
reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with
the standards of conduct imposed by the canon, of
brief biographical and informative data is likewise
allowable.
Courts have
clear,
preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the
imposition of the administrative penalty. An attorney
enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the
charges preferred against him until the contrary is
proved; and as an officer of the court, that he
performed his duty in accordance with his oath.
The fact that counsel was defending his wife from what
he perceived were unwarranted attacks, did not
convince the High Court to exonerate him. They held:
Clients, not lawyers, are the litigants, so whatever
may be the ill-feelings existing between clients should
not be allowed to influence counsel in their conduct
toward each other or toward suitors in the case (citing
People vs. Sesbreno, 130 SCRA 465, 470 [1984]]). The
Court reminded counsel that Canon 8 and Rule 8.01
instruct that respondents arguments in his pleadings
should be gracious to both the court and opposing
counsel and be of such words as may be properly
addressed by one gentleman to another (HueysuwanFlorido vs. Florido, 420 SCRA 132, 137 [22004]). The
language does not run short of expressions which are
emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory,
illuminating but not offensive. (Rheem of the
Philippines vs. Ferrer, 20 SCRA 441, 445 [1967]) (id.).
CANON 10
A LAWYER OWES
CANDOR,
FAIRNESS
AND
GOOD FAITH TO
THE COURT
Manila
Pest
Control,
Inc.
v.
Workmens
Compensation Commission (25 SCRA 700 [1968])
It is one thing to exert to the utmost ones ability to
protect the interest of ones client. It is quite another
thing, and this is to put it at its mildest, to take
advantage of any unforeseen turn of events, if not to
create one, to delay if not to defeat the recovery of
what is justly due and demandable, especially so, when
as in this case, the obligee is a necessitous and
poverty-stricken man suffering from a dreaded disease,
that unfortunately afflicts so many of our countrymen
and even more unfortunately requires an outlay far
beyond the means of our poverty-stricken masses. The
ancient and learned profession of the law stresses
fairness and honor that must ever be kept in mind by
everyone who is enrolled in its ranks and who expects
to remain a member in good standing. This Tribunal is
rightfully entrusted with the serious responsibility of
seeing to it that no deviation from such a norm should
be countenanced. If what occurred here would not be
characterized for the shocking thing it was, then it
could be said that the law is less than fair and far from
At
a
special
stockholders
meeting
of
PHILCOMSAT, a new set of directors and officers
were elected which Ilusorio questioned before
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
In this case, respondent-lawyer appeared on
behalf of Manuel Nieto, et al., the newly elected
directors and officers.
Respondent-lawyers defense that the Ilusorio
case before the Sandiganbayan was a personal
account of just one attorney of the firm was
found contrary to the evidence submitted by
respondent
himself,
specifically
letters
regarding negotiations for the compromise
bearing his name and signature on behalf of the
law firm.
However,
although
so
found
to
have
transgressed the proscription against conflict
of interests, the Court appreciated as
mitigating circumstances the fact that
respondent-lawyer represented the Sheriff and
his wife pro-bono, and that it was his firm, not
him personally, which handed the civil case
for the plaintiff. In all the pleadings for the
cases filed against the Sheriff and his wife,
respondent-lawyer signed alone, without any
mentioned of the law firm. Instead of the
penalty of suspension, the Court only imposed
a fine of P2,000.00 against respondent-lawyer.
Pasay Law and Consience Union, Inc. vs. Paz, (95 SCRA
24 [1980])
On the charge of representing clients with conflicting interests,
the evidence has duly established that the respondent, David
D.C. Paz , as PARGOS Legal Officer and Legal Prosecutor and
head of the Charlie Division, took part in the investigation of
the anti-graft case against ex-Mayor Cuneta by administering
oaths to witnesses and gathering evidence. He acquired
knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the antigraft case. The respondent obtained confidential information
and learned of the evidence of the PARGO against ex- Mayor
Cuneta. There was undoubtedly a relationship of attorney and
client between the respondent David D.C. Paz and the PARGO.
It is also a fact that at the early stages of the preliminary
investigation conducted by the City Fiscal of Pasay of the antigraft case against ex-Mayor Pablo Cuneta, the respondent
appeared as counsel for said Cuneta. This is the same anti-graft
case investigated by the PARGO when the respondent was
head of the "Charlie Division" thereof. That the respondent later
withdrew his appearances as counsel of Cuneta is of no
moment. He had already violated the Canons of Legal Ethics
and Sec. 20(e) of Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court
The "confusion" in the office of the law firm following the death
with the trial court a petition for relief from judgment of the
June 29, 1990 decision.
due process. He may have lost his right to present evidence but
he was not denied his day in court. As the record show,
petitioner, through counsel, actively participated in the
proceedings below. He filed his answer to the petition, crossexamined private respondent's witnesses and even submitted
his opposition to private respondent's motion for dissolution of
the conjugal partnership of gains.
avoidance from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the
remedy at law was due to his own negligence; otherwise the
petition for relief can be used to revive the right to appeal which
had been lost thru inexcusable negligence.
of plaintiff
The
alleged
that