Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANC G.R. No. L-23959 November 29, 1971PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), ENRIQUE ENTILA & VICTORIANO TENAZASpetitioners, vs.BINALBAGAN ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, & QUINTIN MUNINGrespondents.Cipriano Cid & Associates for petitioners.Ceferino Magat and Manuel C. Gonzales for respondent Quintin Muning. REYES, J.B.L., J.:May a non-lawyer recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered? This is the issue presented in this petition for review of an order, dated 12 May 1964, and the en banc resolution, dated 8 December 1964, of the Court of Industrial Relations, in its Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo, granting respondent Quintin Muning a non-lawyer, attorney's fees for professional services in the said case.The above-named petitioners were complainants in Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo entitled, "PAFLU et al. vs. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co., et al." After trial, the Court of Industrial Relations rendered a decision, on 29 March 1961, ordering the reinstatement with backwages of complainants Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenazas. Said decision became final. On 18 October 1963, Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of record for the winning complainants, filed a notice of attorney's lien equivalent to 30% of the total backwages. On 22 November 1963, Atty. Atanacio Pacis also filed a similar notice for a reasonable amount. Complainants Entila and Tenazas on 3 December 1963, filed a manifestation indicating their non-objection to an award of attorney's fees for 25% of their backwages, and, on the same day, Quentin Muning filed a "Petition for the Award of Services Rendered" equivalent to 20% of the backwages. Munings petition was opposed by Cipriano Cid & Associates the ground that he is not a lawyer.The records of Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo show that the charge was filed by Cipriano Cid & Associates through Atty. Atanacio Pacis. All the hearings were held in Bacolod City and appearances made in behalf of the complainants were at first by Attorney Pacis and subsequently by respondent Quintin Muning.On 12 May 1964, the Court of Industrial Relations awarded 25% of the backwages as compensation for professional services rendered in the case, apportioned as follows:Attys. Cipriano Cid & Associates ............................................. 10%Quintin Muning ......................................................................... 10%Atty. Atanacio Pacis ................................................................. 5%The award of 10% to Quintin Muning who is not a lawyer according to the order, is sought to be voided in the present petition.Respondent Muning moved in this Court to dismiss the present petition on the ground of late filing but his motion was overruled on 20 January 1965. 1 He asked for reconsideration, but, considering that the motion contained averments that go into the merits of the case, this Court admitted and considered the motion for reconsideration for all purposes as respondent's answer to the petitioner for review. 2 The case was considered submitted for decision without respondent's brief. 3

Applicable to the issue at hand is the principle enunciated in Amalgamated Laborers' Association, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., L-23467, 27 March 1968, 4 that an agreement providing for the division of attorney's fees, whereby a non-lawyer union president is allowed to share in said fees with

lawyers, is condemned by Canon 34 of Legal Ethics and is immoral and cannot be justified. An award by a court of attorney's fees is no less immoral in the absence of a contract, as in the present case.The provision in Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 875 that —In the proceeding before the Court or Hearing Examiner thereof, the parties shall not be required to be represented by legal counsel ...is no justification for a ruling, that the person representing the party-litigant in the Court of Industrial Relations, even if he is not a lawyer, is entitled to attorney's fees: for the same section adds that —it shall be the duty and obligation of the Court or Hearing Officer to examine and cross examine witnesses on behalf of the parties and to assist in the orderly presentation of evidence.thus making it clear that the representation should be exclusively entrusted to duly qualified members of the bar.The permission for a non-member of the bar to represent or appear or defend in the said court on behalf of a party-litigant does not by itself entitle the representative to compensation for such representation. For Section 24, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court, providing —Sec. 24. Compensation of attorney's agreement as to fees. — An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services, ...imports the existence of an attorney-client relationship as a condition to the recovery of attorney's fees. Such a relationship cannot exist unless the client's representative in court be a lawyer. Since respondent Muning is not one, he cannot establish an attorney-client relationship with Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenezas or with PAFLU, and he cannot, therefore, recover attorney's fees. Certainly public policy demands that legal work in representation of parties litigant should be entrusted only to those possessing tested qualifications and who are sworn, to observe the rules and the ethics of the profession, as well as being subject to judicial disciplinary control for the protection of courts, clients and the public.On the present issue, the rule in American jurisdictions is persuasive. There, it is stated:But in practically all jurisdictions statutes have now been enacted prohibiting persons not licensed or admitted to the bar from practising law, and under statutes of this kind, the great weight of authority is to the effect that compensation for legal services cannot be recovered by one who has not been admitted to practice before the court or in the jurisdiction the services were rendered. 5

No one is entitled to recover compensation for services as an attorney at law unless he has been duly admitted to practice ... and is an attorney in good standing at the time. 6

The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession should not be violated; 7 that acting as an attorney with authority constitutes contempt of court, which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both, 8 and the law will not assist a person to reap the fruits or benefit of an act or an act done in violation of law; 9 and that if were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the public in hopeless confusion as to whom to consult in case of necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic condition, aside from the fact that non-lawyers are not amenable to disciplinary measures. 10

And the general rule above-stated (referring to non-recovery of attorney's fees by non-lawyers) cannot be circumvented when the services were purely legal, by seeking to recover as an "agent" and not as an attorney.11

The weight of the reasons heretofore stated why a non-lawyer may not be awarded attorney's fees should suffice to refute the possible argument that appearances by non-lawyers before the Court of Industrial Relations should be excepted on the ground that said court is a court of special jurisdiction; such special jurisdiction does not weigh the aforesaid reasons and cannot justify an exception.

The other issue in this case is whether or not a union may appeal an award of attorney's fees which are deductible from the backpay of some of its members. This issue arose because it was the union PAFLU, alone, that moved for an extension of time to file the present petition for review; union members Entila and Tenazas did not ask for extension but they were included as petitioners in the present petition that was subsequently filed, it being contended that, as to them (Entila and Tenazas), their inclusion in the petition as co-petitioners was belated.We hold that a union or legitimate labor organization may appeal an award of attorney's fees which are deductible from the backpay of its members because such union or labor organization is permitted to institute an action in the industrial court, 12 on behalf of its members; and the union was organized "for the promotion of the emloyees' moral, social and economic well-being"; 13 hence, if an award is disadvantageous to its members, the union may prosecute an appeal as an aggrieved party, under Section 6, Republic Act 875, which provides:Sec. 6. Unfair Labor Practice cases — Appeals. — Any person aggrieved by any order of the Court may appeal to the Supreme Court of the Philippines ...,since more often than not the individual unionist is not in a position to bear the financial burden of litigations.Petitioners allege that respondent Muning is engaged in the habitual practice of law before the Court of Industrial Relations, and many of them like him who are not licensed to practice, registering their appearances as "representatives" and appearing daily before the said court. If true, this is a serious situation demanding corrective action that respondent court should actively pursue and enforce by positive action to that purpose. But since this matter was not brought in issue before the court a quo, it may not be taken up in the present case. Petitioners, however, may file proper action against the persons alleged to be illegally engaged in the practice of law.WHEREFORE, the orders under review are hereby set aside insofar as they awarded 10% of the backwages as attorney's fees for respondent Quintin Muning. Said orders are affirmed in all other respects. Costs against respondent Muning.Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ. concur.  Footnotes1 Rollo, page 37.2 Rollo, page 62.3 Rollo, page 75.4 22 SCRA, 1266.5 4 A.L.R. 1088, Editorial note.6 7 C.J.S 1022.7 See also, Foundation Finance Co. vs. Robins, 153 So. 833 179 La. 259, reversing (App) 149 So. 166.8 Rule 71, Rules of Court.9 Harris v. Clark, 142 N.E. 881, 81 Ind. App. 494.10 Harriman v. Straham, 33 P. 2d 1067, 47 Wyo. 208.11 4 A.L.R. 1089.12 NLU v. Dinglasan, L-7945, 23 March 1956, 52 O.G. No. 4, 1933.13 Section 1(a), Republic Act 875.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. 71169 August 30, 1989JOSE D. SANGALANG and LUTGARDA D. SANGALANG, petitioners, FELIX C. GASTON and DOLORES R. GASTON, JOSE V. BRIONES and ALICIA R. BRIONES, and BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC.,intervenors-petitioners, vs.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and AYALA CORPORATION, respondents.G.R. No. 74376 August 30, 1989BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner, vs.THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ROSARIO DE JESUS TENORIO, and CECILIA GONZALEZ,respondents.G.R. No. 76394 August 30, 1989BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner, vs.THE COURT OF APPEAL and EDUARDO and BUENA ROMUALDEZ respondents.G.R. No. 78182 August 30, 1989BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, DOLORES FILLEY and J. ROMERO & ASSOCIATES, respondents.G.R. No. 82281 August 30, 1989BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, VIOLETA MONCAL, and MAJAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.RESOLUTION SARMIENTO, J.:The incident before the Court refers to charges for contempt against Atty. J. Cezar Sangco, counsel for the petitioners Spouses Jose and Lutgarda Sangalang. (G.R. No. 71169.)On February 2, 1989, the Court issued a Resolution, requiring, among other things, Atty. Sangco to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt "for using intemperate and accusatory language." 1 On March 2, 1989, Atty. Sangco filed an explanation.The Court finds Atty. Sangco's remarks in his motion for reconsideration, reproduced as follows:. . .This Decision of this Court in the above-entitled case reads more like a Brief for Ayala ... 2

... [t]he Court not only put to serious question its own integrity and competence but also jeopardized its own campaign against graft and corruption undeniably pervading the judiciary ... 3

...The blatant disregard of controlling, documented and admitted facts not put in issue, such as those summarily ignored in this case; the extraordinary efforts exerted to justify such arbitrariness and the very strained and unwarranted conclusions drawn therefrom, are unparalleled in the history of this Court ... 4

...

... [T]o ignore the fact that Jupiter Street was originally constructed for the exclusive benefit of the residents of Bel- Air Village, or rule that respondent Court's admission of said fact is "inaccurate," as Ayala's Counsel himself would like to do but did not even contend, is a manifestation of this Court's unusual partiality to Ayala and puts to serious question its integrity on that account. 5

...[i]t is submitted that this ruling is the most serious reflection on the Court's competence and integrity and exemplifies its manifest partiality towards Ayala. It is a blatant disregard of documented and incontrovertible and uncontroverted factual findings of the trial court fully supported by the records and the true significance of those facts which both the respondent court and this Court did not bother to read and consequently did not consider and discuss, least of all in the manner it did with respect to those in which it arrived at conclusions favorable to Ayala. 6

To totally disregard Ayala's written letter of application for special membership in BAVA which clearly state that such membership is necessary because it is a new development in their relationship with respect to its intention to give its commercial lot buyers an

equal right to the use of Jupiter Street without giving any reason therefor, smacks of judicial arrogance ... 7

...

... [A]re all these unusual exercise of such arbitrariness above suspicion? Will the current campaign of this Court against graft and corruption in the judiciary be enhanced by such broad discretionary power of courts? 8

disparaging, intemperate, and uncalled for. His suggestions that the Court might have been guilty of graft and corruption in acting on these cases are not only unbecoming, but comes, as well, as an open assault upon the Court's honor and integrity. In rendering its judgment, the Court yielded to the records before it, and to the records alone, and not to outside influences, much less, the influence of any of the parties. Atty. Sangco, as a former judge of an inferior court, should know better that in any litigation, one party prevails, but his success will not justify indictments of bribery by the other party. He should be aware that because of his accusations, he has done an enormous disservice to the integrity of the highest tribunal and to the stability of the administration of justice in general.As a former judge, Atty. Sangco also has to be aware that we are not bound by the findings of the trial court (in which his clients prevailed).lâwphî1.ñèt But if we did not agree with the findings of the court a quo, it does not follow that we had acted arbitrarily because, precisely, it is the office of an appeal to review the findings of the inferior court.To be sure, Atty. Sangco is entitled to his opinion, but not to a license to insult the Court with derogatory statements and recourses to argumenta ad hominem. In that event, it is the Court's duty "to act to preserve the honor and dignity ... and to safeguard the morals and ethics of the legal profession." 9

We are not satisfied with his explanation that he was merely defending the interests of his clients. As we held in Laureta, a lawyer's "first duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice; to that end, his client's success is wholly subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics." 10 And while a lawyer must advocate his client's cause in utmost earnest and with the maximum skill he can marshal, he is not at liberty to resort to arrogance, intimidation, and innuendo.That "[t]he questions propounded were not meant or intended to accuse but to ... challenge the thinking in the Decision, 11comes as an eleventh-hour effort to cleanse what is in fact and plainly, an unfounded accusation. Certainly, it is the prerogative of an unsuccessful party to ask for reconsideration, but as we held in Laureta, litigants should not "'think that they will win a hearing by the sheer multiplication of words' ". 12 As we indicated (see Decision denying the motions for reconsideration in G.R. Nos. 71169, 74376, 76394, 78182, and 82281, and deciding G.R. No. 60727, dated August 25, 1989), the movants have raised no new arguments to warrant reconsideration and they can not veil that fact with inflammatory language.Atty. Sangco himself admits that "[a]s a judge I have learned to live with and accept with grace criticisms of my decisions".13 Apparently, he does not practice what he preaches. Of course, the Court is not unreceptive to comment and critique of its decisions, but provided they are fair and dignified. Atty. Sangco has transcended the limits of fair comment for which he deserves this Court's rebuke.In our "show-cause" Resolution, we sought to hold Atty. Sangco in contempt, specifically, for resort to insulting language amounting to disrespect toward the Court within the meaning of Section 1, of Rule 71, of the Rules of Court. Clearly, however, his act also constitutes malpractice as the term is defined by Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as follows:CANON 11-A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL

OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.Rule 11.01...Rule 11.02...Rule 11.03-A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.Rule 11.04-A lawyer should not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.Rule 11.05...Thus, aside from contempt, Atty. Sangco faces punishment for professional misconduct or malpractice.WHEREFORE Atty. J. Cezar Sangco is (1) SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months effective from receipt hereof, and (2) ORDERED to pay a fine of P 500.00 payable from receipt hereof. Let a copy of this Resolution be entered in his record.IT IS SO ORDERED.Fernan, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Cortes, Griñ;o-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.Narvasa, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., took no part. Footnotes1 Rollo, G.R. No. 71169, 410.2 Id., 387.3 Id.4 Id., 388.5 Id.6 Id., 394.7 Id., 407.8 Id., 408.9 In Re: Wenceslao Laureta, March 12,1987,148 SCRA 382,400.10 Supra, 422.11 Rollo, Id., 416.12 In Re: Laureta, supra, 402.13 Rollo Id., 417.[G.R. No. 126337.  February 12, 1998]

FELIX P. UY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and ARTURO T. MILLANA, respondent.D E C I S I O NMARTINEZ, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Engineer Felix P. Uy from the decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 10, l996[1] which affirmed the decision of the Civil Service Commission.[2]

The facts which gave rise to the instant petition are as follows:On September 27, l982, petitioner was promoted by then Governor Valentina G. Plaza as Supervising Mechanical Engineer, Equipment Pool Division, Provincial Engineering Office of Agusan del Sur.[3]

On February 26, l988, then Governor Ceferino Paredes, issued Administrative Order No. 88-01 scaling down the operations of the Provincial Engineering Office (PEO for brevity) by reducing the number of its personnel. Sixty-two employees of the PEO, including petitioner were affected by this order.On May 11, l988, petitioner received his notice of termination effective on May 16, l988 signed by Governor Ceferino Paredes.[4] However, private respondent who holds the position of Mechanical Engineer[5] (a position two (2) steps below that of petitioner) was retained by Governor Paredes.Thereafter, petitioner and the sixty-one (61) other dismissed employees,  filed a complaint/ petition before the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB for brevity), Civil Service Commission, assailing the legality of their termination from office.While the petition was pending before the MSPB, Governor Paredes reorganized the Equipment Pool Division, PEO and

renamed the same as Motor Pool Division, PEO. He abolished the position of Supervising Mechanical Engineer and upgraded instead the next ranking position, Senior Mechanical Engineer as the Chief of Division.[6] Thereafter, he appointed private respondent to the said position while designating another, Engineer Carlito Capol,  to the position of Mechanical Engineer left vacant by private respondent.[7]

On July 1, l989, Republic Act 6758, otherwise known as the Salary Standardization Law (SSL for brevity) took effect. The positions at the PEO, Motor Pool Division were reclassified: the Chief, Motor Pool Division was designated as Head Mechanical Engineer with the equivalent rank of Engineer IV; Supervising Mechanical Engineer (previously abolished by Governor Paredes) as Engineer III; and Senior Mechanical Engineer as  Engineer  II.  Private  respondent being the current Chief,  Motor Pool Division, was designated by Governor Paredes to the position of Head Mechanical Engineer. On January  29,  l993,  the  Merit  System  Protection  Board, Civil Service Commission, rendered its decision in MSPB Case No. 91-1739 declaring petitioner’s termination from the service including that of the other employees assigned with the PEO illegal. The dispositive portion thereof reads, to wit;“WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the board finds the petition of Emmie Hurbada, et al., meritorious. Accordingly, the Petitioners who were illegally separated are hereby ordered reinstated.”[8]

On May 24, l993, the petitioners in MSPB Case No. 91-1739 filed a motion praying for the Board  to issue an order directing the Provincial Governor of Agusan del Sur ( who was then Governor Democrito Plaza) to reinstate petitioners in the service and to declare invalid the appointments of personnel who were then appointed by Governor Paredes in their respective positions.[9]

On June 24, l993, the MSPB issued an order directing the Provincial Governor of Agusan del Sur to immediately implement the subject decision in the interest of justice.[10]

On August 27, l993, Governor Plaza issued Memorandum Order No. 028-92 reinstating petitioner to the Provincial Engineering Office, Motor Pool Division as Engineer IV while revoking that of private respondent.  On September 1, l993, petitioner’s appointment as Engineer IV was issued by the said governor.[11]

For failure of Governor Plaza to reinstate the rest of the petitioners despite the issuance of several orders by MSPB, the case was elevated to the Civil Service Commission (CSC for brevity).[12]

On March 21, l994, the CSC issued  Resolution No. 94-1567 declaring MSPB order dated January 29, l993 final and executory and formally charging Governor Plaza with indirect contempt pursuant to the provisions of the l987 Administrative Code for continued refusal to reinstate the other petitioners in MSPB case No. 91-1739.[13]

Private respondent raised the legality of the order of Governor Plaza terminating his services as Engineer IV, Motor Pool Division before the CSC.  On March 21, 1995, the CSC issued Resolution No. 95-2104, the dispositive portion of which reads, to wit:“WHEREFORE, the appeal of Arturo Millana is hereby granted.  Accordingly, the Provincial Government of Agusan del Sur is directed to cause the reinstatement of Arturo J. Millana to the position of Engineer IV.  He is entitled to the payment of back salaries and other benefits for the period that he had been out of the service. Felix P. Uy should be reinstated  to a position comparable with that which he was holding at the time of his illegal termination.”[14]

Governor Plaza and petitioner herein filed their separate motions for reconsideration[15] but the same were denied by the CSC in its Resolution No. 955591 dated September 5, l995, the dispositive portion of which reads, to wit:“WHEREFORE, the instant Motions for Reconsideration of Governor Democrito O. Plaza and Engineer Felix P. Uy are hereby dismissed.  Accordingly, CSC Resolution No. 95-2104 dated 21

March 1995 stands and the Provincial Government of Agusan del Sur is directed to implement the same immediately."[16]

On November 17, l995, petitioner filed a petition for review before the respondent court assigning two errors committed by the respondent CSC:[17]

(l) that public respondent erred in ruling as improper his reinstatement as Engineer IV in the provincial engineering office of the province of Agusan del Sur and by directing that he be reinstated to a position comparable with that he was holding at the time of his dismissal;(2) that public respondent erred and failed to appreciate the fact that his former Supervising Mechanical Engineer position which was abolished and replaced with a Senior Mechanical Engineer and later classified as Engineer IV pursuant to RA 6758 are the same and similar positions provided for in the plantilla of personnel, Provincial Engineering Office, province of Agusan del Sur.On July 10, l996, the respondent court rendered its decision denying the petition for lack of merit.[18] It ruled that petitioner did not question the qualification of Millana to the contested position and that the position of private respondent at the time of his termination, Engineer IV, could not be that which was previously occupied by the petitioner, which was Supervising Mechanical Engineer or Engineer III.  The respondent court further stressed that an appointment whether to a vacancy or to a newly created position is essentially within the discretionary power of whomsoever it is vested.  A copy of the said decision was received by petitioner’s counsel on July 17, l996.On July 26, l996, petitioner’s counsel filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the respondent court in its Resolution dated August 7, l996.  The order likewise declared the finality of the  decision of the respondent court.On August 20, l996, petitioner’s counsel filed his motion for reconsideration[19] which was later denied by the respondent court  in its Resolution dated September 4, l996.[20]

Hence, this petition.Petitioner reiterated the assigned errors in his petition for

review before the respondent court in addition to the claim  that the said court erred in applying the rulings of this Court in Panis vs.CSC, 229 SCRA 509(1994); Mendilla vs. CSC; Central Bank vs. CSC; Rimonte vs. CSC, and Lapinid vs. CSC.

Public respondent, on the other hand, maintains that the issue left for this court to consider is whether or nor petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was filed before the Court of Appeals within the reglementary period.  It argued that the respondent court acted correctly in denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration for having been filed out of time, citing the rulings of this court in Habaluyas Enterprises v. Japzon; Lacsamana v. Second Special Cases Division of the Intermediate Appellate Court; Rolloque v. Court of Appeals; and Caltex (Phil), Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court.  It also added that the respondent court acted correctly in upholding the CSC’c ruling that petitioner may not be reinstated to the new position of Engineer IV at the expense of Millana who enjoys the status of a permanent employee and is entitled to security of tenure.

We find for the respondent.The failure of a party to perfect his appeal in the manner and

within the period fixed by law renders the decision sought to be appealed final, with the result that no court can exercise appellate jurisdiction to review the decision.  For it is more important that a case be settled than it be settled right.  It is only in exceptional cases when we have allowed a relaxation of the rules governing the periods of appeal.[21]

A careful perusal of this case reveals that the decision of the respondent court had become final and executory due to the failure of petitioner to file his motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period. Since petitioner’s counsel received a copy of

the decision on July 17, l996, the aforesaid motion should have been filed  not later than August 1, l996. Petitioner’s filing of a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration on July 26, l996 and the motion for reconsideration only on August 20, l996, was a procedural lapse fatal to his cause.

Not only was the said motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration declared prohibited by several rulings of this Court but the Interim Rules of the respondent court likewise provides that the period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible.[22] The denial of aforesaid motions by the respondent court is therefore correct. In fact, the filing of said motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration did not suspend/toll the running of the reglementary period which in effect renders the assailed decision final and beyond the jurisdiction of this court

This Court has ruled as early as 1986 in the case of Habaluyas Enterprises v. Japzon[23] and reiterated in Lacsamana v. Second Special Cases Division of the Intermediate Appellate Court[24] that no motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the Intermediate Appellate Court.  In fact, the court has time and again consistently upheld strict adherence to aforesaid rule.[25] In Rolloque, et al., vs. CA, et al., this Court said:“The filing by petitioners of a motion for extension of time to file motion for reconsideration did not toll the fifteen (15) days period before a judgment becomes final and executory.Since the decision of respondent Court of Appeals dated November 28, 1986 has long become final and executory at the time of the filing of this petition, this Court can no longer alter or modify the same.”[26]

We find no reason for counsel of petitioner to be unaware of the aforesaid rulings of this court.  As counsel for petitioner, he failed to observe the responsibility imposed on him as a member of the bar to keep abreast with the latest developments of the law.[27] Counsel’s failure or negligence cannot be sanctioned considering that it has been ten (10) years since the decision in the Habaluyas case and reiterated in subsequent cases was promulgated.  Indeed, negligence or mistake of counsel necessarily binds the client.[28]

Moreover, a review of the decision of the respondent court will show that no reversible error has been made.  As aptly observed by that court:“The Civil Service Commission did not deny petitioner’s right to be reinstated to his former position but only declared as improper the manner by which his reinstatement was effected.

x x x                               x x x                                     x x xPetitioner did not question the qualifications of Millana to the contested position.  It is so because an appointment whether to a vacancy or to a newly created position is essentially within the discretionary power of whomsoever it is vested, (Panis v. Civil Service Commission, 227 SCRA 509 [1994]).  Once a candidate possesses the minimum qualities required by law, sufficient discretion, if not plenary, is granted to the appointing authority (Mendenilla v. Civil Service Commission, 194 SCRA 278 [1991], Central Bank v. Civil Service Commission, 171 SCRA 744 [1989]).

While the choice of an appointee from among those who possess the required qualification is a political and administrative decision (Rimonte v. Civil Service Commission, 244 SCRA 498 [1995]), such discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily to remove a permanent employee occupying the position without violating (the) latter’s right to security of tenure.  It is a settled rule that the Civil Service Commission has no authority to revoke an appointment simply because it considers another employee to be better qualified for that would constitute an encroachment on the discretion vested in the appointing authority (Lapinid v. Civil Service Commission, 197 SCRA 106 [1991]).

The argument that petitioner should have been the one appointed because he was next in rank to the contested position cannot be upheld.”[29]

In passing, the Court would like to reiterate the time-honored doctrine that factual findings of administrative bodies should be accorded not only respect but even finality as they are supported by substantial evidence even if not overwhelming or preponderant[30] or that administrative agencies which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters.[31]Considering the factual and legal precedents in the case at bar, the petition must be denied.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, finding no reversible error in the decision of the respondent court, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.Regalado, (Chairman), Melo, Puno, and Mendoza,

JJ., concur.

[1] Penned by Honorable Associate Justice Corona Ibay-Somera, Senior Member, Ninth Division and concurred in by Associate Justices, the Hon Jorge S. Imperial, Chairman and Hon. Celia Lipana-Reyes, Junior Member, Annex “X”, petition, pp.93-101, rollo.[2] Penned by Honorable  Members of the  Civil Service Commission, Annex “K”, petition, page  63-64, ibid.[3] Annex “A, Petition, page 46, rollo.[4] Annex “D-l”, Petition , page 50, ibid.[5] Certified copy of the 1988 Plantilla of the Provincial Equipment Pool Division, Provincial Engineering Office,  Agusan del Sur, Annex “D-2”, petition, page 51, ibid.Office/Program   B. EQUIPMENT POOLAccount        :    211-8734B..l   Management and Operation of Equipment Pool0-08      0-08     SUPERVISING MECHANICAL ENGR. * * *   13  1  25,116.00  13  1  29,148.00  4,032.00Felix P. UyB.2 Construction and Maintenance  of Equipment ServicesE-136    E-136    SR. MECHANICAL  ENGINEER                     12   1  22,728.00  12  1  26,388.00  3,660.00V a c a n  tE-137   E-137     MECHANICAL ENGINEER                             11   1  20,580.00  11  1  23,892.00  3,312.00Arturo T. Millana

x    xxxxx    x    xxxxx     x     xxxxx * *  *   Chief of Division Rank[6] Plantilla of the Motor Pool Division, Provincial Engineering Office, Agusan del Sur, Annex “F”, Petition, page52, rollo:             X-6   MOTOR POOL DIVISIONE-310           SR.  MECHANICAL ENGINEER * * *     12    l    22,728.00   15  1   35,568.00   12,840.00             Vacant                                              Sub-Total  - - - - - - - -  P 22,728.00           P 35,568.00 P12,840.00    X-6-1 EQUIPMENT POOL SECTION iE-311                   MECHANICAL ENGINEER                11   1   20,580.00              29,148.00    19,584.00             Vacant

x    xxxx    x    xxxx    x    xxxxx*  *  *  Chief of Division Rank[7] Annex “G”, Petition, page 53, ibid:                                        PROVINCIAL ENGINEERING-MOTOR POOL DIVISION

                                                     (Formerly called Equipment Pool Division)                                                                                l989                                                                  (After Reorganization)                                                                  FUNCTIONAL CHART                                        SENIOR MECHANICAL ENGINEER - ARTURO MILLANA                                                                  (Chief of Division)                                        MECHANICAL ENGINEER  -   CARLITO C. CAPOL:                                                     xxx   xxx    xxx   xxx[8] Annex “H”, Petition, pp. 54-58, rollo.[9] Par. 2,  page 2, Annex “l”, Petition, Resolution of the Civil Service Commission,  pp. 59-61, ibid.[10] Par. 3, ibid..[11] Annex “J”, Petition, page 62, ibid.[12] Par. 4, page 2, Annex “I”, Petition, Resolution of the Civil Service Commission,  pp. 59-61, rollo.[13] Resolution of the Civil Service Commission, supra.[14] Annex “K”, Petition, pp. 63-64, ibid.[15] Motions for Reconsideration, Annexes “L” and “M” pp. 65-67; 68-71, ibid.[16] Order, Annex “N”, Petition,  pp. 72-74, rollo.[17] Petition, pp. 75-92, ibid[18] Decision, Annex “X”, petition, pp. 93-100, ibid.[19] Annex “Q”, Petition, pp. 102-110, rollo.[20] Annex “R”, Petition, page 111, ibid.[21] Azores vs. Securities and Exchange Commission, G.R. No. 122337, January 25, l996, 252 SCRA 387.[22] Section 2, Rule 9,  Revised Interim Rules of the Court of Appeals.[23] No. L-70895. May 30, l986, 142 SCRA 208.[24] No. L-74824, September 15, l986, 144 SCRA 161.[25] Rolloque, et al., vs. CA, et al.,  and Rivera vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 78179, January 18, 1991, 193 SCRA 47; Caltex  (Phil), Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72703, November 13, 1992, 215 SCRA 580.[26] Ibid.[27] People vs. Gacott, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 116049, March 20, 1995, 242 SCRA 514.[28] Greenhills Airconditioning and Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 112850, June 27, 1995, 245 SCRA 384; Five Star Bus Co., Inc. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 120496, July 17, 1996, 259 SCRA 120.[29] Decision, Court of Appeals, supra.[30] Casa Filipina Realty Corp. vs. Office of the President, G.R. No. 99346, February 7, 1995, 241 SCRA 165.[31] COCOFED vs. Trajano, G.R. No. 98277, February 15, 1995, 241 SCRA 362.

CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENTOF THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTSIN LAW REFORM AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THEADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Examples: Presenting position papers or resolutions for theintroduction of pertinent bills in Congress; Petitions with theSupreme Court for the amendment of the Rules of Court.CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGALDEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATIONPROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIVE HIGH STANDARDS INLAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW

STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING INFORMATIONREGARDING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.Objectives of integration of the Bar· To elevate the standards of the legal profession· To improve the administration of justice.· To enable the Bar to discharge its responsibilitymore effectively.The three-fold obligation of a lawyer· First, he owes it to himself to continue improving hisknowledge of the laws;· Second, he owes it to his profession to take an activeinterest in the maintenance of high standards of legal education;· Third, he owes it to the lay public to make the law a part oftheir social consciousness.CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS INGOVERNMENT SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIALTASKS.· Public Officials - include elective and appointive officials andemployees, permanent or temporary, whether in the career or noncareerservice, including military and police personnel, whether ornot they receive compensation, regardless of amount. (Sec. 3 (b),RA 6713).· The law requires the observance of the following norms ofconduct by every public official in the discharge and execution oftheir official duties:a. Commitment to public interestb. Professionalismc. Justness and sincerityd. Political neutralitye. Responsiveness to the publicf. Nationalism and patriotismg. Commitment to democracyh. Simple living (Sec. 4, RA 6713)RULE 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecutionis not to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of factsor the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence ofthe accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.RULE 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his publicposition to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latterto interfere with his public duties.RULE 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving a government service,accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter inwhich he had intervened while in said service.· Various ways a government lawyer leaves government service:a. Retirementb. Resignationc. Expiration of the term of officed. Dismissale. AbandonmentQ: What are the pertinent statutory provisions regarding thisRule?Sec. 3 (d) RA 3019 as amended and Sec. 7 (b), RA 6713Sec 3. Corrupt practice of Public Officers. In addition to acts or omissionof public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall

constitute corrupt practice of any public officer and are herebydeclared to be unlawful:(d) accepting or having any member of his family accept employmentin a private enterprise which has pending official business with himduring the pendency thereof or within one year: after termination.Section 7 (b) of RA 6713 prohibits officials from doing any of thefollowing acts:1. Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer,employee, consultant,counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any privateenterprise regulated,supervised or licensed by their office unless expressly allowed bylaw.These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1)year after resignation, retirement, or separation from publicoffice, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above, but theprofessional concerned cannot practice his profession inconnection with any matter before the office he used to be with,in which case the one year prohibition shall likewise apply.Q -State the basic duties of a lawyer to society.-The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that:1. A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the landand promote respect for law and legal processes;2. A lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficientand convenient manner compatible with the independence,integrity, and effectiveness of the profession;3. A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true,honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement offacts;4. A lawyer shall participate in the development of the legal systemby initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in theimprovement of the administration of justice;5. A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal development, participate incontinuing legal education programs, support efforts to achievehigh standards in law schools as well as in the practical trainingof law students and assist in disseminating information regardingthe law and jurisprudence;6. These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in thedischarge of their official tasks.Q - A lawyer procured personal loans from the complainantthrough insinuations of his power as an influence peddlerat the Bureau of Customs, and issued bad checks. If anadministrative case is filed against him, can he interposethe defense that his conducts were not connected to thepractice of his profession? Explain.-No. Rule 1.01, Chapter 1 entitled The Lawyer and Society of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility which requires that a lawyer shall not engage inunlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct does not limit itself toconduct exhibited in connection with the performance of professional duties.His propinquity for employing deceit and misrepresentations as well as hiscavalier attitude towards incurring debts without the least intention ofrepaying them is reprehensible. This disturbing behavior cannot be toleratedespecially if the lawyer is an officer of the court.Q - What is the lawyer's primary duty to society?- The lawyer's primary duty to society or to the State is to uphold theConstitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for

law and legal processes. (Canon 1, Code of ProfessionalResponsibility). Thus, it has been said that "to say that lawyersmust at all times uphold and respect the law is to state theobvious". Considering that, "of all classes of professions,lawyers are most sacredly bound to uphold the law," (Ex parteWall, 107 U.S. 265; cited in Malcolm, Legal and Judicial Ethics,p. 214), it is imperative that they live by the law. Accordingly,lawyers who violate their oath and engage in deceitful conducthave no place in the legal profession. (Victoriano P.Resurreccion vs. Atty. Ciriaco C. Sayson, Adm. Case No. 1037,101 SCAD 654, December 14, 1998).Q -Where is the duty of a lawyer to uphold the constitution, obeythe law, etc. enshrined?- The duty of a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of theland and promote respect for the law and legal processes isenshrined in the Attorney's Oath which every lawyer must takebefore he may practice law. Such oath runs thus:"I... do hereby solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance tothe Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution andobey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constitutedauthorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doingof any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sueany groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent tothe same; I will delay no man for money or malice; and willconduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of myknowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to thecourts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntaryobligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.So help me God."Q -A lawyer was convicted of the crime of estafa. Can he bedisbarred? Why?-Yes, because for having been convicted of estafa, such lawyer doesnot possess good moral character. A lawyer who had beenconvicted of estafa does not possess moral turpitude. Moralturpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice,honesty and good morals. Estafa, no doubt, is a crime involvingmoral turpitude because the act is unquestionably againstjustice, honesty and good morals. Good moral character is notonly a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession,but it must also remain extant in order to maintain one's goodstanding in that exclusive and honored fraternity.Law is a noble profession, and the privilege to practice it isbestowed only upon individuals who are competent intellectually,academically and equally important, morally. Because they arevanguards of the law, and the legal system, lawyers must at alltimes conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with theirclients, and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in amanner beyond reproach. (Victoriano O. Resurrection vs. Atty.Ciriaco Sayson, Adm. Case No. 1037, December 14, 1998, 101SCAD 654)Q - May a lawyer who was convicted of the crime of violation ofB.P. Big. 22 be disbarred? Why?-Yes. The issuance of a bouncing check imports deceit andviolation of the attorney's oath and the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility which requires him to obey the laws of the land.Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude might not relateto the exercise of the profession of a lawyer, but it certainly relatesto and affects the good moral character of a personconvicted of such offense. (People vs. Tuanda, 181 SCRA 692). Itmust be emphasized that the nature of the office of a lawyerrequires that he shall be a person of good moral character. Thisqualification is not only a condition precedent to an admission tothe practice of law; its continued possession is also essential forremaining in the practice of law. (Victoriano P. Resurreccion vs.

Atty. Ciriano Sayson, supra).Q -BG, a lawyer borrowed the records of a case. He, however,stole some exhibits by tearing them off. Can he bedisbarred? Why?-Yes, BG can be disbarred. Well settled is the rule that a lawyershall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitfulconduct. The act of stealing the exhibits can be considered as anunlawful and dishonest act of a lawyer, a violation of his boundenduty under the Code of Professional Responsibility. In the case atbar, BG has descended to the level of a common thief (Fernandezvs. Benjamin Grecia, Adm. Case No. 3694, June 17, 1993,42SCAD 438).Q -One of the essential qualifications for a lawyer to maintain hisstanding in the legal profession is honesty. Give examplesof dishonest and deceitful conduct of a lawyer.- They are:1. Misappropriating a client's fund (Quilban vs. Robinol,171 SCRA 769);2. Giving false statements under oath in an informationsheet submitted in connection with a lawyer's applicationfor the position of Chief of Police (Calo vs. Degano, 20SCRA 447);3. Maneuvering reconveyance of property in the nameof the lawyer instead of the client in a case involving salewith pacta de retro (Imbuido vs. Fidel Sor Mangonon, 4SCRA 760);4. Falsification of grades in the Bar Examinations (In re:Del Rosario, 52 Phil. 399);5. Delayed failure to account money collected for theclient (Licuanan vs. Melo, 170 SCRA100);6. Inducing someone to buy a parcel of land knowingthat it is not for sale (In re: Quiambao, 102 Phil. 940); and7. Stealing evidence attached to the court records.(Fernandez vs. Grecia, Adm. Case No. 3694, June 17, 1993,42 SCAD 438).25Q - A lawyer who stole a document from the record of a casewas disbarred. Why?-He is an officer of the court. He is like the court itself. An incorrigiblepractitioner of dirty tricks would be ill-suited to discharge the roleof an instrument to advance the ends of justice. (Fernandez, etat. vs. Grecia, supra).Q - A lawyer shall not engage in immoral conduct. What degree ofimmorality may cause the disbarment or disciplinaryaction against a lawyer? Explain.-For immorality to be a ground for disciplinary action, it must not onlybe merely immoral but also grossly immoral. It means that theact must be one which is unquestionably so corrupt orunprincipled. (Arciaga vs. Maniwang, 106 SCRA 591)Q - Give some examples of immoral conduct of a lawyer.- They are:1. Abandonment of wife and cohabiting with another woman.He can be disbarred (Obusan vs. Ocusan, 128 SCRA 485);2. Bigamy committed by lawyer (Terre vs. Terre, 211 SCRA 6);3. Representing oneself to be eligible to marry when in facthe is not (Barrientos vs. Daarol, Adm. Matter No. 1512, Jan.29, 1993);4. Having carnal knowledge with a woman through a promiseof marriage which he did not fulfill. He can be disbarred(Almirez vs. Lopez, 27 SCRA 169);5. Arranging the marriage of his son to a woman with whomhe had illicit relations and after the marriage, he continuedhis adulterous relations with her (Mortel vs. Aspiras, 100Phil. 586);

6. Enveigling a woman into believing that they had beenmarried civilly to satisfy his carnal desires. He wasdisbarred (Cabrera vs. Agustin, 106 Phil. 256; Pomperadavs. Jochico, 133 SCRA 309); and7. Aintaining adulterous relationship with a married woman.(Cordova vs. Cordova, 179 SCRA 680).Q - A married B who was already a married woman although hermarriage was void for having married a first degreecousin. A studied law, graduated, passed the BarExaminations where B practically was the one who spentfor him during his studies. A abandoned her and marriedC. Can A maintain his standing in the legal profession?Why?-No, because he violated his duty not to engage in immoral conduct.He made a dupe of his wife, living on her bounty and allowing herto spend for his schooling and marrying another girl as soon ashe finished his studies. (Terre vs. Terre, 211 SCRA 6).Q - What is barratry?- Barratry is the offense of frequently exciting and stirring upquarrels and suits, either at law or otherwise. It is a lawyer's actof fomenting suits among individuals and offering his legalservices to one of them.Q - What is an ambulance chaser?-Ambulance chaser is a lawyer who haunts hospitals and visitsthe homes of affected, officiously intruding their presence andpersistently offering his services on the basis of a contingent fee.(Warvelle, Legal Ethics, pp. 56-57).Q - A filed a suit against B. They entered into a compromiseagreement but X, the lawyer B objected to it as hisattorney's fees have not been paid. Is the act of Xproper? Why?- No. It is the sworn duty of a lawyer not to delay any man's causefor money or malice. A lawyer cannot delay the approval of acompromise agreement entered into between the parties, justbecause his attorney's fees were not provided for in theagreement. (Jesalva vs. Bautista, 105 Phil. 348).Q - One of the duties of a lawyer is that, he shall not, for corruptmotive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding ordelay any man's cause. Give examples of instances ofdelay which can be considered condemnable.ANS. - They are:1. Resorting to technicalities to frustrate justice (EconomicInsurance Co., Inc. vs. Uy Realty Co., 34 SCRA 745);2. Filing of multiple or repetitious petitions which obviously delaythe execution of a final and executory judgment (Gabriel vs. CA,72 SCRA 273);3. Filing of several actions covering the same subject matter orseeking substantially identical relief (Macias vs. Uy Kim, 45 SCRA251) or what is otherwise known as forum shopping;4. Filing of frivolous appeals for purposes of delay;2. Filing of motions for postponement and other kinds ofmotion for dilatory purposes;6. Indiscriminate filing of suits against a party clearly intended forharassment. ( Dimagiba14 vs. Montalvo, Jr., 202 SCRA 641).Q - What is the duty of a lawyer in matters of settlement ofcases and why?-A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle acontroversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. The reason is that,it will save the client from additional expenses and help preventthe clogging of court docket. (Pajares vs. Abad Santos, 30 SCRA748).Q - After the rendition of final and executory judgment in anunlawful detainer case, a lawyer attempted to nullify thedecision of the MTC, Manila. Is the act of the lawyer

proper? Why?-No, because the act evinced a deliberate intent to prolong and delaythe inevitable execution of a final decision. A lawyer's oath is asolemn agreement in dedicating oneself to the pursuit of justice,not mere fictive of words, drift and hallow, but sacred trust. In sodoing, the lawyer violated his duty not to encourage any suit orproceeding or delay a man's cause for corrupt motive or interest.(Masinsin, et al. vs. Hon. Ed Vincent S. Albano, et al., G.R. No.86421, May 31, 1994, 51 SCAD 476).Q - What should a lawyer do if he cannot accept a case?- If for valid reasons, a lawyer cannot accept a case, he shouldinstead give immediate legal advice. He should not refuse toprovide legal advice. He can even refer the case to anotherlawyer who can provide prompt assistance.Q - What are some of the characteristics of the legal professionwhich distinguish it from business?They are:1. A duty of public service of which the emolument is a byproduct,and in which one may attain the highest eminencewithout making much money;2.A relation as an officer of court to the administration of justiceinvolving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability;3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary; and4.A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor,fairness and unwillingness to resort to current business methodsof advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealingdirectly with their clients. (In re: Sycip, 92 SCRA 1).Q - Explain the principle that the practice of law is a professionand not a moneymaking trade.- The rule is so, because in the fixing of attorney's fees, it must notbe forgotten that the profession is a branch of theadministration of justice and not a mere moneymaking trade.(Jayme vs. Bualan, 58 Phil. 422). It is not a business but aprofession. (In re: Tagorda, 53 Phil. 37). Counsel of repute andof eminence welcome opportunities to be appointed counselde oficio for this makes manifest the principle that the practiceof law is dedicated to the ideal of service and not a meretrade. (Ledesma vs. Climaco, 57 SCRA 473).Q - A lawyer published in a newspaper that marriage license maybe promptly secured through his assistance and theannoyance of delay or publicity is avoided if desired andmarriage arranged to the wishes of the parties. Was theact proper? Why?-No, the advertisement was a flagrant violation of the ethics of hisprofession it being a brazen solicitation of business from thepublic.It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents orskills as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a profession andnot a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession whostoops to and adopts the practice of mercantilism by advertisinghis services or offering them to the public. (Director of ReligiousAffairs vs. Bayot, 74 Phil. 579).Q - What is the best form of advertisement of a lawyer?-The most worthy and effective advertisement possible even for alawyer is the establishment of a well merited reputation forprofessional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forcedbut must be the outcome of character and conduct. (Director ofReligious Affairs vs. Bayot, 74 Phil. 579).Q - When may a lawyer make a publication or advertisementin newspapers, etc.?-A lawyer may make certain publications or advertisements innewspapers, or periodicals or magazines about the opening ofa law office, stating the names of the lawyers and the addressof the office or the firm. Publication in reputable law lists, in amanner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed bythe canon, of brief biographical or informative data is

allowable. (Ulep vs. The Legal Aid Clinic, Inc., Bar Matter No.553, June 17, 1993).Q - What should a law firm do if a partner has already died?Explain.-If a partner died, the name of the deceased may still be used by thefirm, provided, that there is an indication that said partner isalready dead and the date or year of his death. The purpose is toavoid the tendency of improperly exploiting its advertising value.(In the matter of the Petition for Authority to Continue Use of theFirm Name Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta and Reyes, 92SCRA 1).Q - May a lawyer who attempts to engage in opium deal bedisciplined? Why?-Yes, because he may not only be removed for malpractice anddishonesty in his profession, but also for gross misconduct notrelated to his professional duties which show him to be an unfitand unworthy lawyer. The courts are not curators of morals ofthe bar. At the same time, the profession is not compelled toharbor all persons whatever their character, who are fortunateenough to keep out of prison. A good character is an essentialqualification for admission of an attorney to practice, when theattorney's character is bad in such respects as to show that he isunsafe and unfit to be entrusted with the powers of an attorney,the courts retain the power to discipline him x x x. Of all classesand professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold thelaw. (Piatt vs. Abordo, 58 Phil. 350; Co vs. Atty. Bernardino, A.C.No. 3919, Jan. 28, 1998, 90 SCAD 750).THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSIONCANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THEINTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORTTHE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.RULE 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a falsestatement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his applicationfor admission to the bar.RULE 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission tothe bar of any person known by him to be unqualified in respect to character,education, or other relevant attribute.RULE 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflectson his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life,behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.· Upright character; not mere absence of bad character.· A lawyer must at all times conduct himself properly as not to putinto question his· Avoid scandalous conduct; not only required to refrain fromadulterous relationships or the keeping of mistress but must alsobehave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating thebelief that he is flouting those moral standards. .CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITHCOURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONALCOLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINSTOPPOSING COUNSEL.RULE 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use languagewhich is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

RULE 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon theprofessional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of anylawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to thoseseeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.· It is the duty of a lawyer to inform the SC or the IBP of such malpractice tothe endthat the malpractitioner be properly disciplined.· Not to use in pleadings and in practice the following: disrespectful,abusive and abrasive language, offensive personalities, unfoundedaccusations or intemperate words tending to obstruct, embarrass orinfluence the court in administering justice.· Want of intention: not an excuse for the disrespectful language used Itmerelyextenuates liability.· A lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, may criticizein properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the act ofcourts and judges. But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism thatit shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency andpropriety. (In Re: Alrrfacen, 31 SCRA 562)CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSISTIN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.RULE 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person theperformance of any task which by law may only be performed by a memberof the Bar in good standing.RULE 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legalservices with persons not licensed to practice law, except:a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associatethat, upon the latter's death, money shall be paid over a reasonableperiod of time to his estate or to persons specified in the agreement; orb) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of adeceased lawyer; orc) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in aretirement plan, even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profitsharingarrangement.that:· Lawyer shall not negotiate with the opposite party who is represented bya counsel. Neither should the lawyer attempt to interview the oppositeparty and question him as to the facts of the case even if the adverseparty is willing to do so.· Lawyer should deal only with counsel, even if there's a fair agreement.· Lawyer may however, interview any witness or prospective witness for theopposing side..;Limitation: avoid influencing witness in recital and conduct.· A lawyer must not take as partner or associate one who:1. Is not a lawyer

2. Is disbarred3. Has been suspended from the practice of law4. Foreign lawyer, unless licensed by the se.· A lawyer cannot delegate his authority without client's consent even to aqualifiedperson.Q - State the basic responsibilities of a lawyer to the legalprofession.The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that:1. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of thelegal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar;2. A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, andcandor toward his professional colleagues and shall avoidharassing tactics against opposing counsel; and3. A lawyer shall not, directly or indirector, assist in the unauthorizedpractice of law.Q - What should a lawyer do to maintain his fitness to practicelaw?- He should maintain good moral character during the continuanceof the practice and the exercise of the privilege to practice law.(Quingwa vs. Puno, 19 SCRA 439). He should avoid brushes with thelaw; he should not assist anyone in the commission of crimes. He isexpected to be concerned even with matters like payment of hismembership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (In re:Edillon, 84 SCRA 554) and the payment of his privilege tax,otherwise, he may be disciplined. (US vs. Garner, 9 Phil. 18).Q - What is an example of an act of a lawyer that wouldprevent the discredit of the legal profession by his own acts?- A lawyer must not only be of good moral character, but also beseen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordancewith the highest moral standards of the community. He shouldrefrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistressesbut must also behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public bycreating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards. (Tolosavs. Cargo, 171 SCRA 21).Q - How should a lawyer act in relation to his peers?-He shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towardshis colleagues and should avoid harassing tactics against opposingcounsel. (Canon 8). He should not use language which is abusive,offensive or otherwise improper. (Canon 8.01). He should not encroachupon the professional employment of another lawyer. (Canon 8.02).Q - Explain the effects if a lawyer uses intemperate, abusive,abbrasive or threatening language.- He can be cited for contempt or the courts may use their disciplinarypowers. (Zaldivar vs.Gonzales, 166SCRA 316). If a lawyer attackswithout foundation the integrity of another lawyer, the court may orderthe same be stricken off the records. For cases are not won by suchlanguage.Q - When is a strong language against a judge justified?-If the use of a strong language is impelled by the same language ofthe judge. Hence, if everyone is to blame for the language, it is thejudge himself who provoked it. For, if the judge desires not to beinsulted, he should start using temperate language himself; for, he whosows the wind will reap a storm. (Fernandez vs. Hon. Bello, 107 Phil.1140).

Q - Maya lawyer encroach upon the employment of anotherlawyer? Explain.No. It is highly unethical for a lawyer to exert efforts directly orindirectly, in any way, to encroach upon professional employment ofanother. (Rule 8.02). However, if a lawyer has already withdrawn hisappearance for a client, the entry of his appearance is no longer anencroachment upon the business of another lawyer. (Laput vs.Ramontique, 6 SCRA 45).Q - May a lawyer divide a fee for legal services with one who isnot licensed to practice law? Is the rule absolute?- A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal serviceswith persons not licensed to practice law. The rule is not absolute asthere are exceptions like:1. Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner orassociate, that, upon the latter's death, money shall be paid over areasonable period of time to his estate or ,to the person specified inthe agreement; or2. Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished business of adeceased lawyer; or3. Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in aretirementplan, even if the plan is based in whole or in part on a profit sharingarrangement. (Rule 9.02 [a], [b], [c]).Q - What is the reason for the general rule above stated?-The reason is that, if attorney's fees were allowed to non-lawyers, itwould leave the public in hopeless confusion in case of necessityand also to leave the bar in a chaotic condition, aside from the factthat non-lawyers are not amenable to disciplinary measures.(PAFLU vs. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co., 42 SCRA 303).Q - Why a lawyer cannot delegate his authority to unqualifiedpersons to practice law?This is by reason of public policy. The practice of law is limited only toindividuals duly qualified in moral character and education and whopassed the Bar Examination. Public policy demands that legal work beentrusted only to those possessing tested qualifications and who aresworn to observe the rules and the ethics of the profession, as well asbeing subject to judicial disciplinary control for the protection of thecourts, clients and the public. (PAFLU case, supra).THE LAWYER AND THE COURTSCANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS, AND GOODFAITH TO THE COURT.RULE 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to thedoing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled byany artifice;RULE 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent thecontents of a paper, the language or the text of a decision or authority, orknowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal oramendment or assert as a fact that which has not been proved;RULE 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not

misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.· Judge-lawyer relationship: based on independence and self-respect.· Lawyer's duty to the court:a. Respect and loyaltyb. Fairness, truth and candor c. No attempt to influence courts· Cases of falsehood:a. Stating in the Deed of Sale that property is free from all liens andencumbranceswhen not sob. Encashing check payable to a deceased cousin by signing the latter'sname onthe checkc. Falsifying a power of attorney and using it in collecting the money dueto theprincipal.d. Alleging in one pleading that the clients were mere lessees and inanotherpleading that the same clients were ownerse. Presenting falsified documents in court which he knows to be falsef. Filing false charges on groundless suitsg. Using in pleadings the IBP number of another lawyerh. Unsolicited appearancesi. Use of fictitious residence certificatej. Misquotation/misrepresentationk. Citing a repealed or amended provisionJ. Asserting a fact not provedm. Verbatim reproductions down to the last word and punctuation markn. Slight typo mistake: not sufficient to place him in contemptCANON ll. -A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THERESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS ANDSHOULD INSIST IN SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.RULE 11.01- A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.· A lawyer may NOT wear outlandish or colorful clothing to court.· As an officer of the court and in order to maintain the dignity andrespectability of the legal profession, a I lawyer who appears in courtmust be properly attired. Consequently, the court can hold a lawyer INCONTEMPT of court if he does not appear in proper attire. Any deviationfrom the commonly accepted norm of dressing in court (barong or tie, notboth) is enough to warrant a citing for contempt.RULE 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearing.RULE 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives notsupported by the record or have no materiality to the case.RULE 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to theproper authorities.· A lawyer is an officer of the court. He occupies a quasi-judicial office witha tripartiteobligation to the courts, to the public and to his clients.· The public duties of the attorney take precedence over his private duties.His first duty is to the courts. Where duties to the courts conflict with hisduties to his clients, the latter must yield to the former.

· Lawyers must be respectful not only in actions but also in the use oflanguage whether in oral arguments or in pleadings.· Must exert efforts that others (including clients, witnesses) shall deal withthe courts and judicial officers with respect.· Obedience to court orders and processes.· Criticisms of courts must not spill the walls of decency. There is a widedifference between fair criticism and abuse and slander of courts andjudges. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty torespect the courts. It amounts to misconduct which subjects the lawyer todisciplinary action.· A mere disclaimer of any intentional disrespect by appellant is not aground for exoneration. His intent must be determined by a fairinterpretation of the languages employed by him. He cannot escaperesponsibility by claiming that his words did not mean what any readermust have understood them to mean.· Lawyer can demand that the misbehavior of a judge be put on record.· Lawyers must be courageous enough to expose arbitrariness and injusticeof courts and judges.· A lawyer may submit grievances against judges in the Supreme Court,Ombudsman",or Congress (for impeachment of SC judges only).CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT ANDCONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENTADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.· The Court further commented that it is understandable for aparty in the situation to make full use of every conceivable legaldefense the law allows it. In the appraisal, however, of suchattempts to evade liability to which a party should respond, it mustever be kept in mind that procedural rules are intended as an aidto justice, not as means for its frustration. Technicalities shouldgive way to the realities of the situation. (Economic Insurance Co.,Inc., vs. Uy Realty Co.)RULE 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he hasadequately prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case, theevidence he will adduce and the order of its preference. He should also beready with the original documents for comparison with the copies- A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequatelyprepared himself with the law and the facts of his case, theevidence he will adduce and the order of Its preference. Heshould also be ready with the original" documents forcomparison with the copies.· Newly hired counsel: must acquaint himself with all the antecedentproceedings andprocesses that have transpired in the record prior to his takeover.· If presenting documentary exhibits, he must be ready with the originalsfor thepurpose of comparison with copies thereof.RULE 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the samecause.

· Forum shopping - omission to disclose pendency of appeal or priordismissal of hiscase by a court of concurrent jurisdiction with intent of seeking afavorable opinion.· Forum. ;shopping exists when as a result of an adverse opinion In oneforum:a. A party seeks favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) inanother; orb. When he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on thesame cause, on the gamble that one or the other would make afavorable disposition (Binguet Electric Corp. vs. Flores, 287 SCRA 449,March 12, 1998).· The most important factor in determining the existence of forumshoppingis the VEXATION caused the courts and party-litigants by a partywho asks different courts to rule on the same related causes, asking thesame relief.· Forum shopping constitutes DIRECT CONTEMPT of court and may subjecttheoffending lawyer to disciplinary action.RULE 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after extensions of time to file pleadings,memoranda or briefs, let. The period lapse without submitting the same oroffering an explanation for his failure to do so.· Asking for extension of time must be in good faith.RULE 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the executionof a judgment or misuse Court processes.RULE 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during abreak or recess in the trial, while the witness is still under examination.RULE 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresenthimself or to impersonate another.RULE 12.07- A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness norneedlessly inconvenience him.· Rights and obligations of a witness - a witness must answer questions,although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him. However,it is the right of a witness:1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questionsand fromharsh or insulting demeanor;2. Not to be detained longer than the interest of justice requires;3. Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;4. Not to give any answer which will tend to subject him to a penaltyfor an : offense unless otherwise provided by law, or5. Nor to give answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unlessit be tothe very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would bepresumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous finalconviction for an offense. (Rule 132, Sec. 3, RRC)

RULE 12.08- A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except:a) On formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of aninstrument, and the like; orb) On substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to theends of justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the trialof the case to another counselCANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSEAND REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TOINFLUENCE, OR GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT.RULE 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitalityto, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges.RULE 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the mediaregarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against aparty.RULE 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by anotherbranch or agency of the government in the normal course of judicialproceedings.· The judge has the corresponding duty not to conveyor permit others toconvey theimpression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.· Discussing cases with the judge privately should be avoided.· Test when public statement is contemptuous: The character of the actdone and its direct tendency to prevent and obstruct the discharge ofofficial duty.· To warrant a finding: of "prejudicial publicity", there must be an allegationand proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply thatthey might be, by the "barrage" of publicity.· Lawyer is equally, guilty as the client if he induces the latter to cause thepublicity.Q -State the basic responsibilities of a lawyer to the courts.- The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that:1) A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court;2) A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to thecourts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others;3) A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty toassist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice; and3 A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from anyimpropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance ofinfluencing the court.Q- Who has the power to regulate the admission to the bar andthe practice of law?The Supreme Court, as regulator and guardian of the legal profession,has plenary disciplinary authority over attorneys. The authority todiscipline lawyers stems from the Court's Constitutional mandate toregulate admission to the practice of law, which includes as wellauthority to regulate the practice itself of law. (Zaldivar vs.

Sandiganbayan, 166 SCRA 316 [1988]).Q - May a lawyer or anybody criticize the courts? Why?It is the cardinal condition that criticisms of courts shall be bona fide andshall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasmexists between fair criticisms, on the one hand, and abuse and slander ofcourts and the judges on the other. Intemperate and unfair criticism isgross violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconductthat subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action.The lawyer's duty to render respectful subordination to the courts isessential to the orderly administration of justice. Hence, in the assertion oftheir clients' rights, lawyers even those gifted with superior intellect areenjoined to give due respect to the courts. (Zaldivar vs. Gonzales, supra).Q - A lawyer wanted the Office of the President to review thedecision of the Supreme Court. Is the act of the lawyer subject todiscipline? Why?Yes, because respect to the court is an important duty of a lawyer. Noother department of the government can review the decisions of theSupreme Court. What the lawyer did was even violative of the principleof separation of powers. (Maglasang vs. People, 190 SCRA 308).Q - Is the act of a lawyer of filing baseless cases against a judgeproper? Why?No. In Aparicio vs. Andal, et al., July 25, 1989, it was said that filing ofbaseless cases against a judge is improper. He was admonishedbecause a lawyer has a basic duty to conduct himself with good fidelityto the courts, to be courteous, fair, not be combative and bellicose.(Sangalang vs. Gaston, Aug. 30, 1989; In re: Laureta).Q - To whom does a lawyer owe his first and foremost duty?The lawyer's first and foremost duty is to the court.He is duty bound to comply with the lawful orders of the court. Thereason is that the attorney is an officer of the court because his mainmission is to assist the court in administering justice.Q - In Sangalang vs. Gaston, August 30, 1989, a lawyer wassuspended because of his own actuations, when in his motionfor reconsideration he said that the decision of the SC "readsmore like a brief for Ayala." Was the lawyer's act proper? Why?.-No. The primary duty of a lawyer is to assist in the administration ofjustice, not to his client. His client's success is only subordinate suchthat, he is at liberty to advocate his client's cause in utmost earnest,but he is not at liberty to resort to arrogance, intimidation andinnuendo. The act of the lawyer not only puts to serious question hisown integrity and competence but also jeopardized his own campaignagainst graft and corruption undeniably prevailing in the judiciary.They are unbecoming as well as an assault on the honor and integrityof the court.Q- State the basic duties of a lawyer to the court.The attorney's duty of prime importance is to observe and

maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.The duty to observe and maintain the respect due the court is likewiseincumbent up OJ} one aspiring to be a lawyer. He should conducthimself toward judges with the courtesy that all have a right to expectand with the propriety which the dignity of the courts requires. For hisinvestiture into the legal profession places upon his shoulders noburden more basic, more exacting and more intemperate than that of arespectful behavior toward the courts.A lawyer owes the court the duty to observe and maintain arespectful attitude not for the sake of temporary incumbent of thejudicial office but for the maintenance of its supreme importance.(Department of Health vs. Sy Chi Siong Co., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 85289,Feb. 20, 1989).A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the Court.(Canon 10). A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to theCourt and to judicial officers (Canon 11) and a lawyer shall exert everyeffort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficientadministration of justice. (Canon 12). (Pentecostes vs. Judge Hidalgo,Adm. Case No. RTC 89-331, Sept. 28, 1990).A lawyer should be courteous, respectful to the courts of justice.He should be fair, not repultant, combative and bellicose in dealingwith the Court. The use of disrespectful, intemperate and manifestlybaseless and malicious statements in his pleadings or motions is adirect contempt of Court for which he may be disciplined. (Aparicio vs.Andal, July 25, 1989; Zaldivar vs. Gonzales, supra).Q- In filing a pleading, etc., the lawyer deliberately changed thewordings of the law. State the effect of such act.A lawyer may be punished for contempt of court by deliberatelychanging the provisions of law in order to mislead the court.(Deiparine, Jr. vs. CA, 221 SCRA 503, April 23, 1993; COMELEC vs. Hon.Noynay, et al., G.R. No. 132365, July 9, 1998, 95 SCAD 818).Q- State the effect of submitting to the court a falsifieddocument.Submission to the court of falsified documents constitutes willfuldisregard of the lawyer's duty to act at all times in a manner consistentwith the truth. A lawyer should never seek to mislead the court by anartifice or false statement of fact or law. (Bautista vs. Gonzales, 182SCRA 151, Feb. 12, 1990).Q - State the effect of forum shopping.- Forum shopping is malpractice and constitutes contempt of court. InPNCC vs. NLRC, 172 SCRA 867, the Supreme Court said that alawyer engages in forum shopping when he institutes a proceeding atthe time the same case or an incident thereto is pendingin another court or tribunal with an expectation of securing a favorabledecision.In fact, in Danville Maritime, Inc. vs. Comm. on Audit and Comm.on Audit vs. RTC, July 28, 1989, the Supreme Court said that allcases should be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of actionagainst the counsel concerned. No one should try to trifle with

courts and abuse processes. (Crisostomo vs. SEC, November 6,1989).A lawyer who resorts to forum shopping, continuously seeks thecourt where he may possibly obtain favorable judgment, therebyadding to the already clogged dockets of the courts with theunmeritorious cases he files, grossly abuses his right of recourse tothe courts. By filing multiple petitions or complaints in the falsehope of getting some favorable action, he obstructs theadministration of justice. He is thus derelict in his duty as counsel tomaintain in such admission, actions or proceeding only as appearsto him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to behonestly debatable under the law. He thus prostitutes his office atthe expense of justice. (Atriaga vs. Villanueva, Adm. Case No. 1892,July 29, 1988).A counsel, who, instead of assisting in the speedy disposition ofcases, makes mockery of justice, and this is guilty of gross misconductin office may be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law untilsuch time that he can demonstrate to the court that he hasrehabilitated himself and deserves to resume the practice of law.Q- Is a lawyer first and foremost the defender of his client or anofficer of the court? Explain.- A lawyer is not merely the defender of his client's cause and a trusteeof his client in respect of the client's cause of action and assets; he isalso, first and foremost, an officer of the court and participates in thefundamental function of administering justice in society. It follows thata lawyer's compensation for professional services rendered are subjectto the supervision of the court, not just to guarantee that the fees hecharges and receives remain reasonable and commensurate with theservices rendered, but also to maintain the dignity and integrity of thelegal profession to which he belongs. Upon taking his attorney's oathas an officer of the court, a lawyer submits himself to the authority ofthe courts to regulate his right to charge professional fees. (Sumaoangvs. Judge, RTC Br. XXXI, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, 215 SCRA 136, Oct. 26,1992).Q - State the effect of the willful filing of multiple frivolous andbaseless complaints.A lawyer who files multiple petitions may be held liable for willfulviolation of his duties as an attorney. The filing of multiple petitionsconstitutes abuse of the Court's processes and improper conduct thattends to impede, obstruct and degrade the due administration ofjustice. Claim of good faith alone is not enough to be exonerated fromcontempt. (Kalilid Wood Industries Corp. vs. CA, 197 SCRA 735, May31,1991; Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp. vs. CA, et al., August 5,1998, 97 SCAD 93).Complainant's (lawyer) wanton disregard of the Supreme Court's stern

warning not to file baseless and frivolous complaints and his adamantrefusal to abide by Canon 11, Rule 11.03 and Rule 11.04 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility have shown his unfitness to hold the licenseto practice law. (Balaoing vs. Calderon, 221 SCRA 533).Q - A government lawyer filed a petition for certiorari as a specialcivil action before the Supreme Court and later filed an appealwith the Court of Appeals, without withdrawing the first case.Is the act of the lawyer proper? Explain.No, because he owes the following duties to the court:a.) A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misusethem to defeat the ends of justice. (Canon 10.03, Canon 10, CPR); andb.) A lawyer shall not file multiple actions from the same cause. (Rule12.02, Canon 12, CPR).Q- A party is not allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two(2) different for a because such practice works havoc onorderly judicial procedure. Explain.The filing of the petition for certiorari borders on the censurable as ittrifles with the courts, abused their processes, and added to thealready heavily burdened dockets. While counsel may owe entiredevotion to the interest of his client, his privilege to practice law carrieswith it certain correlative duties to the court, one of which is toassist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice and notsaddle the court with multiple actions arising from the same case.The lawyer has the duty to be more circumspect in dealing with thecourts. The SC said that a lawyer who performs his duty withdiligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client, healso serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar and helpsmaintain the respect of the community to the legal profession. (PRC,et al. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No.117817, and PRC, et al. vs. Hon. Nitafan, et al., G.R. No. 118437, July9, 1998, 95 SCAD 732).Q- A lawyer filed a motion for extension of time to file a motionfor reconsideration at the MTC. What duty did he violate?Why?-The lawyer has the duty to keep abreast with jurisprudence. In filinga motion for extension of time to file Motion for Reconsideration withthe MTC, or RTC or Court of Appeals, he has failed to observe the re-sponsibility imposed on him as a member of the Bar to keep abreastwith the latest developments in the law. (Uy vs. CA, et al., G.R. No.126337, February 12, 1998, 91 SCAD 715).THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENTCANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THENEEDY.RULE 14.01- A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely onaccount of the latter's race, sex, creed or status of life, orbecause of his own opinion regarding the guilt of said person.· Rule 14.01 is applicable only in criminal cases. In criminal cases, a

lawyer cannot decline to represent an accused or respondent becauseof his opinion that the said person is guilty of the charge or chargesfiled against him. In representing the accused or respondent, thelawyer must only use means which are fair and honorable. (Rule 138,sec.20[l], Revised Rules of Court)· Rule 14.01 is not applicable in civil cases because "(c) To counselormaintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just. andsuch defenses only ~s he believes to be honestly debatable underthe law." (Rule 138, sec. 20[C},1 Revised Rules of Court)· When the lawyer signs a complaint or answer, his signature is deemed acertification by him "that he has read the pleading; that to the bestof his knowledge. information, and belief, there is good ground tosupport it." (Rule 7, sec. 3, Revised Rules of Court) For violating thisrule, the lawyer may be subjected to disciplinary action.RULE 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficientcause, an appointment as counsel de oficio or as amicus curiae,or a request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any ofits chapters for rendition of free legal aid.RULE 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of anindigent client unless:(a)he is not in a position to carry out the work effectively orcompetently;(b)he labors under a conflict of interest between him and theprospective client or between a present client and the prospectiveclient.RULE 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to payhis professional fees shall observe the same standard of conductgoverning his relations with paying clients.· Duties to Client:a. Owe utmost learning and abilityb. Maintain inviolate the confidence of the clientc. Disclose all circumstances/interest regarding the controversyd. Undivided loyaltye. Not reject cause of defenseless and oppressedf. Candor, fairness and loyaltyg. Hold in trust money or propertyh. Respond with zeal to the cause of the client· Appointment of Amicus Curaea. By application to the judgeb. The judge on his own initiative may invite the lawyerc. No right to interfere with or control the condition of the record, nocontrol over the suit· Cannot refuse on the ground of insufficient of compensation or lack of it