Legal Ethics CASE Digestsss PDF

Preview

Summary

VENANCIO CASTANEDA and NICETAS HENSON, petitioners, vs. PASTOR D. AGO, LOURDES YU AGO and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. G. No. L-28546 July 30, 1975 CASTRO, J. (65 SCRA 505)FACTSIn 1955, the petitioners Venancio Castañeda and Nicetas Henson filed a replevin suit against Pastor Ago in the Court ...

Description

VENANCIO CASTANEDA and NICETAS HENSON, petitioners, vs. PASTOR D. AGO, LOURDES YU AGO and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. G.R. No. L-28546 July 30, 1975 CASTRO, J. (65 SCRA 505) FACTS In 1955, the petitioners Venancio Castañeda and Nicetas Henson filed a replevin suit against Pastor Ago in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover certain machineries (civil case 27251). Ago failed to redeem, and on April 17, 1964 the sheriff executed the final deed of sale in favor of the vendees Castañeda and Henson. Upon their petition, the Court of First Instance of Manila issued a writ of possession to the properties. However, on May 2, 1964 Pastor Ago, now joined by his wife, Lourdes Yu Ago, as his coplaintiff, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City (civil case Q-7986) to annul the sheriff's sale. The Court of First Instance of Quezon City issued an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction restraining the petitioners, the Register of Deeds and the sheriff of Quezon City, from registering the latter's final deed of sale, from cancelling the respondents' certificates of title and issuing new ones to the petitioners and from carrying out any writ of possession. While the battle on the matter of the lifting and restoring of the restraining order was being fought in the Quezon City court, the Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with this Court under date of May 26, 1966. The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it. The Court of Appeals also dismissed the petition. The respondents then appealed to this Court. The Court dismissed the petition in a minute resolution on February 8, 1967. The Ago spouses repaired once more to the Court of Appeals where they filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction. Failing to obtain reconsideration, the petitioners Castañeda and Henson filed the present petition for review of the aforesaid decision. ISSUE Whether or not the respondents Agos, abetted by their lawyer Jose M. Luison, have misused legal remedies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart the satisfaction of the judgment. HELD Yes. Despite the pendency in the trial court of the complaint for the annulment of the sheriff's sale (civil case Q-7986), elementary justice demands that the petitioners, long denied the fruits of their victory in the replevin suit, must now enjoy them, for, the respondents Agos, abetted by their lawyer Jose M. Luison, have misused legal remedies and prostituted the

judicial process to thwart the satisfaction of the judgment, to the extended prejudice of the petitioners. The respondents, with the assistance of counsel, maneuvered for fourteen (14) years to doggedly resist execution of the judgment thru manifold tactics in and from one court to another (5 times in the Supreme Court).

Santiago v Rafanan

FACTS: This is a disbarment case filed by BJMP employee Jonar Santiago against Atty. Edison Rafanan. Santiago, in his complaint, alleged among others that Rafanan, in notarizing several documents on different dates failed and/or refused to: Make the proper notation regarding the cedula or community tax certificate of the affiants (*one making the affidavit);o Enter the details of the notarized documents in the notarial register; Make and execute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in the documents he notarized. Santiago also alleged that Rafanan executed an Affidavit in favor of his client and offered it as evidence (Rafanan stood as counsel and as witness of his client) and Rafanan, as alleged by Santiago, waited for him together with his “men” and disarmed Santiago and uttered insulting words at him. Atty. Rafanan admitted having administered the oath to the affiants whose Affidavits were attached to the Complaint of Santiago. But Rafanan believed that the non-notation of their Residence Certificates in the Affidavits and Counter-Affidavits were allowed because notation of residence certificates applied only to documents acknowledged by a notary public, and was not mandatory for affidavits related to cases pending before courts and other government offices. He also pointed out that older practitioners in Nueva Ecija also do what he did – they do not indicate affiants’ residence certificates on documents they notarized, or have entries in the notarial register for these documents. He also contends that the case filed by Santiago was only to harass Rafanan since he is the counsel of the parties who filed cases against him before the ombudsman (Brgy. Capt. Ernesto Ramos and BJMP)

before them has presented the proper residence certificate (or exemption from ISSUES: 1. Whether or not Rafanan is guilty in violating the Notarial Law. 2. Whether or not a lawyer (in this case, Rafanan) can stand as witness in favor of his clients. RULING: 1. Yes, he violated the Notarial Law for not making the proper notation and entering the details of the notarized documents. he Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of notaries public. And these formalities are mandatory and cannot be simply neglected. They

are required to certify that the party to every document acknowledged before them has presented the proper residence certificate (or exemption from the residence tax); and to enter its number, place of issue and the date as part of such certification. They are also required to keep a notarial register; to enter therein all instruments notarized by them; etc. As to Rafanan’s defense that it’s a common practice in Nueva Ecija, SC says: It is appalling and inexcusable that he did away with the basics of notarial procedure allegedly because others were doing so. Being swayed by the bad example of others is not an acceptable justification for breaking the law. 2. Yes, a lawyer can stand as witness of a client. A lawyer is not disqualified from being a witness, except only in certain cases pertaining to privileged communication arising from an attorney-client relationship. The preference is for lawyers to REFRAIN from testifying as witnesses, unless they absolutely have to; and should they do so, to withdraw from active management of the case. Atty. Rafanan cannot be administratively liable because It’s the duty of the lawyer to assert every remedy and defense that is authorized by law for the benefit of the client.(Remember, there is a criminal case of attempted murder against his client which will deprive his client of his life and liberty, if they fail to display a good defense.)

LINSANGAN V. TOLENTINO Facts: A complaint of disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan, Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients & encroachment of professional services. Linsangan alleges that Tolentino with the help of paralegal Labiano convinced his clients to transfer legal representation by promising financial assistance and expeditious collection of their claims. To induce them, Tolentino allegedly texted and called them persistently. To support his allegation, Linsangan presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail over him to sever his client-atty relationship with Linsangan. Also, he attached “respondent’s calling card”: Front NICOMEDES TOLENTINO LAW OFFFICE CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Fe Marie L. Labiano Paralegal 1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr. Rm. M-01 Tel: 362-7820 6th Ave., cor M.H. Del Pilar Fax: (632) 362-7821 Grace Park, Caloocan City Cel.: (0926) 2701719 Back SERVICES OFFERED: CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT, INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS ABROAD. In his defense, Tolentino denies knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulating of said calling card. Issue:

W/N Atty. Tolentino is guilty of advertising his services Held: Yes. Atty. Tolentino suspended for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. With regard to Canon 3, the practice of law is a profession and not a business. Thus, lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares. To allow lawyers to advertise their talents/skill is a commercialization of the practice of law (degrading the profession in the public’s estimation). With regard to Rule 2.03, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for purpose of gain, either personally or through an agent. In relation to Rule 1.03, which proscribes “ambulance chasing” (involving solicitation personally or through an agent/broker) as a measure to protect community from barratry and champertry. As a final note regarding the calling card presented as evidence by Linsangan, a lawyer’s best advertisement is a well-merited. reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and conduct. For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple professional cards. Professional calling cards may only contain the following details: (a) lawyer’s name; (b) name of the law firm with which he is connected; (c) address; (d) telephone number and (e) special branch of law practiced. Labiano’s calling card contained the phrase “with financial assistance.” The phrase was clearly used to entice clients (who already had representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal actions. Money was dangled to lure clients away from their original lawyers, thereby taking advantage of their financial distress and emotional vulnerability. This crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserves no place in the legal profession.

ATTY. ISMAEL KHAN V. ATTY RIZALINO SIMBILLO

(409 SCRA 299, 2003) FACTS A paid advertisement in the Philippine Daily Inquirer was published which reads: “Annulment of Marriage Specialist [contact number]”. Espeleta, a staff of the Supreme Court, called up the number but it was Mrs. Simbillo who answered. She claims that her husband, Atty. Simbillo was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within 4-6mos provided the case will not involve separation of property and custody of children. It appears that similar advertisements were also published. An administrative complaint was filed which was referred to the IBP for investigation and recommendation. The IBP resolved to suspend Atty. Simbillo for 1year. Note that although the name of Atty. Simbillo did not appear in the advertisement, he admitted the acts imputed against him but argued that he should not be charged. He said that it was time to lift the absolute prohibition against advertisement because the interest of the public isn’t served in any way by the prohibition. ISSUE Whether or not Simbillo violated Rule2.03 & Rule3.01. HELD Yes! The practice of law is not a business --- it is a profession in which the primary duty is public service and money. Gaining livelihood is a secondary consideration while duty to public service and administration of justice should be primary. Lawyers should subordinate their primary interest. Worse, advertising himself as an “annulment of marriage specialist” he erodes and undermines the sanctity of an institution still considered as sacrosanct --- he in fact encourages people otherwise disinclined to dissolve their marriage bond. Solicitation of business is not altogether proscribed but for it to be proper it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. Note that the law list where the lawyer’s name appears must be a reputable law list only for that purpose --- a lawyer may not properly publish in a daily paper, magazine…etc., nor may a lawyer permit his name to be published the contents of which are likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar.

MAURICIO C. ULEP V. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC. (223 SCRA 378, 1993)

FACTS: This is a petition praying for an order to the respondent to cease and desist from issuing certain advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law. The said advertisement of the Legal Clinic invites potential clients to inquire about secret marriage and divorce in Guam and annulment, and the like. It also says that they are giving free books on Guam Divorce. Ulep claims that such advertisements are unethical and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of lawyers. He, being a member of the bar, is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements. On the other hand, the respondent, while admitting of the fact of the publication of the advertisements, claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but is merely rendering legal support services through paralegals. It also contends that such advertisements should be allowed based on certain US cases decided. ISSUE: W/N the Legal Clinic Inc is engaged in the practice of law. W/N the same can properly be the subject of the advertisements complained of. HELD/RATIO: Yes, it constitutes practice of law. No, the ads should be enjoined. Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristic of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give advice or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge or skill. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It includes legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments and contract by which legal rights are secured, although such matter may or may not be pending in a court. When a person participates in a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer, he is in the practice of law. One who confers with clients, advises them as to their legal rights and then takes the business to an attorney and asks the latter to look after the case in court, is also practicing law. Giving advice for compensation regarding the legal status and rights of another and the conduct with respect thereto constitutes a practice of law. The practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and out of court. And applying the criteria, respondent Legal Clinic Inc. is, as advertised, engaged in the “practice of law”. What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers. With its attorneys and so called paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to the client the intricacies of the law and advise him or her on the proper course of action to be taken as may be provided for by said law. That is what its advertisements represent

and for the which services it will consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential definition of "practice of law." The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession advertise his talents or skill as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. The only exceptions are when he appears in a reputable law list and use of an ordinary, simple professional card. The advertisements do not fall under these exceptions. To allow the publication of advertisements of the kind used by respondent would only serve to aggravate what is already a deteriorating public opinion of the legal profession whose integrity has consistently been under attack. Hence, it should be enjoined.

Dacanay vs. Baker & McKenzie [A.C. No. 2131 May 10, 1985] 136 SCRA 349

FACTS: Respondent Vicente A. Torres, using the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie, which contains the names of the ten lawyers, asked a certain Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client. Attorney Dacanay, in his reply dated December 7, 1979, denied any liability of Clurman to Gabriel. He requested that he be informed whether the lawyer of Gabriel is Baker & McKenzie “and if not, what is your purpose in using the letterhead of another law office.” Not having received any reply, he filed the instant complaint. As admitted by the respondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with members and associates in 30 cities around the world. Respondents, aside from being members of the Philippine bar, practicing under the firm name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of Baker & McKenzie ISSUE: Whether or not respondents should enjoin from practising law under the firm name Baker & McKenzie. HELD: YES. Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court). Who may practice law. - Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law. Respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that being associated with the firm they could "render legal services of the highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment" which the Court finds unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practise law here. WHEREFORE, the respondents are enjoined from practising law under the firm name Baker & McKenzie.

PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF THE FIRM NAME “SYCIP, SALAZAR, FELICIANO, HERNANDEZ & CASTILLO.” July 30, 1979 Facts: Petitions were filed by the surviving partners of Atty. Alexander Sycip, who died on May 5, 1975 and by the surviving partners of Atty. Herminio Ozaeta,

who died on February 14, 1976, praying that they be allowed to continue using, in the names of their firms, the names of partners who had passed away. Petitioners contend that the continued use of the name of a deceased or former partner when permissible by local custom, is not unethical but care should be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced through this use. They also contend that no local custom prohibits the continued use of a deceased partner’s name in a professional firm’s name; there is no custom or usage in the Philippines, or at least in the Greater Manila Area, which recognizes that the name of a law firm necessarily identifies the individual members of the firm. Issue: WON the surviving partners may be allowed by the court to retain the name of the partners who already passed away in the name of the firm? NO Held: In the case of Register of Deeds of Manila vs. China Banking Corporation, the SC said: The Court believes that, in view of the personal and confidential nature of the relations between attorney and client, and the high standards demanded in the canons of professional ethics, no practice should be allowed which even in a remote degree could give rise to the possibility of deception. Said attorneys are accordingly advised to drop the names of the deceased partners from their firm name. 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. Another able lawyer, who can join an old firm, can initially ride on that old firm’s reputation established by deceased partners. The court also made the difference from the law firms and business corporations: A partnership for the practice of law is not a legal entity. It is a mere relationship or association for a particular purpose. … It is not a partnership formed for the purpose of carrying on trade or business or of holding property.” Thus, it has been stated that “the use of a nom de plume, assumed or trade name in law practice is improper. We find such proof of the existence of a local custom, and of the elements requisite to constitute the same, wanting herein. 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. Petition suffers legal and ethical impediment.

GENATO V. ATTY SILAPAN Facts: Atty. S...