1

INTRO TO LAW: LEGAL ETHICS What constitute practice of law?

G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991
Legal Profession / Qualifications CAYETANO VS. MONSOD
1. Citizenship – must be Filipino citizen The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1 (1), Article IX-C:
2. Age- at least 21 There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a
3. Resident of the Philippines Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born
4. Educational qualifications – secondary educ. Completed citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their
a. Bachelor’s degree (UNITS IN ENGLISH= 18) appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a
5. Philsat exams passing 45 college degree, and must not have been candidates for any
6. Bachelor of Laws elective position in the immediately preceding -elections.
7. Moral uprightness – no pending case involving moral However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be
turpitude. members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the
8. Bar exam –passed practice of law for at least ten years.
9. Oath / Signing of Attorney’s roll
MODERN CONCEPT: Any activity, in and out of the court,
After admission to the bar (must remain in good and regular which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
standing) requirements: knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the
1. Member IBP practice of law is to perform those acts which are
2. Regular pay IBP dues characteristics of the profession. (Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201
3. Compliant – MCLE SCRA 210)
4. 120 hours / year free legal service
5. Faithfully observe rules and ethics of the profession CLASSICAL CONCEPT: Carrying on the calling of an attorney,
6. Subject to judicial discipline and control. usually for compensation, acting in a representative capacity
Art. III Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial and rendering service to another. (People vs. Villanueva, 14
bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to SCRA 109)
any person by reason of poverty. (120 hours pro-bono)
In the dissenting opinion of Justice Padilla in the case of
Requirement to reassume law practice:
Cayetano vs. Monsod (G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991),
Update IBP dues
the following criteria were enumerated:
PT payments
Complete 36 units MCLE
1. Habituality Practice is more than isolated appearance, for it
Retaking of the lawyer’s oath
consists in frequent or customary action, a succession of acts
of the same kind, a habitual exercise.
Practice of Law = not a right but a privilege
AC 5859
2. Compensation Practice of law
In Maligsa v. Cabanting, we explained that the bar should
--implies that one must have presented himself in the active
maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of
practice and that his professional services are available to the
honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal
public for compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in
profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to
consideration of his services.
the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end a member
of the legal profession should refrain from doing any act
3. Application of law Application of legal principle, practice, or
which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust
procedure which calls for legal knowledge, training and
reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of
experience is within the term “practice of law”.
the legal profession. An attorney may be disbarred or
suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as an
4. Attorney-client- relationship
attorney and counselor, which include statutory grounds
When a lawyer undertakes an activity which requires the
enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
knowledge of law but involves no attorney-client relationship,
such as teaching law or writing law books or articles, he
cannot be said to be engaged in practice of his profession as a
lawyer
 2

DEFINITION OF LEGAL TERMINOLOGIES BARRISTER - a person entitled to practice law as an advocate or

counsel in superior court.
BAR - Refers to the whole body of attorneys and body of judges.
Proctor (England) - Formerly, an attorney in the admiralty and
BENCH - denotes the whole body of counselors, collectively the ecclesiastical courts whose duties and business correspond to those
members of the legal profession. of an attorney at law or solicitor in Chancery.

PRACTICE OF LAW - any activity, in or out of court which requires the TITULO DE ABOGADO - it means not mere possession of the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and academic degree of Bachelor of Laws but membership in the Bar
experience. To engage in the practice of law is to give notice or after due admission thereto, qualifying one for the practice of law.
render any kind of service, which or devise or service requires the
use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill (Cayetano v. Monsod, MORAL TURPITUDE - any thing that is done contrary to justice,
201 SCRA 210). honesty, modesty or good morals.

ATTORNEY-AT-LAW/COUNSEL-AT IMMORAL CONDUCT - that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or

LAW/ATTORNEY/COUNSEL/ABOGADO/ shameless and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of
BOCEROS - that class of persons who are licensed officers of the the good and respectable members of the community (Arciga vs.
courts, empowered to appear prosecute and defend and upon Maniwag, 106 SCRA 591).
whom peculiar duties, responsibilities, and liabilities are developed
by law as a consequence (Cui v. Cui, 120 Phil. 729). GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT - One that is so corrupt and false as
to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be
ATTORNEY IN FACT - an agent whose authority is strictly limited by reprehensible to a high degree; it is a WILLFUL, FLAGRANT or
the instrument appointing him, though he may do things not SHAMELESS ACT which shows a MORAL INDIFFERENCE to the
mentioned in his appointment necessary to the performance of the opinion of respectable members of the community. (Narag vs.
duties specifically required of him by the power of attorney Narag, 1998)
appointing him, such authority being necessarily implied. He is not
necessarily a lawyer. PRO SE - is a Latin phrase meaning "for oneself" or "on one's own
behalf". This status is sometimes known as propria persona
COUNSEL DE OFICIO- a counsel, appointed or assigned by the court, (abbreviated to "pro per"). In England and Wales the comparable
from among members of the Bar in good standing who, by reason of status is that of "litigant in person".
their experience and ability, may adequately defend the accused.
BARRATRY -
ATTORNEY AD HOC - a person named and appointed by the court to is most commonly applied to an attorney who attempts to bring abo
defend an absentee defendant in the suit in which the appointment ut a lawsuit that will be profitable to her or him.
is made (Bienvenu v. Factor’s of Traders Insurance Cp.,
AMBULANCE CHASING - is a professional slur which refers to a
33 La.Ann.209)
lawyer soliciting for clients at a disaster site.
ATTORNEY OF RECORD- one who has filed a notice of appearance
CONTINGENT FEE - the lawyer agrees to accept a fixed percentage
and who hence is formally mentioned in court records as the official
(often one third) of the recovery, which is the amount finally paid to
attorney of the party. Person whom the client has named as his
the client. If you win the case, the lawyer's fee comes out of the
agent upon whom service of papers may be made. (Reynolds v.
money awarded to you.
Reynolds, Cal.2d580).
AMICUS CURAE - The court will invite a lawyer to help shed light in
Of COUNSEL - to distinguish them from attorneys of record,
the case – he is an expert on the field- friend of court
associate attorneys are referred to as “of counsel” (5 Am. Jur. 261).
CHAMPERTOUS CONTRACTS (VOID) - Lawyer stipulates with his
LEAD COUNSEL - The counsel on their side of a litigated action who is
client that in the prosecution of the case, he will bear all the
charged with the principal management and direction of a party’s
expenses for the recovery of things or property being claimed by the
case.
client and the latter agrees to pay the former a portion of the
HOUSE COUNSEL - Lawyer who acts as attorney for business though thing/property recovered as compensation.
carried as an employee of that business and not as an independent
QUANTUM MERUIT - –it means “as much as he deserves”, and is
lawyer.
used as the basis for determining the lawyer’s professional fees in
BAR ASSOCIATION - an association of members of the legal the absence of a contract, but recoverable by him from his client.
profession.

ADVOCATE - The general and popular name for a lawyer who pleads
on behalf of someone else
 3

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY prision correccional in its minimum and medium period. Section
(Promulgated June 21, 1988) 2 of ART. XV states that “Marriage, as an inviolable social
institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected
by the state. Respondent’s grossly immoral conduct runs afoul
CASES: of the constitution and the laws, that he as a lawyer has sworn
to uphold. Hence the court declared Atty. Jose Emmanul M.
JOSELANO GUEVARRA VS. ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL
Eala DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his
EALA
oath of office, and violation of canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7,
A.C. No. 7136 August 1, 2007
Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Facts: On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed

before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar PEDRO LINSANGAN VS ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
Discipline against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli
598 SCRA 133
Eala for grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of
the lawyer’s oath. In the Complaint, Guevarra first met the
In 2005, Atty. Pedro Linsangan filed an administrative complaint
respondent in January 2000 when his then fiancée Irene Moje
against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino alleging that Atty. Tolentino,
introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to
Marianne Tantoco with whom he had three children. through his paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, “pirated” a client of Atty.
Linsangan. Said client later executed an affidavit in support of Atty.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant Linsangan’s allegations.
noticed that from January to March 2001, Irene had been
receiving from respondent Cellphone calls, as well as Atty. Linsangan also questioned the propriety of Labiano’s calling
messages some which read “I love you,” “I miss you,” or “Meet card which appears as follows:
you at Megamall.” He also noticed that Irene habitually went
home very late at night or early in the morning of the following FRONT
day, and sometimes did not go home from work. When he
NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
asked her whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her
LAW OFFICE
parent’s house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES
work. W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Fe Marie L. Labiano
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and Paralegal
Respondent together on two occasions. On the second
occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned
the conjugal house. On April 22, 2001 complainant went BACK
uninvited to Irene’s birthday celebration at which he saw her
and the respondent celebrating with her family and friends. Out SERVICES OFFERED:
of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE
immediately. Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
house and hauled off all her personal belongings. Complainant REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
later found a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2007, the day INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS
of his wedding to Irene, Complainant soon saw respondent’s
ABROAD.
car and that of Irene constantly parked at No. 71-B11 Street,
In his defense, Atty. Tolentino denied knowing Labiano. He also
New Manila where as he was later learn sometime in April
2001, Irene was already residing. He also learned still later that denied authorizing the printing of such calling cards.
when his friends saw Irene on about January 18, 2002 together
ISSUES:
with respondent during a concert, she was pregnant.
1. Whether or not Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino encroached upon the
Issue: Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be
professional services of Atty. Pedro Linsangan.
the reason for the disbarment of Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala.
2. Whether or not Atty. Tolentino is liable for the improper calling
Held: Lawyer’s oath stated that a lawyer should support the
card of Labiano.
Constitution and obey the laws, Meaning he shall not make use
of deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct, grossly
HELD:
immoral conduct, or be convicted in any crime involving moral
turpitude. In the case at bar Atty. Eala was accused of 1. Yes. Atty. Tolentino violated Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional
Concubinage, under ART. 334 of the Revised Penal Code, “ Responsibility. A lawyer should not steal another lawyer’s client nor
Any husband who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal dwelling,
induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good
or, shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous
result or reduced fees for his services. By recruiting Atty. Linsangan’s
circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall
cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by
 4

clients, Atty. Tolentino committed an unethical, predatory overstep marriage was void from the beginning in the absence of the
into another’s legal practice. requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code thus he could not have
abandoned Complainant because they had never lived together as
2. Yes. Atty. Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, and 16.04 of the husband and wife and that when he applied for the 1981 Bar
Code of Professional Responsibility. Although Atty. Tolentino initially examinations, he honestly believed that in the eyes of the law, he
denied knowing Labiano, he admitted he actually knew her later in was single. Issue: Whether or not Respondent lacks of good moral
the proceedings. It is thus clear that Labiano was connected to his character and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
law office. Through Labiano’s actions, Atty. Tolentino’s law practice
was benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer HELD: Yes, Respondents lack of good moral character is only too
representation on the strength of Labiano’s word that Atty. evident. He has resorted to conflicting submissions before this Court
Tolentino could produce a more favorable result. to suit himself. He has also engaged in devious tactics with
Complainant in order to serve his purpose. In so doing, he has
Labiano’s calling card is improper. The card made it appear that the violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
law office will finance legal actions for the clients. The rule is, a provides that "a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
lawyer shall not lend money to a client except, when in the interest court" as well as Rule 1001 thereof which states that "a lawyer
of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he should do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor
is handling for the client. shall he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any artifice."
Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty
The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyer’s independence of mind
from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them. Respondent,
so that the free exercise of his judgment may not be adversely
through his actuations, has been lacking in the candor required of
affected. It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he is
him not only as a member of the Bar but also as an officer of the
handling as well as his entire devotion and fidelity to the client’s
Court. Hence, respondent is subjected to suspension from the
cause. If the lawyer lends money to the client in connection with the
practice of law until further Orders
client’s case, the lawyer in effect acquires an interest in the subject
matter of the case or an additional stake in its outcome. Either of
these circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his own ATTY. ROSALIE DALLONG- GALICINAO VS. ATTY. VIRGIL R. CASTRO
recovery rather than that of his client, or to accept a settlement NOVEMBER 12, 2017
which may take care of his interest in the verdict to the prejudice of
the client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to the client’s FACTS: Atty. Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of RTC and Atty.
cause. Castro was a private practitioner and VP of IBP-Nueva Vizcaya.
Respondent went to complainant’s office to inquire whether the
The phrase in the calling card which states “w/ financial assistance“,
records of Civil Case No. 784 had already been remanded to the
was clearly used to entice clients (who already had representation)
MCTC. Respondent was not the counsel of either party in that case.
to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal
actions. Complainant replied that the record had not yet been transmitted
since a certified true copy of the CA decision should first be
However, since there is no substantial evidence to prove that Atty.
presented. To this respondent retorted, “You mean to say, I would
Tolentino had a personal and direct hand in the printing of said
have to go to Manila to get a copy?” Complainant replied that
calling cards, he cannot be punished with severity. At any rate, for all
respondent may show instead the copy sent to the party he
the infractions Atty. Tolentino committed, he was suspended by the
represents. Respondent then replied that complainant should’ve
Supreme Court for one year.
notified him. Complainant explained that it is not her duty to notify
the respondent of such duty. Angered, respondent yelled stuff in
[CANON 10] LEDA v TABANG
Ilocano and left the office, banging the door so loud. He then
FACTS: Complainant Evangeline Leda and Respondent Atty.
returned to the office and shouted, “Ukinnam nga babai!” (“Vulva of
Trebonian Tabang contracted marriage performed under Article 76
your mother, you woman!”)
of the Civil Code as one of exceptional character. The parties agreed
to keep the fact of marriage a secret until after Respondent had
Later, complainant filed a manifestation that she won’t appear in the
finished his law studies and had taken the Bar examinations,
hearing of the case in view of the respondent’s public apology, and
allegedly to ensure a stable future for them. Complainant admits,
that the latter was forgiven already.
though, that they had not lived together as husband and wife.
Complainant, thereafter, filed a Petition for Disbarment against ISSUE: Did the respondent violated the Code of Professional
respondent alleging, among others, for having misrepresented Responsibility given his actions towards the complainant?
himself as single when in truth he is already married in his
application to take the bar exam and for being not of good moral HELD: Yes, the Respondent violated the Code of Professional
character contrary to the certification he submitted to the Supreme Responsibility.
Court. Respondent averred that he and Complainant had
covenanted not to disclose the marriage for the reason that said Respondent was not the counsel of record of Civil Case No. 784. His
explanation that he will enter his appearance in the case when its
 5

records were already transmitted to the MCTC is unacceptable. Not EDUARDO J. BERENGUER VS. PEDRO B. CARRANZA, 26 SCRA 210
being the counsel of record respondent had no right to impose his
will on the clerk of court. He violated Rule 8.02, because this was an FACTS: Atty. Pedro B. Carranza was filed a complaint against his acts
act of encroachment. It matters not that he did so in good faith. of deception practiced in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon. The
alleged deception was the introduction of an Affidavit of
His act of raising his voice and uttering vulgar incentives to the clerk Adjudication and Transfer of Title subscribed and sworn in Pasay
of court was not only ill-mannered but also unbecoming considering City, which later turned out to be a falsity. Atty. Carranza claimed
that he did these in front of the complainant’s subordinates. For that he took no part in the said falsified document. It was contested
these, he violated Rules 7.03 and 8.01 and Canon 8. that due to the said falsehood, whether or not a lawyer took part
from, must still be held liable for lack of prudence and meticulous
The penalty was tempered because respondent apologized to the
take on the matter, and as it had caused unnecessary delays in the
complainant and the latter accepted it. This is not to say, however,
administration of justice.
that respondent should be absolved from his actuations. People are
accountable for the consequences of the things they say and do
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Carranza should be held responsible of
even if they repent afterwards.
the said falsehood committed in court.
**His explanation that he will enter his appearance in the case when
HELD: YES. Respondent was reprimanded.
its records were already transmitted to the MCTC is unacceptable.
Not being the counsel of record and there being no authorization
RATIO: There was a finding that there was nothing willful in the
from either the parties to represent them, respondent had no right
conduct pursued by the respondent in introducing the document
to impose his will on the clerk of court.
that turned out to be false. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court
reminded that the lawyer’s oath is one impressed with utmost
Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:
seriousness and should not be taken lightly. In its decision to issue
reprimand, the respondent is warned that a more severe penalty will
Rule 8.02A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the
be imposed if the offense of the same character is repeated again.
professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right
of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and
** It was admitted in said report: "If respondent had anything to do
assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful
with the preparation of the Petition or of the Affidavit of
counsel.
Adjudication, his participation does not appear from the evidence
presented in this case. The Petition was subscribed and sworn to in
ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA VS. ATTY. YOLANDO F. BUSMENTE
Pasay City before one Atty. A. Mendoza, while the Affidavit was
A.C. No. 7269 November 23, 2011
subscribed under oath in Pasay before Notary Public Ernesto V.
Ventura. The foregoing documents were posted from Pasay to the
FACTS: Civil Case No. 9284, where Busmente appeared as counsel.
Clerk of Court, Sorsogon....
Another case for falsification was filed against Ulaso where
Busmente also appeared as counsel. Noe-Lacsamana alleged that
one Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa or Atty. Liza Dela Rosa (Dela Rosa)
Attorneys’ Liens – an attorney shall have a lien upon the funds,
would accompany Ulaso in court, projecting herself as Busmentes
documents and papers of his client which have lawfully come into
collaborating counsel. Dela Rosa signed the minutes of the court
his possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and
proceedings in Civil Case No. 9284 nine times from 25 November
disbursements have been paid, and may apply such finds to the
2003 to 8 February 2005. Noe-Lacsamana further alleged that the
satisfaction thereof. He shall also have a lien to the same extent
court orders and notices specified Dela Rosa as Busmentes
upon all judgements for the payment of money, and executions
collaborating counsel. Noe-Lacsamana alleged that upon verification
issued in pursuance of such judgements which he has secured in a
with this Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, she
litigation of his client, from and after the time when he shall have
discovered that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer.
caused a statement of his claim of such lien to be entered upon the
records of the court rendering such judgement, or issuing such
HELD: Hence, we agree with the findings of the IBP-CBD that there
execution, and shall have caused written notice thereof to be
was sufficient evidence to prove that Busmente was guilty of
delivered to his client and to the adverse party; and he shall have
violation of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We
the same right and power over such judgments and executions as his
agree with the recommendation of the IBP, modifying the
client would have to enforce his lien and secure the payment of his
recommendation of the IBP-CBD, that Busmente should be
fees and disbursements. (Sec, 37, Rule 138, RRC)
suspended from the practice of law for six months.
 6

NICASIO I. ALCANTARA V. VICENTE C. PONCE LEGAL ETHICS – is a branch of moral science, which treats of the
545 Phil. 677 Feb 28, 2007 duties which an attorney owes to the court, to the client, to his
colleagues in the profession and to the public as embodied in the
FACTS: In 1997, respondent Vicente C. Ponce filed a string of Constitution, Rules of Court, the Code of Professional Responsibility,
criminal complaints against petitioner Nicasio I. Alcantara and his Canons of Professional Ethics, jurisprudence, moral laws and special
family, hereafter the Alcantaras, including one for estafa against laws.
petitioner in the Makati Prosecutor's Office
Original Bases of Legal Ethics:
On December 3, 1997, petitioner filed a complaint for libel against  Canons of Professional Ethics
respondent Ponce with the Makati Prosecutor's Office[6] in  Supreme court Decisions
connection with the aforesaid newsletter. He claimed that: (1) the  Statistics
statements therein were defamatory; (2) respondent had circulated  Constitution
it in the Makati Prosecutor's Office and (3) the newsletter could not  Treatises and publications
be considered an annex to the sur-rejoinder because respondent
had not attached it to the said affidavit but had given it thereafter.

The preliminary investigation was conducted by City Prosecutor Rule 20.04 – A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients
Imelda P. Saulog. On March 17, 1998, Prosecutor Saulog issued a concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only
resolution[7] finding probable cause for libel and recommending the to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.
filing of an information[8] in court. Thereafter, the case was filed
with the Regional Trial Court of Makati and raffled to Judge Tranquil  Unauthorized counsel: Not entitled to attorney’s fees.
Salvador of Branch  Stipulation regarding payments of attorney’s fees is not
illegal/immoral and is enforceable as the law between the
ISSUE: whether or not the controversial newsletter constituted parties provided such stipulation does not contravene law,
privileged communication, which would exempt it from libel good morals, etc.
 When counsel cannot recover full amount despite written
HELD: It is a settled principle in this jurisdiction that statements contract for attorneys’ fees:
made in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged. 1. When he withdraws before the case is finished
This absolute privilege remains regardless of the defamatory tenor 2. justified dismissal of attorney (payment: in quantum meruit
and the presence of malice if the same are relevant, pertinent or only)
material to the cause in hand or subject of the inquiry. The lone
requirement imposed to maintain the cloak of absolute privilege is  The reason for the award of attorney’s fees must be stated in
the test of relevancy. the text of the decision; otherwise, if it is stated only in the
dispositive portion of the decision, the same must be
It is hornbook learning that the actions and utterances in judicial disallowed on appeal.
proceedings so far as the actual participants therein are concerned
 Even though the interest or property involved is of
and preliminary steps leading to judicial action of an official nature
considerable value, if the legal services rendered do not call
have been given absolute privilege. Of particular interest are
for much efforts there is no justification for the award of high
proceedings leading up to prosecutions or attempted prosecutions
fees.
for crime xxx [A] written charge or information filed with the
prosecutor or the court is not libelous although proved to be false
Champertous Contracts (void) – Lawyer stipulates with his client
and unfounded. Furthermore, the information given to a prosecutor
that in the prosecution of the case, he will bear all the expenses for
by a private person for the purpose of initiating a prosecution is
the recovery of things or property being claimed by the client and
protected by the same cloak of immunity and cannot be used as a
the latter agrees to pay the former a portion of the thing/property
basis for an action for defamation. (Emphasis ours)
recovered as compensation.
Compensation to an attorney for merely recommending another
lawyer is improper (agents)
Attorney’s fees for legal services shared or divided to non-lawyer is
prohibited. Division of fees is only for division of service or
responsibility.
A lawyer should try to settle amicably any differences on the subject.
A lawyer has 2 options. Judicial action to recover attorney’s fees:
1. In same case: Enforce attorney’s fees by filing an
appropriate motion or petition as an incident to the main
action where he rendered legal services.
2. In a separate civil action.
 7

FOUR PARAGRAPH
Kinds of Retainer Agreements on Attorney’s fees: WAY TO ANSWER BAR
ÉSSAY QUESTIONS
General Retainer or Retaining Fee – it is the fee paid to a lawyer to
secure his future services as general counsel for any ordinary legal
problem that may arise in the ordinary business of the client and Q: Atty. Yabang was suspended as a member of the Bar for the
referred to him for legal action; period of one year. During the period of suspension, he was
permitted by his law firm to continue working in their office, drafting
Special Retainer – that is a fee for a specific case or service rendered and preparing pleadings and other legal documents, but was not
by the lawyer for a client allowed to direct contact with firm’s clients. Atty. Yabang was
subsequently sued for illegal practice of law. Would the case
Quantum Meruit –it means “as much as he deserves”, and is used as prosper? (5Points)
the basis for determining the lawyer’s professional fees in the
absence of a contract, but recoverable by him from his client. A:
Quantum Meruit is resorted to where: 1. Yes, I maintain the affirmative stand, that the case may
1. there is no express contract for payment of attorney’s fees prosper.
agreed upon between the lawyer and the client;
2. when although there is a formal contract for attorney’s fees, 2. In the leading case, Cayatano v. Monsod, the practice of
the stipulated fees are found unconscionable or unreasonable law has departed from the restrictive, traditional and
by the court. exclusive definition to a more liberal one. The Supreme
3. When the contract for attorney’s fees is void due to purely Court has enunciated, that the practice of law is
formal matters or defects of execution considered now as, any activity in and out of court, as long
4. When the counsel, for justifiable cause, was not able to finish as the application of the knowledge of law is present.
the case to its conclusion
5. When lawyer and client disregard the contract for attorney’s 3. In the instant case, the drafting and preparation of legal
fees. documents by Atty. Yabang is well within the definition of
Skill: length of practice is not a safe criterion of professional ability. what constitute practice of law. Which is violative of the
observance of the suspension imposed by the highest
tribunal.

4. Therefore, the case against Atty. Yabang for illegal practice

of law may prosper.

1st Paragraph – Positive/Negative/Qualified Answer

2nd Paragraph – Applicable Law/Jurisprudence
3rd Paragraph – Correlation of the Law/Jurisprudence with the
Facts of the Case
4th Paragraph – Conclusion (this may be part of the 3rd Paragraph)

ANSWERING IN THE POSITIVE

1. The petition is meritorious.
2. The contention has legal basis.
3. The case will prosper.
4. The argument is proper.
5. The provision is perfectly applicable.
6. The action is tenable.
7. The motion should be granted.
8. The Judge is correct.
9. The petition is impressed with merit.
10. Yes. It is a (i.e. patent violation) of the
11. There is merit in the petition.
12. The petitioner’s contention is sustainable.

ANSWERING IN THE NEGATIVE

1. The decision is not in accord with law and jurisprudence.
2. The decision is erroneous.
 8

3. The contention is totally misplaced. REASON BEHIND THE LAW/CONCEPT/PRINCIPLE

4. The doctrine of….. does not apply in this case. 1. The purpose of the law is…
5. The petition is not meritorious. 2. The law is designed to…
6. The evidence presented deserves scant consideration. 3. It is intended to shield …
7. The contention has no legal basis. 4. It is primarily aimed at protecting ____________ from
8. The argument is bereft of merit. unwarranted ____
9. The petition is devoid of merit. 5. The rationale behind the law is…
6. The spirit of the law is to the effect that…
ANSWER THAT REQUIRES QUALIFICATION
(But if the facts are complete in itself, do not attempt to add facts or CONCLUDING WORDS
assume anything.) 1. From the gamut of evidence on hand, it can be
1. We must distinguish. If… (or As far as the __________ is gathered/deduced that,…
concerned) 2. Taken all together,…
2. It depends. If…(or As far as the __________ is concerned) 3. Finally, …
3. The question requires a qualified answer. If… 4. Hence, …
4. I will qualify. If… 5. Therefore, …
5. On the assumption that… 6. From the foregoing, it can be deduced that there is really
6. My answer must be qualified. (i.e. a violation of…)
7. From the foregoing, it is now safe to conclude that….
CITING LAW PROVISIONS 8. Lastly, …
1. No less than the (i.e. 1987 Constitution) provides for the… 9. Consequently,…
2. The (i.e. Rules of Court) substantially provides in part
that… DISTINCTION
3. Under the broad principles of (i.e. due process clause)… When being asked to distinguish, do not state its definition. If you
4. Under the all-encompassing doctrine of (i.e. give its definition, you are in effect asking the examiner to extract
incontestability clause)… out the differences of the two [or more] from your definition. Do not
5. Under the law… also give their similarities. You are asked to differentiate and
6. According to the (i.e. Family Code)… contrast, so similarities are not included. The number of distinctions
7. The law is explicit on the matter. you will give must also be proportionate on the points allotted for
8. The law explicitly expresses in part that… such. If it is only worth two points, do not give 8 distinctions. The
9. By express provision of law,… examiner cannot give you 8 points for that. For a two point
distinction question, perhaps, three would be enough (four is not
QUOTING SUPREME COURT DECISIONS too much).
1. The Supreme Court in one case, had the occasion to rule
that… Time Management:
2. In a long-line of cases decided by the Supreme Court, it has Scan the examination and note the percentage points assigned per
always been (consistently) held that… question.
3. In a litany of cases decided by the Supreme Court, Responsibe- complete-short- legible – ¾ page- 1 page
4. In a long-string of cases decided by the highest court of the Answer the 3 first questions the best you could.
land, Then answer the questions wherein substantial points were
5. According to several cases decided by the Supreme assigned.
Court,… In skipping questions, allot a page (space) sufficient to answer, when
6. In a series of cases decided by the Supreme Court, you get back on it.

EMPHASIZING CASE DOCTRINES / JURISPRUDENCE Bar secret untold: 2006

1. It is hornbook doctrine in (i.e. Civil Law) that… Malimban said his real secret was answering straight to the point. "I
2. Immortal is the rule that… omitted unnecessary words that did not mean anything at all to
3. Well settled is the rule… merit a score."
4. Well entrenched is the principle that.. He tried to answer each question in one page. "That was what our
5. Elementary is the rule that.. reviewers told us."
6. The cardinal rule in (i.e. labor law) is that He attributed this technique to Agranzamendez, who emphasized
7. It is a familiar canon in (i.e. political law) that during their review classes to go straight to the legal basis.
8. By well settled public law…
9. Basic is the rule in (i.e. Criminal Law)…
 9

Legal ethics 1998 bar:

Question V
A Lawyer advertised in the newspaper in the newspaper the
following: “Can secure annulment of your marriage promptly.
Expert in legal separation cases. Consult anytime.”
Is the advertisement proper?

VII.
No. The advertisement is not proper.
As provided for under the canons of professional responsibility and
as a well-settled rule, advertising and solicitation are generally
prohibited. This is so because the practice of law is not a business.
It is a profession where utmost public interest is involved.

All members admitted to the profession are equally competent and

are charged with the duty of serving the public in the administration
of justice.

____
No. the advertisement is devoid of propriety.

Under the code of professional responsibility, it is explicitly

admonished, that a member of the bar must not engaged in any self
laudatory pronouncements in relation to his profession.

In the instant case, the advertisement is intended to solicit business,

the self laudatory statements is akin to selling and promoting one’s
ware, the legal profession is not a money making activity, it is in
viewed with social responsibility.

Hence, the advertisement is all dolled up with impropriety.