Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Posted byAddie AntazoPosted inLegal Ethics, Problem Areas In Legal Ethics
  • REQUIREMENTS BEFORE ADMISSION TO THE BAR OR PRACTICE OF LAW
    1. Query of Atty. Silverio-Buffe – AM No. 08-6-352-RTC (2009)
      1. “obey the law first before questioning its legality”
    2. Atty. Noe-Lacsamana v Atty. Busmente – AC No. 7269 (2011)
      1. ” Never aid anyone in an illegal practice of Law”
    3. Aguirre v Rana – BM No 1036 June 10 2003
      1. ” Never claim that you are a Lawyer if you have not signed the Roll of Attorney’s”
    4. Zeta v. Malinao – AM No. P-220, December 20, 1978
      1. “Facing the complainant is not necessary at long as the evidence supports the complaint”
    5. Re: Elmo Abad – AM No. 139 (1983)
      1. “After passing the Bar Examination, two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by SC and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.”
    6. Letter of Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo Jr. – BM 1370, May 9, 2005
    7. Petition to sign in the Roll of Attorneys, Medado, BM No. 2540 (2013)
    8. Normatan and Pagayohan v Balajadia GR No. 169517 (2006)
    9. In re: Juan Publico, Petition for Reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys February 20, 1981
    10. in re: James Joseph Hamm 123 P. 3d 652 (2005)
    11. PP v Hon. Maceda and Javellana GR No. 89591-95 January 24, 2000
    12. Santos Jr. v. Atty. Llamas AC No. 4749 (2000)
    13. Petition for leave to resume practice of law, Dacanay BM No. 1678 December 17, 2007
    14. Petition to reacquire the privilege to practice law in the Philippines, Muneses BM No. 2112 (2012)
    15. PP v De Luna et. Al. GR No. L-10236-48, January 31, 1958
    16. Alawi v. Alauya – AM SDC-97-2-P. February 24, 1997
    17. In re: Purisima, BM No. 979 and 986 (2002)
    18. Paguia v Office of the President, GR No. 176278 (2010)
    19. In  re: Argosino, BM No. 712 july 13, 1995
  • LAW STUDENT RULE
    1. Revised Rules of Court Rule 138-A, Rule 138 section 34
    2. In Re: Need that Law student practicing under Rule 138-A be actually supervised during trial (Bar Matter No 730)
      1. “A law student appearing before the Regional Trial Court under Rule 138-A should at all times be accompanied by a supervising lawyer. Section 2 of Rule 138-A provides. However, a law student may appear before an inferior court (MTC, MeTC, MCTC, and MTCC) as an agent or friend of a party without the supervision of a member of the bar.”
    3. Cruz v Mina – GR no. 154207 April 27, 2007
      1. “Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts by a non-lawyer is allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law student. As succinctly clarified in Bar Matter No. 730, by virtue of Section 34, Rule 138, a law student may appear, as an agent or a friend of a party litigant, without the supervision of a lawyer before inferior courts. There is really no problem as to the application of Section 34 of Rule 138 and Rule 138-A. In the former, the appearance of a non-lawyer, as an agent or friend of a party litigant, is expressly allowed, while the latter rule provides for conditions when a law student, not as an agent or a friend of a party litigant, may appear before the courts.”
    4. Cruz v Atty. Cabrera – AC No. 5737, October 25, 2004
      1. “all lawyers should take heed that lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum.”
    5. Catimbuhan, et. Al. v Hon. Cruz Jr, – GR No L-51813-14 November 29, 1983
      1. “The permission of the fiscal is not necessary for one to enter his appearance as private prosecutor. In the first place, the law does not impose this condition. What the fiscal can do, if he wants to handle the case personally is to disallow the private prosecutor’s participation, whether he be a lawyer or not, in the trial of the case. On the other hand, if the fiscal desires the active participation of the private prosecutor, he can just manifest to the court that the private prosecutor, with its approval, will conduct the prosecution of the case under his supervision and control. Further, We may add that if a non-lawyer can appear as defense counsel or as friend of the accused in a case before the municipal trial court, with more reason should he be allowed to appear as private prosecutor under the supervision and control of the trial fiscal.”
    6. Bulacan v Torcino – GR No. L-44388, January 30, 1985
      1. “Court procedures are often technical and may prove like shares to the ignorant or the unwary. In the past, our law has allowed non-lawyers to appear for party litigants in places where duly authorized members of the bar are not available. For relatively simple litigation before municipal courts, the Rules still allow a more educated or capable person to appear in behalf of a litigant who cannot get a lawyer. But for the protection of the parties and in the interest of justice, the requirement for appearances in regional trial courts and higher courts is more stringent.”
    7. Revised Law Student Practice Rule (AM No 19-03-24-SC)
  • SOLICITATION OF LEGAL SERVICES
    1. Linsangan v Atty. Tolentino AC No. 6672, September 4, 2009
    2. Atty. Khan Jr v Atty Simbilio, AC No. 5299, August 19, 2003
    3. Geffen v. Moss, 53 Cal. App. 3d215,125 Cal.Rptr. 687 (1975)
    4. In re Krasner 204 N.E.2d 10 (1965)
    5. Fabilio v IAC GR No L-68838 March 11, 1991
    6. Yu v Bondal AC No 5534, January 17, 2005
    7. In re: RMJ 455 US 191 (1982)
    8. Samonte v Atty Gatdula AM No P-99-1292 (1999)
    9. Dacanay v Baker and McKenzie, et. Al. AC No. L-1117, March 1944
    10. In re: Tagorda, 53 Phil. 37 (1929)
    11. Ulep vs Legal Clinic 223 SCRA 378
    12. US vs Ney and Bosque, 8 Phil. 146 (1907)
  • ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COMPENSATION FOR LEGAL SERVICES
    1. Masmud v. NLRC, GR No 183385
    2. In Re: Atty. Adriano, GR No. L-26868, February 27, 1969
    3. Junio v Atty Grupo, AC No. 5020, December 18, 2001
    4. Leviste v CA, GR No. L-29184 (1989)
    5. Rustia v The Judge of First Instance of Batangas, GR No. L-19695, November 17, 1922
    6. Aro v The Hon. Nanawa, GR No. L-24163 (1969)
    7. Atty. Orocio v Angulan et. Al. GR No. 179892.-93, January 30, 2009
    8. Pineda v Atty. De Jesus, et.al. GR No.155224 August 23, 2006
    9. Rilloza, et.al v. Eastern Telecommunications Phils., Inc., GR No. 104600 (1999)
    10. Tan Tek Beng v David, AC No. 1261, December 29, 1983
    11. De Guzman v Visayan Rapid Transport Co. Inc. GR No. 46396, September 30, 1939
    12. Dee vs Court of Appeals, GR No. 77439, August 24, 1989
  • CONFIDENTIALITY AND “PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS” BETWEEN LAWYERS AND CLIENTS
    1. CPR Canon 15, Rule 15.02
    2. RRC Rule 130 Sec 24
    3. CPR Canon 21, Rule 21.01 – 21.07
    4. RRC Rule 138 section 20(e)
    5. CPR Canon 17
    6. Regala et. Al. v Sandiganbayan, GR No. 105938 (1996)
    7. Genato v Atty Silapan, AC No. 4078, July 14, 2003
    8. Uy v Atty Gonzales AC No 5280, March 30, 2004
    9. Hadjula v Atty. Madiala, AC No. 6711 (2007)
    10. PP v Sy Juco GR No. L-41957 August 28, 1937

Advertisement

One thought on “Problem Areas in Legal Ethics”

  1. Pingback: Law School Subjects

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: