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 OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

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.

In re terrel

howard terrel suspended for 1 year for being a member of centro bellas artes. said org was made for
purposing of evading the law. The promoting of organizations, with knowledge of their objects, for the
purpose of violating or evading the laws against crime constitutes such misconduct on the part of an
attorney, an officer of the court, as amounts to malpractice or gross misconduct in his office, and for
which he may be removed or suspended. The assisting of a client in a scheme which the attorney knows
to be dishonest, or the conniving at a violation of law, are acts which justify disbarment.

In this case, however, inasmuch as the defendant in the case of the United States, vs. Terrell was
acquitted on the charge of estafa, and has not, therefore, been convicted of crime, and as the acts with
which he is charged in this proceeding, while unprofessional and hence to be condemned, are not
criminal in their nature, we are of opinion that the ends of justice will be served by the suspension of
said Howard D. Terrell.

Estrada full text

Kupers v honta

-complaint was filed against atty. hontanosas for (1) prepared and notarized contracts that are both
invalid and illegal as these contracts violated the limitations on aliens leasing private lands; (2) served
conflicting interests since he performed legal services for adverse parties; (3) refused to furnish copies
of the contracts he notarized to the parties thereof; (4) notarized documents without keeping copies
thereof and (5) failed to properly discharge his duty to his client Karl Novak, particularly when
respondent allegedly refused to accept his dismissal as counsel for Novak, failed to turn over Novak's
documents thereafter, handled legal matters without adequate preparation, betrayed Novak's trust and
refused to see Novak with a translator of Novak's choice.

-lease contract prep'd by hontanosas stipulated that a private land be leased by an alien. one contract
was for a 50yr lease renewable for another 50. 49lease renew 49

-IBP commissioner ruled that hontanosas violated P.D. No. 471 since leases of private lands by aliens
cannot exceed twenty five (25) years, renewable for another twenty five (25) years. the other charges
was not proven. recommended 2 mos. suspension

-IBP board of governors disregarded recommendation and dismissed: espondent did not really perform
an illegal act. The act was not illegal per se since the lease agreement was likely made to reflect the
agreement among the parties without considering the legality of the situation. While admittedly
respondent may be guilty of ignorance of the law or plain negligence, the Board dismissed the complaint
out of compassion.

sc:

-In his defense, respondent avers that the assailed contracts are valid under Republic Act No. 7652 (R.A.
No. 7652), entitled "An Act Allowing The Long-Term Lease of Private Lands by Foreign Investors." They
add that these contracts should not be viewed purely as lease contracts since they allow the leasor to
nominate a Filipino citizen or corporation to purchase the subject property within the lease period.
Respondent's defenses are frivolous. Assuming that it can be duly established that his foreign clients are
indeed "foreign investors" as contemplated under R.A. No. 7652, said law allows the lease for the
original period of fifty (50) years, renewable for another period of twenty five (25) years, well below the
periods of fifty (50) years renewable for another fifty (50) years, and forty-nine (49) years renewable for
another forty-nine (49) years respectively, stipulated in the two lease agreements. violating the penal
clause of ra 7652

-In preparing and notarizing the illegal lease contracts, respondent violated the Attorney's Oath and
several canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. One of the foremost sworn duties of an
attorney-at-law is to "obey the laws of the Philippines." This duty is enshrined in the Attorney's Oath16
and in Canon 1, which provides that "(a) lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal processes." Rule 1.02 under Canon 1 states: "A lawyer shall not
counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at decreasing confidence in the legal systems."

-The other canons of professional responsibility which respondent transgressed are the following:

CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.

xxx

Rule 15.07 - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of
hairness.

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.

Aside from constituting violation of the lawyer's oath, the acts of respondents also amount to gross
misconduct under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which provides:

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. ― A member of
the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case without authority so to do.

-suspension raised to 6mos

coronel v cunanan
-A lawyer who proposes to his client a recourse or remedy that is contrary to law, public policy, public
order and public morals, or that lessens the public confidence in the legal system is guilty of gross
misconduct, and should be suspended from the practice of law, or even disbarred.

f:

-coronel initiated this disbarment case against Atty. Nelson A. Cunanan, alleging that he had advised and
convinced her to engage him for the transfer of Original Certificate of Title No. 9616 and Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-72074, which were both registered in the name of their deceased grandparents,
to her name and to the names of her co-heirs by direct registration with the Office of the Register of
Deeds in violation of the proper legal procedure; that following the engagement, he had received from
her the amount of P70,000.00 for the payment of the transfer and other fees, and had misappropriated
the same; and that he had not returned the money and the owner's duplicate copy of Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-72074

-cunanan proposed 2 methods of facilitating the transfer. ordinary procedure wherein they would
process everything in the proper manner = 5mos. and by direct registration which would circumvent the
proper process = 1mos.

Although the respondent outlined to the complainant the "ordinary procedure" of an extrajudicial
settlement of estate as a means of transferring title, he also proposed the option of "direct registration"
despite being fully aware that such option was actually a shortcut intended to circumvent the law, and
thus patently contrary to law. The transfer under the latter option would bypass the immediate heirs of
their grandparents (i.e., the complainant's parent and her co-heirs parents), and consequently deprive
the Government of the corresponding estate taxes and transfer fees aside from requiring the
falsification of the transfer documents. He assured that he could enable the direct transfer with the help
of his contacts in the Office of the Register of Deeds and other relevant agencies of the Government,
which meant that he would be bribing some officials and employees of those offices. The proposal of
"direct registration" was unquestionably unlawful, immoral and deceitful all at once.

The respondent argues that his proposal did not deceive the complainant because he had informed her
on all the "steps" to be taken on her behalf. His argument misses the point, which is that he made the
proposal despite its patent illegality in order to take advantage of the complainant's limited legal
knowledge of the regular procedures for the transfer of title under circumstances of intestacy. In other
words, he made her agree to the "direct registration" through deceitful misrepresentation. He then
ignored the written demands from her, which forced her in the end to finally charge him with
disbarment. He thereby abused his being a lawyer to the hilt in order to cause not only his client but also
the public in general to doubt the sincerity of the members of the Law Profession, and consequently
diminish the public's trust and confidence in lawyers in general.

suspended 1 yr

Castaneda v ago

CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN

EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE
INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.Rule
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons,
the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.

Ra 9999
Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Free Legal Assistance Act of 2010".
Section 3. Definition of Terms. - As provided for in this Act, the term legal services to be performed
by a lawyer refers to any activity which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training and experiences which shall include, among others, legal advice and counsel, and the
preparation of instruments and contracts, including appearance before the administrative and quasi-
judicial offices, bodies and tribunals handling cases in court, and other similar services as may be
defined by the Supreme Court.

Section 4. Requirements for Availment. - For purposes of availing of the benefits and services as
envisioned in this Act, a lawyer or professional partnership shall secure a certification from the Public
Attorney's Office (PAO), the Department of Justice (DOJ) or accredited association of the Supreme
Court indicating that the said legal services to be provided are within the services defined by the
Supreme Court, and that the agencies cannot provide the legal services to be provided by the
private counsel.

For purpose of determining the number of hours actually provided by the lawyer and/or professional
firm in the provision of legal services, the association and/or organization duly accredited by the
Supreme Court shall issue the necessary certification that said legal services were actually
undertaken.

The certification issued by, among others, the PAO, the DOJ and other accredited association by the
Supreme Court shall be submitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for purposes of availing
the tax deductions as provided for in this Act and to the DOJ for purposes of monitoring.

Section 5. Incentives to Lawyers. - For purposes of this Act, a lawyer or professional partnerships
rendering actual free legal services, as defined by the Supreme Court, shall be entitled to an
allowable deduction from the gross income, the amount that could have been collected for the actual
free legal services rendered or up to ten percent (10%) of the gross income derived from the actual
performance of the legal profession, whichever is lower: Provided, That the actual free legal services
herein contemplated shall be exclusive of the minimum sixty (60)-hour mandatory legal aid services
rendered to indigent litigants as required under the Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Services for
Practicing Lawyers, under BAR Matter No. 2012, issued by the Supreme Court.

REPUBLIC ACT No. 10389 full

Adelino H. Ledesma v. Hon. Rafael C. Climaco
G.R. No. L- 23815 (June 28, 1974)

Legal Ethics : Definition

Facts:

Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as counsel de parte for an accused in a case pending in the
sala of the respondent judge. On October 13, 1964, Ledesma was appointed Election Registrar
for the Municipality of Cadiz, Negros Occidental. He commenced discharging his duties, and
filed a motion to withdraw from his position as counsel de parte. The respondent Judge
denied him and also appointed him as counsel de oficio for the two defendants. On November
6, Ledesma filed a motion to be allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio, because the Comelec
requires full time service which could prevent him from handling adequately the defense.
Judge denied the motion. So Ledesma instituted this certiorari proceeding.

Issue:

Whether or not the order of the respondent judged in denying the motion of the petitioner is
a grave abuse of discretion?

Holding:

No, Ledesma's withdrawal would be an act showing his lack of fidelity to the duty rqeuired
of the legal profession. He ought to have known that membership in the bar is burdened with
conditions. The legal profession is dedicated to the ideal of service, and is not a mere trade. A
lawyer may be required to act as counsel de oficio to aid in the performance of the
administration of justice. The fact that such services are rendered without pay should not
diminish the lawyer's zeal.

Ratio:

“The only attorneys who cannot practice law by reason of their office are Judges, or other
officials or employees of the superior courts or the office of the solicitor General (Section 32
Rule 127 of the Rules of Court [Section 35 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court]. The lawyer involved not being among them, remained as counsel of record since he
did not file a motion to withdraw as defendant-appellant’s counsel after his appointment as
Register of Deeds. Nor was substitution of attorney asked either by him or by the new counsel
for the defendant-appellant (People vs. Williams CA G.R. Nos. 00375-76, February
28, 1963)
To avoid any frustration thereof, especially in the case of an indigent defendant, a
lawyer may be required to act as counsel de officio (People v. Daban) Moreover, The right of
an accused in a criminal case to be represented by counsel is a constitutional right of the
highest importance, and there can be no fair hearing with due process of law unless he is fully
informed of his rights in this regard and given opportunity to enjoy them (People vs. Holgado,
L-2809, March 22, 1950)
 The trial court in a criminal case has authority to provide the accused with a counsel
de officio for such action as it may deem fit to safeguard the rights of the accused (Provincial
Fiscal of Rizal vs. Judge Muñoz Palma, L-15325, August 31, 1930)