Sec 2-6 Requirements for applicants for admission to the barCASE # 3Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente Ching B.M No. 914, October 1, 1999.TOPIC: Requirement for admission to the barFacts: Vicente Ching is born from a Filipino mother and a father of Chinese national on April 11, 1964. He took the bar exam subject upon submission of proof of his Phil. Citizenship. He passed the bar at the age of 35 years old. There was a question regarding his citizenship therefore he was not allowed to take oath. The Solicitor General was asked to give comment on the case at bar.ISSUE: WON Ching can be admitted to take oath in consideration of the status of his citizenship.RULING: The court ruled that Ching, being the "legitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother born under the 1935 Constitution was a Chinese citizen and continued to be so, unless upon reaching the age of majority he elected Philippine citizenship" 1 in strict compliance with the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 625 entitled "An Act Providing for the Manner in which the Option to Elect Philippine Citizenship shall be Declared by a Person Whose Mother is a Filipino Citizen." He should elect his Phil. Citizenship within a reasonable period of time upon reaching the age of majority which is 21 years old at that time. With almost 14 years that elapsed upon reaching his age of majority, Ching failed to exercise such right of citizenship election beyond a reasonable period of time therefore he cannot be admitted in the Phil. Rolls of atty. for being a Chinese citizen.

Good Moral CharacterCASE #4 In Re: ArgosinoB.M. No. 712 July 13, 1995TOPIC: Good moral character; admission to the bar; oath of takingFACTS: This is a matter for admission to the bar and oath taking of a successful bar applicant. Argosino was previously involved with hazing that caused the death of Raul Camaligan but was sentenced with homicide through reckless imprudence after he pleaded guilty. He was sentenced with 2 years imprisonment where he applied for a probation thereafter which was granted by the court with a 2 yr probation. He took the bar exam and passed but was not allowed to take oath. He filed a petition to allow him to take the attorneys oath of office averring that his probation was already terminated. The court note that he spent only 10 months of the probation period before it was terminated.ISSUE: WON Argosino may take oath of office.

RULING: The court upheld the principle of maintaining the good morals of all Bar members, keeping in mind that such is of greater importance so far as the general public and the proper administration of justice are concerned, than the possession of legal learning. Hence he was asked by the court to produce evidence that would certify that he has reformed and have become a responsible member of the community through sworn statements of individuals who have a good reputation for truth and who have actually known Mr. Argosino for a significant period of time to certify he is morally fit to the admission of the law profession. The court also ordered that said a copy of the proceeding be furnished to the family/relatives of Raul Camaligan.

CASE #8: In Re: Lanuevo 66 SCRA 254 August 29, 1975TOPIC: Admission to the Bar; judgment; SC exclusive power; practive of law is priviledge, not right; etc.

FACTS: This is an administrative proceeding against Victorio Lanueva who was the Bar Confidant during the 1971 Bar Examination emanating from the revelation of one Oscar Landicho, a bar examinee of the same bar exam, in his confidential letter that the result of the bar exam of one of the bar examinee later identified as Ramon Galang was raised before the result was released to make him pass the bar. Acting upon said letter, the court called the 5 bar examiners and the Bar Confident Lanuevo to submit their sworn statements on the matter. It appears that each of the 5 bar examiners were approached by Lanuevo with the examination booklet asking them to re-evaluate the grades of the bar examiner explaining that it is a practice policy in bar exams that he will review the grades obtained in all subjects by an examinee and when he finds a candidate to have extraordinary high grades in other subjects and low grade in one subject he can bring it to the examiner for reconsideration to help the candidate pass. In good faith of trust and confidence to the authority of Lanuevo, the examiners re-evaluated the exam of the candidate and reconsider the grade they give for each subject matter. Further investigation also revealed that Ramon Galang was charged with crime of slight physical injuries in the Mla. MTC but did not revealed the information in his application to take the bar examination.

ISSUE: WON Lanuevo has the authority to ask bar examiners to re-evaluate and re-correct the examination result of a bar candidate.

RULING: The court ruled that it is evident that Lanuevo has deceptively staged a plot to convince each examiner individually to re-evaluate the grades of Galang in order to help him pass the bar without prior authorization of the Court. His duty as a Bar Confident is limited only as a custodian of the examination notebooks after they are corrected by the examiners where he is tasked to tally the general average of the bar candidate. All requests for re-evaluation of grades from the bar exam shall be made by the candidate themselves. With the facts fully established that Lanuevo initiated the re-evaluation of the exam answers of Galang without the authority of the Court, he has breached the trust and confidence given to him by the court and was disbarred with his name stricken out from the rolls of attorneys. Galang was likewise disbarred for fraudulently concealing the criminal charges against him in his application for the bar exam while under oath constituting perjury. The court believed that the 5 bar examiners acted in good faith and thereby absolved from the case but reminded to perform their duties with due care.CASE #11LEGARDA V COURT OF APPEALSPER CURIAM; June 10, 1992FACTS Victoria Legarda was the defendant in a complaint for a specific performance with damages filed by private respondent New Cathay House Inc (NCHI). The complaint is aimed at compelling Victoria Legarda to sign a lease contract involving her house and lot which Cathay House Inc. intended to use in operating a restaurant. As prayed for in the complaint, the lower court issued a TRO enjoining Victoria Legarda and her agents from stopping the renovation of the property. Thereafter, Antonio Coronel of the Coronel Law office entered his appearance as counsel for Legarda. He filed an urgent motion for extension of 10 days which was granted by the court. However, Legarda was not able to file her answer within the 10 days given so she was declared in default, thereby paving way for the presentation of evidence ex parte The lower court then rendered a decision by default leaving Legarda on the losing end. Upon appeal, the CA found the petition unmeritorious and dismissed it. It said, It is our belief that this case is one of pure and simple negligence on the part of the defendants counsel, who simply failed to file the answer in behalf of the defendant. But inspite of the CAs tirade on his professional competence, Atty. Coronel did not lift a finger to file a motion for reconsideration, neither did he initiate moves towards an appeal on the decision which was adverse and prejudicial to his client. Thus the CA decision became final. Victoria Legarda then got a new lawyer and won the case. The court then required Atty. Coronel to show cause w/in 10 days from notice why he should not be held administratively liable for his acts and omissions w/c resulted in grave injustice to petitioner. He filed for another 30-day extension. Then another 30-day extension. Not filed in time, the 2nd motion was denied

ISSUEWON Atty. Colorado was negligent thus violating Canon 18 of the Professional Code of Responsibility

HELD Yes. Atty. Colorado violated Canon 18 which states that A lawyer shall serve his client w/ competence and diligence specifically Canon 18.03, a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. This is not the only case wherein in dealing w/ the courts orders, Atty. Coronel appears to exhibit a pattern of negligence, inattention to his obligations as counsel, sloppiness and superciliousness. In Imelda Marcos vs PCGG, the court imposed a fine on him after he was found guilty of negligenceRatio Lawyers are indispensable part of the whole system of administering justice in this jurisdiction. At a time when strong disturbing criticisms are being hurled at the legal profession, strict compliance w/ ones oath of office and the canons of professional ethics is an imperative. Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond reproach in dealing w/ their clients. The profession is not synonymous w. an ordinary business proposition. It is a matter of public interest.

Authority to Bind ClientsSection 23.Authority of attorneys to bind clients. Attorneys have authority to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure. But they cannot, without special authority, compromise their client's litigation, or receive anything in discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in cash.

CASE # 14As a general rule, a client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel. Only when the application of the general rule would result in serious injustice should an exception thereto be calledfor.- Villa RhecarBus v. Dela CruzPonente: Justice PUNO, 1994FACTS: Petitioner prays that the Resolution of Undersecretary Laguesma declaring respondent union as the soleand exclusive bargaining agent of all the Magnolia Sales Personnel in Northern Luzon be set aside forhaving been issued in excess of jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner questions the appropriateness of the bargaining unit sought to be represented by respondentunion. It claimed that its bargaining history in its sales offices, plants and warehouses is to havea separate bargaining unit for each sales officePetitioners Counsel Atty. Batalla withdrew petitioner's opposition to a certification election and agreedto consider all the sales offices innorthern Luzon as one bargaining unit. Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Labor. It claimed that Atty. Batalla was only authorized to agreeto the holding ofcertification elections subject to the following conditions:(1) There would only be one general election;(2) In this general election, the individual sales offices shall still comprise separate bargaining units.ISSUES: Petition for CertiorariW/N Respondent Union represents an appropriate bargaining unitW/N Petitioner is bound by its lawyers act of agreeing to consider the sales personnel in the North Luzon Sales Area as onebargaining unitDECISION:Court dismissed the petition.Court finds that the respondent union sought to represent the sales personnel in the various Magnoliasales offices in northern Luzon has:(1)Similarity of employment status for only the regular sales personnel in the north Luzon area is covered.(2)Have the same duties and responsibilities and substantially similar compensation and workingconditions.(3) Commonality of interest among the sales personnel in the north Luzon. In fact, in thecertification election held on November 24, 1990, the employees concerned acceptedrespondent union as their exclusive bargaining agent. Clearly, they have expressed their desire to be one. Court has categorically ruled that the existence of a prior collective bargaining history is neither decisive nor conclusive in the determination of what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit. In the alleged "mistake" of the substitute lawyer, the court finds that the mistake was the direct result of the negligence of petitioner's lawyers. It will be noted that Atty. Ona was under the supervision oftwo (2) other lawyers, Attys. Jacinto de la Rosa, Jr. and George C. Nograles. There is nothing in the records to show that these two (2) counsels were likewise unavailable at that time. Instead of deferring the hearing, petitioner's counsels chose to proceed therewith. Lawyers allegedly actively involved in SMC's labor case should have adequately and sufficiently briefed the substitute lawyer with respect to the matters involved in the case and the specific limits of his authority. The negligence of its lawyers binds the petitioner.

CASE # 15People v SalidoIt is a well-settled rule that the client is bound by his counsel's conduct, negligence, and mistakes inhandling the case and the client cannot be heard to complain that theresult might have been differenthad his lawyer proceeded differently.Ponente: Justice MELO, 1996FACTS: Kawasa appeals on the decision of the RTC convicting him, together with two others, of the crime ofkidnapping and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify offendedparty, jointly, the sum of P20,000.00. He seeks for a retrial. He asserts that there was a mistrial resulting in a miscarriage justice insofar as he is concerned due to the inefficiency and negligence ofhis counsel. Accused-appellant denies involvement in the crime and claims he was deprived the opportunity tosubmit his evidence and to disprove the evidence for the prosecution due to the inefficiency andnegligence of his counsel, for which reason, accused-appellant urges us to reopen the case with respectto him.ISSUES:W/N Kawasa is bound by the acts ofhis counsel.DECISION:The Court denied Kawasas petition and modified the amount of Civil Indemnity from P20, 000.00 toP50,000.00 in accordance to the current jurisprudence.In TESORO VS. CA, the court stated, "a client is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of a case and cannot be heard to complain that the result might have been different had he proceeded differently. A client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer. If such grounds were to be admitted and reasons for reopening case, there would never be an end to a suit so long as new counsel could be employed who could allege and shown that prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or experienced or learned. Mistakes of attorneys are not proper grounds for a new trial, unless the incompetency of counsel is so great that his client is prejudiced and prevented from properly presenting his case."

CASE #16TUPAS v. CAPONENTE: Justice CruzTOPIC: Authority to appear, Authority to Bind Clients, Compensation, Attys LienAEQUETAS NUNQUAM CONTRAVENIT LEGIS EQUITY NEVER CONTRAVENES THE LAWSFACTS:Petitioners received a copy of the RTC and then they filed their respective motion for reconsideration 14days later. The motion was denied, instead, of filling the petition for review with the court of appeals with the remainder of the 15 day reglementary period , that is, a day after they received the order, petitioner filed the said petition 14 days after. The petition was denied by the Court of Appeals on grounds of tardiness. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. They allege that they should not be prejudiced by the mistakes of their counsel because they are laymen and not familiar with the intricacies of the law.DECISION: The motion was denied with finality by the Court. The Court found that the petitioners have not shown that their counsel was exceptionally inept or motivated by bad faith or excusably misled by the facts. There is no reason why we should not apply the rule that clients should be bound by the acts of their counsel, including his mistakesThe Court stated, Now petitioner wants us to nullify all of the antecedent proceedings and recognize his earlier claims to the disputed property on the justification that his counsel was grossly inept. Therewould be no end to litigation if this were allowed as every shortcoming of counsel could be the subjectof challenge by his client through another counsel who, if he is also found wanting, would likewise bedisowned by the same client through another counsel, and so on.CASE # 21TESORO v CAPonente: Justice MAKASIAR, 1973FACTS: In a mayoralty election in Ilocos, private respondent Sanidad was declared winner over petitioner Tesoro. Alleging poll anomalies, the latter filed a protest. In the trial court, both parties agreed, afterdue hearing, to just submit the case for decision on the basis of the ballots and other documentaryexhibits (election returns, certificate of candidacy, etc.) without abduction (act of leading someone awayby fraudulent persuasion) of further evidence and then let the court render its decision based on theseand nothing more. After examining the ballots involved in the protest and counter-protest, the trial court found thepetitioner the election winner over private respondent. Then, private respondent filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals. CA granted the motion of the originalcounsel of private respondent, after which, the new counsel filed a motion to remand for a new trial toallow him to present additional evidence. The Court of Appeals granted the petition of the respondent by setting aside the decision of the trialcourt and directing a remand of the case. Petitioner filed a motion for Certiorari onthe said decision.ISSUES:W/N to remand the case inlight of additional evidences from the private respondent.DECISION:Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and ordered to render another decision basedexclusively on the evidence submitted at trial.Respondent Sanidad is now stopped from seeking a second chance to submit additional evidence, afterhe and his previous counsel submitted the case for decision on the basis of evidence already before the trial court. He had ample time during the trial to seek the assistance of handwriting and fingerprintexperts either from the NBI or from the private sector. He should not now be rewarded for hismiscalculations or strategic error.The alleged newly discovered evidence was actually forgotten evidence, which respondent Sanidad andhis counsel already knew or should have known during thetrial. Such forgotten evidence does not justifya new trialAppellate courts do not sit to remedy the tactical mistake committed by the parties or their counsel atthe trial.It has been repeatedly enunciated that "Aclient is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of acase and cannot be heard to complain that the result mighthave been different had he proceededdifferently. A client is bound by the mistakes of hislawyer.

CASE #22Salonga v CAPonente: Justice PANGANIBAN, 1997FACTS: Private Respondent Izon, as President of Paul Geneve Corporation, agreed into a joint ventureenterprise with Petitioner Salonga, as owner of Solid Intertain; and that is, both companies will form anew corporation. This joint venture will then provide leasehold holding rights of the property in Makatifrom the former to the latter. Documents were prepared for the joint venture. Private resp ondent signed the document, and it wasthen delivered to petitioner for his signature. However, the said documents were not signed by thepetitioner. With the memorandum of agreement still unsigned, not notarized, and in the possession of petitioner,the latter transferred all his equipments to the said property in Makati. Club Ibiza was thus opened and made operational on the leased premises in question under Solid Intertain Corporation. Private Respondent was totally left out.Private Respondent filed a complaint to Respondent RTC for specific performance with temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction with prayer for damages against herein petitioners toenforce a memorandum of agreement that was supposedly perfected between the parties. A TRO was then served topetitioner which they referred to their counsel, Atty. Garlitos.Only the private respondents appeared on the hearing for Injunction. Private respondent sought to citepetitioner for contempt on grounds that the latter disobeyed the temporary restraining order. Petitioners again failed to appear on the second hearing for the motion for writ of preliminary injunction. The court then acted, on the private respondents motion and it was granted a few daysafter. Despite two motions for extension, petitioner failed to answerthe court. Due to failure of petitioner to file an answer, private respondent submitted a third ex parte motion todeclare petitioner, as defendant in Default which the courtfavorably acted. A month after, RTC rendered a decision, holding the petitioner in default, in favor of theprivaterespondent. A few more months after, Petitioner Salonga was adjudged guilty of civil contempt. In defense, petitioner raised before theRespondent Court of Appeals the following arguments:(a) Fraud on the part of the petitioners counsel Petitioner alleged that his counsel Atty. Garlitos acted fraudulently in handling the CivilCase based on the following observations of the petitioner on his counsel: i.Very late arrival on thefirst hearing on preliminary injunction ii.Failure to appear on the second hearing on preliminary injunction iii.Failure to appear on the motion fordissolution of injunction iv.Failure to file an answer within theperiod required by the Rules of Court v.Failure to appear on petitioners motion of reconsideration vi.Failure to appear on a hearing in which private respondents counsel successfully obtained a denial of the aforementioned motion. Petitioner contend that there is extrinsic fraud when a party was prevented from havingpresentedallofhiscasetothecourtaswhenthelawyerconnivesathisdefeatorcorruptly sells out his client's interests (b)He was deprived of his basic rights to dueprocessPetitioners motion was denied.ISSUES:W/N The judgment of the lower court should be annulled on grounds of extrinsic fraud and denial ofdue process.DECISION:The court denied the motion of the petitioner, and in affirmed the decision of the lowercourts.On Annulment of JudgmentThere are only 2 grounds in annulment of judgment:(a)Void for want of jurisdiction or lack of due process of law(b)If it has been obtain by fraudNo Extrinsic FraudContrary to the petitioners contention, the Court notes that the previously enumerated negligent actsattributed to petitioner's former counsel Garlitos were in no way shown or alleged to have been causedby private respondents. Atty. Garlitos neither connived nor sold out to the latter.Negligence of Counsel Binds ClientThe court held that Any act performed by a lawyer within the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his client. Consequently, the mistake or negligence of petitioners' counsel mayresult in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against them. Exceptions to the foregoing have beenrecognized by the Court in cases where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of dueprocess of law, or when its application "results in the outright deprivation of one's property through atechnicality."None of these exceptions has been sufficiently shown in the present case.Counsels Negligence Simple or Gross?The court held that counsel Garlitos was merely guilty of simple negligence. Although his failure to file atimely answer had led to a judgment by default against his clients, his efforts at defending their causewere palpably real, albeit bereft of zeal.No Denial of Due ProcessThe court held that due process was never denied for petitioners Salonga and Solid IntertainCorporation because the trial court had given them a reasonable opportunity to be heard and presenttheir side in all the proceedings before it. The records reveal that the judgment by default was rendered by the trial court in faithful compliance with Rule 18 of the Rules of Court and the constitutionalguaranty of due process.Petitioner Guilty of Indirect Contempt?The Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals, in which, it correctly ruled that "(in) indirectcontempt proceedings such as in the case at bar, a mere motion to that effect will suffice for the (trialcourt) to acquire jurisdiction."For after all, Section 3 of the Rules of Court requires merely that "acharge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the accused to be heard by himself orcounsel" before one guilty of indirect contempt may be punished therefore.Quantum MeruitCASE # 23 IN RE TESTATE ESTATE OF DOA GABINA RAQUEL.VICENTE J. FRANCISCO, petitioner-appellee, vs. AUREA MATIAS, oppositor-appellant.On July 16, 1952, said AureaMatias named as executrix in the will engaged the services of Atty. Vicente Francisco, who, with the assistance of Atty. Agbunag and of Attorneys Alberto J. Francisco and J. Gonzales Orense, personally handled the case before three different judges successively.After the decision of this Court had become final, said attorney filed on October 7, 1958, in the Cavite court, in this testate proceeding, motion to fix his attorney's fees on the basis of quantum meruit. He alleged, among other things, that the Supreme Court had approved the probate of the will of Gabina Raquel, that he had agreed to receive a contingent fee of P15,000.00 under his erroneous belief, due to misrepresentations of AureaMatias, that Gabina Raquel had left properties worth only P167,000.00; that he learned, after the decision of the Supreme Court that the said properties actually amounted to much more than that sum; and that, consequently, he was not bound by his agreement to receive a contingent fee of P15,000.00 only. Atty. Francisco prayed that his compensation be fixed at 30% of the market value of the estate.In deciding the main petition in view of the testimonial and documentary evidence, it brushed aside, as immaterial, the alleged misrepresentation in the making of the written contract, since "reasonable amount" had become the real issue.It appears that the will of Gabina Raquel, who died without forced heirs, bequeathed the greatest part of the estate to appellant, and the rest to Santos Matias, Rafael Matias (her brothers) and to VictorinaSalud, Santiago Salud and PolicarpioSalud.Atty. Francisco said he contracted with her as the executrix. The will (shown to him) designated her as such;. She later asked to be noted in the estate proceedings, the amount of P15,000.00 (Francisco's fees) as a lien upon the estate (p. 103, R.A.); 3. In her motion ex-parteof July 20, 1959, she petitioned for authority to pay from the estate, the sum of P2,000.00 as part of the retainer fees of Atty. Francisco; 4 She included in her statement of accounts as executrix, Francisco's attorney's fees in the amount of P11,000.00; and 5. The statement of assets and liabilities of the estate filed by her with the lower court on January 10, 1959, listed appellee's fees in the amount of P15,000.00 as an item of estate liability.Generally speaking, where the employment of an attorney is under an express valid contractfixing the compensation for the attorney, such contract is conclusive as to the amount of compensation.At any rate, we may take judicial notice of the general information that the market value of real property in the provinces is usually three or more times the assessed valuation thereof. Citing Section 22, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court which says that "an attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services". This Supreme Court has held the following as the guidelines to be observed in determining the compensation of an attorney: (a) the amount and character of the services rendered; (b) the labor, time and trouble involved; (c) the nature and importance of the litigation or business in which the services were rendered; (d) the responsibility imposed; (e) the amount of money or the value of the property affected by the controversy, or involved in the employment; (f) the skill and experience called for in the performance of the services; (g) the professional character and standing of the attorney; (h) the results secured; (i) and whether or not the fee is absolute or contingent, it being a recognized rule that an attorney may properly charge a much larger fee when it is to be contingent than when it is not." (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. III [1957 Ed.] pp. 644, 645, citing Haussermann vs. Rahmeyer. The whole estate would have passed to the oppositorBasiliaSalud, who is the first cousin of the deceased Gabina Raquel to the exclusion of appellant and the other legatees named in the will. AureaMatias, whose father is a first cousin of the deceased, stands five degrees removed from Gabina Raquel, whereas BasiliaSalud is only four degrees removed from her; and under our rules on succession 13 in case of intestate or legal succession, the relative nearer in degree excludes the more remote ones and considering also, that in the collateral line, the right of representation holds only where nephews and nieces survive with brothers and sisters of the deceased. 14 Note incidentally, that the will favored Aurea because the latter lived with, and rendered services to, her aunt Gabina for more than 32 years.Indeed, the legal services rendered in the lower court were expectably quite exacting. The trial alone covered almost a period of four years. The preparation and presentation of evidence called for strenuous work. Thirty-one documents were presented as evidence for the proponent of the will. The transcript of the stenographic notes consisted of more than a thousand pages. Numberless motions were filed. After the closing of the evidence, a memorandum had to be filed to answer the oppositor's motion to reject the will. And then, despite the extensive study, research, and preparation of the evidence, and notwithstanding the skill and experience of Atty. Francisco, the Cavite court denied the probate of the will.Taking into account all the variables of the process, in the light of our several pronouncements on the matter of contingent lawyer's fees, we feel that modifying the appealed resolution and awarding 12.5% of the market value to the herein appellee would accomplish substantial justice. This figure represents a compromise, some members having voted for a bigger amount, while others voted for less. The Suntay and the Harden cases were specially mentioned, since they belonged to the million-peso class. This award sets a higher ratio than the first, because the latter involved over three million pesos and because Atty. Francisco rendered much greater services to this estate. For one thing, he handled tedious trial work which lasted for about four years and for another, the fee was contingent. The Harden ratio (20%) was not applied, because attorney and client had entered therein into a valid written contract.Several circumstances account for this drastic reduction, among them: (a) 25% of P1,236,993.46 equals P309,248.36; but Atty. Francisco expressed willingness to receive P100,000.00 only, in his letter of September 15, 1958 (Record on Appeal, p. 132); (b) although admittedly the leading legal counsel, he got the assistance of three other attorneys; (c) believing the estate amounted to P167,000.00, he agreed to receive P15,000.00 as contingent fee, i.e. 9% only; and (d) he has already received a total of P11,000.00.

Unlawful retention of funds and charging liensPractice of Law by government employeeAuthority to appear for government

3. Rule 139 The Integrated Bar of the PhilippinesCASE # 44RE: 1989 ELECTIONS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINESPER CURIAM; October 6, 1989NATUREAn inquiry into the 1989 Elections of the integrated bar of the Philippines. The Supreme Court, en banc, exercising its power of supervision over the Integrated Bar, resolvd to suspend the oath-taking of the IBP officers=elect and to inquire into the veracity of the reports.

FACTS- June 3, 1989, the election of the national officers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) was held at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC).The newly elected officers were set to take their oath of office on July 4, 1989, before the Supreme Court. However, because of widespread reports about the intensive electioneering and overspending by the candidates, the Supreme Court resolved to suspend the oath-taking of the IBP officers-elect to investigate.- the elections were led by the main candidates for the office of IBP President, namely Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon Nisce, and Violeta C. Drilon. - Among the allegations were the use of government planes, and the officious intervention of certain public officials to influence the voting, all of which were done in violation of the IBP By-Laws. (poured heart, soul, money and influence to win over the 120 IBP delegates.)- Emil Jurado (Manila Standard) reported that there was rampant vote-buying by some members of the U.P. Sigma Rho Fraternity as well as by some lawyers of ACCRA, and that government positions were promised to others by the office of the Labor Secretary.- There was also the billeting of out-of-town delegates in plush hotels where they were reportedly wined and dined continuously, women, and subjected to endless haggling over the price of their votes xxx which ranged from P15K to P20K, and on election day, to as much as P50K.- In a resolution calling for investigations, the Court called to mind that a basic postulate of the IBP xxx is that the IBP shall be non-political in character and that there shall be no lobbying nor campaigning in the choice of members of the Board of Governors and of the House of Delegates and of the IBP officers.- Article I, Section 4 of IBP By-Laws emphasizes the strictly non-political character of the IBP:SEC. 4. Non-political Bar. the IBP is strictly non-political, and every activity tending to impair this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly. No lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the government xxx shall be eligible for election or appointment to any position in the IBP or any chapter thereof. Section 14 of By-Laws enumerates the prohibited acts relative to IBP elections: Distribution of election campaign material; Distribution of campaign material other that a statement of the biodata of candidate not more than one page of legal paper; Campaigning for or against any candidate, whle holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, prosecutory office in Govt; Formation of tickets, single slates, or combinations of candidates, as well as the advertisement thereof; For purpose of influencing a member, by payment of dues or other indebtedness of the member; giving of food, drink, entertainment, transpo, any article of value; making a promise or causing an expenditure to be made.- Section 12(d) of the By-Laws prescribes the sanctions: Violation of the by-laws of the IBP shall be a ground for the disqualification of a candidate or his removal from office if elected, without prejudice to the imposition of sanctions upon any erring member xxx- Atty. Paculdo admitted having spent some P250K during his three weeks of campaigning; Atty. Nisces hotel bills at the Hyatt amounted to P216K ++, not including previous expenses for his campaign; Atty . Drilons campaign rang up over P600K in hotel bills (Westin).ISSUEWON the candidates are guilty of massive electioneering, inappropriate use of government resources, and vote-buying during the IBP national elections.HELDRatio- IBP elections should be as they are annulled.- The provisions of the IBP By-Laws for direct election by the House Delegates of officers, IBP President, and exec. VP be repealed.- Former sstem of IBP President and Exec. VP elected by Board of Governors from among themselves should be restored.- At the end of Presidents 2-year term, the EVP shall automatically succeed to the office of the president. The incoming board of governors shall elect an EVP from among themselves. Reasoning - It is evident that the manner in which the principal candidates for the national positions in the Integrated Bar conducted their campaign preparatory to the elections violated Sec. 14 of the IBP By-laws and made a travesty of the idea of a strictly non-political IBP shrined in Sec. 4.- The candidates and many of the participants in that election not only violated the By-Laws of the IBP but also the ethics of the legal profession which imposes on all lawyers, as a corollary of their obligation to: Obey and uphold the constitutionand the laws; Duty to promote respect for law and legal processes; Abstain from activities aimed at defiance of law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.- It is speculated that the IBP ticket to the Judicial and Bar Council as provided in Art. VIII Sec. 8 may be the reason why the position of IBP president has attracted so much interest among the lawyers.- The decision is meant to impress upon participant the seriousness of their misconduct, and to restore the non-political character of the IBP.

What is the practive of law?CASE # 48CAYETANO V MONSODPARAS; September 3, 1991

TOPIC: Petition to review decision of Commission on AppointmentsFACTS- April 25, 1991 Atty. Christian Monsod was appointed by Pres. Aquino as Chairman of COMELEC- Rene Cayetano opposed such appointment as citizen and taxpayer because Monsod allegedly does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years- June 18, 1991 Monsod took his oath of office- Monsods credentials> member of Philippine Bar since 1960> after bar, worked in law office of his father> 1963-1970 in World Bank Group as operations officer in Costa Rica and Panama involves getting acquainted with laws of member-countries, negotiating loans and coordinating legal, economic and project work> 1970 in Meralco Group as CEO of investment bank> since 1986 rendered service to various companies as legal and economic consultant or CEO> 1986-1987 secretary-general and national chairman of NAMFREL (election law)> co-chairman of Bishops Businessmens Conference for Human Development> 1990 - Davide Commission quasi-judicial body> 1986-1987 member of Constitutional Commission as Chairman on Accountability of Public Officers - AIX-C Sec1(1) - Commission on Elections chairman shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years- no jurisprudence on what constitutes the practice of law

ISSUEWON Monsod is qualified as Chairman of COMELEC in fulfilling the requirement engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years

HELDYES. Practice of Law means any activity, in or out of court which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. Monsod as lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager, lawyer-entrepreneur, lawyer-negotiator, and lawyer-negotiator is proof he is engaged in practice of law for more than 1- years- Blacks Law Dictionary> Rendition of service requiring the knowledge and application of legal principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent > not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and giving all legal advice to clients- Land Title Abstract and Trust Co v Dworken> one who in representative capacity engages in business of advising clients as to their rights under law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court- UP Law Center> advocacy, counseling, public service- Alexander SyCip> appearance of lawyer in litigation is most publicly familiar role of lawyers as well as an uncommon role for the average lawyer> more legal work is transacted in law offices that in the courtrooms> business counseling than trying cases; as planner, diagnostician, trial lawyer, surgeon- article on Business Star> emerging trends in corporate law

SEPARATE OPINIONNARVASA [concur]- concur only in the result

PADILLA [dissent]- Practice refers to actual performance of application of knowledge as distinguished from mere possession of knowledge; it connotes active, habitual, repeated or customary action TF lawyer employed as business executive or corporate manager, other than head of Legal Department cannot be said to be in the practice of law- People v Villanueva> Practice is more than an isolated appearance for it consists in frequent or customary actions, a succession of acts of the same kind- Commission on Appointments memorandum> practice of law requires habituality, compensation, application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure, and attorney-client relationshipCRUZ [dissent]- sweeping definition of practice of law as to render the qualification practically toothless- there is hardly any activity that is not affected by some law or government regulation the businessman must know about and observe- performance of any acts in or out of court, commonly understood to be the practice of law which tells us absolutely nothingGUTIERREZ [dissent]- practice is envisioned as active and regular, not isolated, occasional, accidental, intermittent, incidental, seasonal or extemporaneous- nothing in the bio-data even remotely indicates Monsod has given the law enough attention or a certain degree of commitment and participation- difficult if not impossible to lay down a formula or definition of what constitutes the practice of law- Monsod was asked if he ever prepared contracts for parties in real-estate transaction; he answered very seldom- Monsod may have profited from his legal knowledge, the use of such is incidental and consists of isolated activities which do not fall under the denominations of practice of lawCASE # 49ULEP V LEGAL CLINICREGALADO; June 17, 1993FACTS- Petitioner prays that respondent cease and desist from issuing ads similar to annexes A and B and to prohibit them from making ads pertaining to the exercise of the law professions other than those allowed by law- Annex ASECRET MARRIAGE?P560 for a valid marriageInfo on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.Pls call: 5210767, 5217232, 52220418:30am-6pm7F Victoria Bldg, UN Ave, Mla- Annex BGUAM DIVORCEDON PARKINSONAn Atty in Guam, is giving FREE BKS on Guam Divorce thru the Leg Clinic beg Mon-Fri during office hoursGuam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Probs, Visa ext. Quota/Non-quota Res and Special Retirees Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Sp/Shil. Call MarivicTHE LEGAL CLINIC, etcPetitioners Claim:-Ads are unethical and demeaning of the law profession and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar.-As a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the adsRespondents Comment:-They are not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of leg support services thru paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines- Even if they are leg services, the act of advertising them should be allowed under Bates v. State bar of ArizonaISSUES1. WON the services offered by The Legal Clinic constitutes practice of law?2. WON their services can be advertised?HELD1. Yes. The Practice of law involves any activity, in or out of the court, which requires the application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and expertise- To engage in the practice is to perform those acts which are characteristic of the profession; to give advice or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge/skill- Not limited to the conduct of cases in court; includes legal advice and counsel and preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured regardless of WON theyre pending in court3 types of legal profession activity:1. legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations2. preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by ordinary layman3. appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess power and authority to determine rights of life, liberty and property according to law, in order to assist in proper inter and enforcement of law

Respondents description of its services shows it falls within the practice of law:Giving info by paralegals to laymen and lawyers thru the use of comps and modern info tech- computerized legal research, document search, evidence gathering, locating parties/witnesses to a case, fact finding investigations, assistance to laymen in need of services from agencies like birth, marriage, prop, bus registrations, etc.*even if some of the services offered merely involve mechanical and technical know how like installing computer system for law offices, this doesnt make it an exception to the general rule- gives out leg info to laymen and lawyersnot non-advisory and non-diagnosticex. foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption have to explain to client the intricacies of the law and advise him on the proper course of action- what its ads represent and what it will be paid for- It doesnt matter that they dont represent clients in court since practice of law isnt limited to ct appearances but also leg research, leg advice and drafting contractsPhil Star Art Rx for Leg Probs, int by proprietor Atty Nogales:- Takes care of probs as complicated as the Cuneta-Concepcion domestic sit- lawyers, who like drs, are specialists in various fields and can take care of it (taxation, crim law, medico-leg probs, labor, litigation, fam law)- backed up by paralegals, counselors and attys- caters to clients who cant afford big firms- can prepare a simple deed of sale or affidavit of loss and also those w/ more extensive treatment

-The fact that they employ paralegals to carry out its services doesnt matter; whats important is that its engaged in the practice of law cause of the nature of the services it renders, which brings it within the statutory prohibitions against adsonly a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and whos in good and regular standing is entitled to the practice of law- public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and character to protect the public, court, client and bar from incompetence/dishonesty of those unlicensed to the practice and not subject to the discipline of court

2.No. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer, in making known his legal services, shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective info/statement of facts- not supposed to use any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement re his qualifications/legal services- not supposed to pay representatives of the mass media in return for publicity to attract legal business

Canons of professional Ethics (before CPR) provides that lawyers shouldnt resort to indirect ads for professional employment like furnishing newspaper comments, publishing his pictures with causes the lawyers been engaged in, importance of his position and other self-laudationStands of legal profession condemn lawyers advertisement of his talents like a merchant does of his goods because of the fact that law is a profession.The canons of profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust which must be earned as the outcome of character and conductGood and efficient service to a client and the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention; this shouldnt be done thru propaganda

EXCEPTIONS:1. expressly allowed publication in reputable law lists of informative data thats not misleading and may include only: name, professional assoc, adds, nos, branches of law practiced, date and place of birth and admission to the bar, schools attended w/ dates of grad, degrees , public offices, posts of honor, legal authorships, legal teaching positions, membership and offices in bar association, legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities, listings in other reputable law lists, names and adds of references with written consent and clients regularly represented- cant be mere supplemental feature of paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical thats published for other purposes- never in a law list that are calculated or likely to deceive/injure the public/the bar or lower the dignity/standing of the profession- ordinary simple professional card allowed name, law firm, add, no and special branch of law practiced- publication of simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or change in partnership, assoc, firm name or office add, for the convenience of the profession- have name listed in phone directory but not under designation of special branch of law2. necessarily implied from the restrictions

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona: allowed lawyer to publish a statement of leg fees for an initial consultation or give, upon request, a written schedule of fees or estimate for spec servicess as an exception to the prohibition against advertisements by lawyers- none expressly/impliedly provided for in the Canons of Professional Ethics or Code of Professional Responsibility*survey conducted by the American Bar Assoc on the attitude of the public about lawyers after viewing TC commercials pub opinion dropped significantly:Trustworthy 71-14%Professional 71-14%Honest 65-14%Dignified 45-14%

With the present situation of our legal and judicial system, to allow the publication of like advertisements would aggravate whats already a deteriorating pub of the legal profession whose integritys been under attack by media and the community in general- all efforts should be made to regain the high esteem formerly accorded to the leg professionAtty Nograles (prime incorporator, major stockholder and proprietor of the Leg Clinic) is REPRIMANDED w/ a warning that a repetition will be dealt w/ more severely for misbehavior in advertising his servIces and aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law