Legal Ethics

 the embodiment of all the principles of morality and refinement that should govern the conduct of every member
of the Bar. (Moran, Legal and Judicial Ethics.1949)
 That branch of moral science which treats of the duties that an attorney owes to the court, to his client, to his
colleagues, and to the public. (Malcolm)
 Essential element: morality
 code of conduct, derived from statutes and jurisprudence, particularly applicable to the legal profession.

 Practice of LAW is a privilege impressed with public interest.

          Basic Ideal:

 to render public service

 The CONSTITUTION provides that: [Sec. 20, Art. IV]

 any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and have the competent and independent counsel preferably of his choice.

                                                                           (Criminal Cases)

 participation of a lawyer in a judicial proceedings is part of the due process of law. 

TELAN vs. CA

          A resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing an appeal due to the failure to file an appellant’s brief, was set aside
by the Supreme Court upon finding that the “lawyer” who represented the appellant in the former court was a fake one.

 only lawyers in good standing are allowed to practice law.

 PHILIPPINE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION vs. AGRAVA

          The practice of law is not limited to appearance in courts.

“THE PRACTICE OF LAW IS NOT LIMITED TO APPEARNCE IN COURTS.”

G. R. No. L-12426 February 16, 1959 Philippine Lawyer’s Association, Petitioner,vs.

Celedonio Agrava, in his capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent Office, Respondent.

 Practice of law in the Philippines include such appearance before the Patent Office, the representation of
applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their applications for patent, their oppositions
thereto or the enforcement of their rights in patent cases.
 Under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar authorized by the Supreme Court to practice law, and in
good standing , may practice their profession before the Patent Office, for the reason that much of the business in
said office involves the interpretation and determination of the scope and application of the patent law and other
laws applicable as well as the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved. That part of the functions of the
Patent Director are judicial and quasi-judicial, so much so that appeals from his orders and decision are under the
law taken to the Supreme Court.

 
This is the petition filed by the Philippine Lawyer’s Association for prohibition and injunction against Celedonio Agrava,
in his capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent Office.

Facts:

            On May 27, 1957, respondent Agrava issued a circular announcing that he had scheduled for June 27, 1957 an
examination for the purpose of determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent
Office, the said examination to cover patent law and jurisprudence and the rules of practice before said office. According
to the circular, members of the Philippine Bar, engineers and other persons with sufficient scientific and technical training
are qualified to take the said examination. It would appear that heretofore, respondent Director has been holding similar
examinations.

            Petitioner contends that anyone has passed the bar exams and is licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law,
has good standing, thus duly qualified to practice before the Patent Office, and therefore the act of requiring members of
the Bar in good standing to take and pass an examination given by the Patent Office as a condition precedent to be
allowed to practice before said office is a clear excess of his jurisdiction and violation of the law.

            On the other hand, respondent claimed that he is expressly authorized by the law to require persons desiring to
practice or to do business before him to submit an examination, even if they are already members of the bar. He contends
that our Patent Law, Republic Act No. 165, is patterned after the United States Patent Law; and of the United States Patent
Office in Patent Cases prescribes an examination similar to that which he had prescribed and scheduled.

“x x x       x x x        x x x

(a) Attorney at law. — Any attorney at law in good standing admitted to practice before any United States Court or the
highest court of any State or Territory of the United States who fulfills the requirements and complied with the provisions
of these rules may be admitted to practice before the Patent Office and have his name entered on the register of attorneys.

xxx     xxx     xxx

(c) Requirement for registration. — No person will be admitted to practice and register unless he shall apply to the
Commissioner of Patents in writing on a prescribed form supplied by the Commissioner and furnish all requested
information and material; and shall establish to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he is of good moral character
and of good repute x x x In order that the Commissioner may determine whether a person x x x has the qualifications
specified, satisfactory proof of good moral character and repute, x x x  an examination which is held from time to time
must be taken and passed. The x x x.”

            Respondent states that the promulgation of the Rules of Practice of the United States Patent Office in Patent Cases
is authorized by the United States Patent Law itself which provides:

The Commissioner of Patents, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Commerce may prescribe rules and regulations
governing the recognition of agents, attorneys, or other persons representing applicants or other parties before his office, and may
require of such persons, agents, or attorneys, before being recognized as representatives of applicants or other persons, that
they shall show they are of good moral character and in good repute, are possessed of the necessary qualifications to enable
them to render to applicants or other persons valuable service, and are likewise to competent to advise and assist applicants or other
persons in the presentation or prosecution of their applications or other business before the Office. x x x

            Respondent Director concludes that Section 78 of Republic Act No. 165 being similar to the provisions of law just
reproduced, then he is authorized to prescribe the rules and regulations requiring that persons desiring to practice before
him should submit to and pass an examination. We reproduce said Section 78, Republic Act No. 165, for purposes of
comparison:

SEC. 78. Rules and regulations. — The Director subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, shall promulgate the
necessary rules and regulations, not inconsistent with law, for the conduct of all business in the Patent Office.

Issue/s:
WHETHER OR NOT MEMBERS OF THE BAR SHOULD FIRST TAKE AND PASS AN EXAMINATION GIVEN BY THE
PATENT OFFICE BEFORE HE COULD BE ALLOWED TO PRACTICE LAW IS THE SAID OFFICE.

whether or not appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the prosecution of patent applications, etc.,
constitute or is included in the practice of law.

WHETHER OR NOT DIRECTOR OF THE PATENT OFFICE IS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT AN EXAMINATION FOR
PATENT ATTORNEYS IS CONTRARY TO LAW.

Decision:

The petition for prohibition is granted and the respondent Director is hereby prohibited from requiring members of the
Philippine Bar to submit to an examination or tests and pass the same before being permitted to appear and practice
before the Patent Office.

Ratio Decidendi:

            The Supreme Court has the exclusive and constitutional power with respect to admission to the practice of law in
the Philippines1 and to any member of the Philippine Bar in good standing may practice law anywhere and before any
entity, whether judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative, in the Philippines.

The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other
papers incident to actions and social proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients
before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in
matters connected with the law corporation services, assessment and condemnation services contemplating an appearance
before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency
proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to
constitute law practice as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves the
determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jur. p. 262, 263). (Emphasis supplied).

Practice of law under modern conditions consists in no small part of work performed outside of any court and having no
immediate relation to proceedings in court. It embraces conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a large variety of
subjects, and the preparation and execution of legal instruments covering an extensive field of business and trust relations
and other affairs. Although these transactions may have no direct connection with court proceedings, they are always subject to
become involved in litigation. They require in many aspects a high degree of legal skill, a wide experience with men and affairs,
and great capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex situations. These customary functions of an attorney or
counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the administration of justice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far as
concerns the question set forth in the order, can be drawn between that part which involves advice and drafting of
instruments in his office. It is of importance to the welfare of the public that these manifold customary functions be
performed by persons possessed of adequate learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all times under
the heavy trust obligations to clients which rests upon all attorneys. (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3
(1953 ed.), p. 665-666, citing In re Opinion of the Justices (Mass.), 194 N.E. 313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. vs. Automobile
Service Assoc. (R. I. ) 179 A. 139, 144). (Emphasis ours).

            The practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent Office, the representation of applicants, oppositors,
and other persons, and the prosecution of their applications for patent, their oppositions thereto, or the enforcement of
their rights in patent cases.

            The above provisions of Section 78 certainly and by far, are different from the provisions of the United States
Patent Law as regards authority to hold examinations to determine the qualifications of those allowed to practice before
the Patent Office. While the U.S. Patent Law authorizes the Commissioner of Patents to require attorneys to show that
they possess the necessary qualifications and competence to render valuable service to and advise and assist their clients
in patent cases, which showing may take the form of a test or examination to be held by the Commissioner, our Patent
Law, Section 78, is silent on this important point.

In conclusion, we hold that under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar authorized by this Tribunal to practice
law, and in good standing, may practice their profession before the Patent Office, for the reason that much of the business
in said office involves the interpretation and determination of the scope and application of the Patent Law and other laws
applicable, as well as the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved; that part of the functions of the Patent
director are judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so that appeals from his orders and decisions are, under the law, taken to
the Supreme Court.

G.R. No. 95026 October 4, 1991 SPOUSES PEDRO and ANGELINA TELAN, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, ROBERTO TELAN, and SPOUSES VICENTE and VIRGINIA TELAN, respondent.

          This is a petition for review of the Resolution dated December 28, 1989 of the Court of Appeals which considered
the appeal of the herein petitioner, spouses Pedro and Angelina Telan (hereinafter PEDRO and ANGELINA),
ABANDONED and DISMISSED, for their failure to file an appeal brief within the reglementary period, pursuant to
Section I(f), Rule 50 of the Rules of the Court.

Facts:

          The petitioner PEDRO is a retired government employee and high school graduate who settled in 1973 on a
property abutting the national highway in Guibang, Gamu, Isabela.

          In 1977, when the government needed the land, PEDRO was compelled to transfer his residence to the other side of
the national highway on a lot owned by Luciano Sia where he rented 750 square meters for P50.00 a month.

          Because the lot was en route to the shrine of Our Lady of Guibang which was frequented by pilgrims, PEDRO set up
business enterprises such as a vulcanizing shop and an eatery. Shortly thereafter, his cousins, the herein private
respondents Roberto Telan and Spouses Vicente and Virginia Telan (hereinafter ROBERTO, VICENTE, and VIRGINIA),
followed suit by setting up their own eatery within the same lot.

          On March 27, 1984, PEDRO and his spouses ANGELINA received a Notice to Vacate from the Development Bank of
the Philippine (DBP). This was followed by a letter from VIRGINIA herself, reiterating the said demand. Apparently
VICENTE and VIRGINIA had executed a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage with Sia over the said lot shared by
PEDRO and ANGELINA.

          Soon, DBP as the mortgagee of Sia’s lot, foreclosed the mortgage.

          On June 7, 1984, the DBP and the Spouses VICENTE and VIRGINIA TELAN filed a suit at the Regional Trial Court
of Ilagan, Isabela to evict PEDRO TELAN’s family from the lot. The case was dismissed.

          On September 22, 1986, ROBERTO TELAN, upon securing Certificate of Title in his name over the contested lot,
filed a Complaint (Accion Publiciana) against the petitioners, Spouses PEDRO and ANGELINA.

          At this point, PEDRO and ANGELINA hired the services of Atty. Antonio Paguiran to defend them in the suit.

          On October 27, 1988, the lower court awarded the possession of the property in question to ROBERTO and Souses
VICENTE and VIRGINIA TELAN.

          PEDRO and ANGELINA informed Atty. Paguiran that they wanted to appeal the case, but since Atty. Paguiran was
disposed not to do so, PEDRO and ANGELINA asked another person to sign for them.

          In the course of their eatery business, petitioner ANGELINA TELAN became acquainted with Ernesto Palma who
represented himself to be a “lawyer.” Having no counsel to assist them in their appeal, Angelina asked “Atty. Palma” to
handle their case. He consented and the petitioners paid his “lawyer’s fees.”
          In the meantime, on August 5, 1988, PEDRO TELAN broke his hip while he was getting off from a passenger
jeepney. Unfortunately, PEDRO was confined at the Philippine General Hospital from September 5, 1988 up to October 2,
1988. He had to go back to PGH several times for check-up even after was released from the hospital.

          Meanwhile, on December 28, 1989, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution which considered the appeal
interposed by petitioners as abandoned and dismissed “for failure … to file an appeal brief within the reglementary
period, pursuant to Section 1 (f), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.

          The petitioners were not aware of the dismissal of their appeal. They only came to know about it on May 1990, when
somebody in the Isabela Provincial Capitol at Ilagan informed PEDRO TELAN immediately verified the facts. “Atty.
Palma” could no longer be found. PEDRO in verifying the existence of “Atty. Palma” in the Roll of Attorneys with the Bar
Confidant’s Office. This was followed by the filing of Criminal Case No. 389-90 for Estafa against “Atty. Palma.” 15 By
now PEDRO had realized that “Atty. Palma” was a fake.

          The Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated August 27, 1990 ruled in favor of the respondents ROBERTO et al.

          On January 24, 1990, the Resolution dated December 28, 1989 became final and was entered on May 24, 1990 in the
Book of Entries of Judgment.

          On September 12, 1990, the presiding judge of the lower court issue the Writ of Demolition for the enforcement of
the decision.

          The Petition for Review on certiorari before this Court was filed on October 18, 1990 by the spouses PEDRO and
ANGELINA TELAN with an Urgent Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction.

          On October 24, 1990, after deliberating on the petition for review on certiorari, the Court without giving due course
required the respondents to COMMENT within ten (10) days form notice thereof. At the same time, as prayed for,
effective “immediately” and “continuing until further orders from this Court”, a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
was issued enjoining the respondents from enforcing the Order dated September 12, 1990 issued in Civil Case No. 279.

          In due time, after the filing of the necessary pleadings, the petition was given due course and the parties were
ordered to submit simultaneously their respective memoranda.

Issue:

Whether or not the representation of the petitioner by a fake lawyer amounts to a deprivation of his right to counsel and
hence a lack of due process.

Decision:

The Petition is GRANTED; the proceedings in CA-G.R CV No. 20786 are hereby REINSTATED and the respondent Court
of Appeals is ordered to give DUE COURSE to the appeal and to decide the same on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi:

          We rule for the petitioners. We hold that they had not been accorded due process of law because they lost their to
appeal when deprived of the right to counsel.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitutional provides:

xxx xxx xxx

No person shall be deprived of life, or property, without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the law.
The right to counsel in civil cases exists just as forcefully as in criminal cases, 19 specially so when as a consequence, life,
liberty, or property is subjected to restraint or in danger of loss.

In criminal cases, the right of an accused person to be assisted by a member of the bar is immutable. Otherwise, there
would be a grave denial of due process. Thus, even if the judgment had become final and executory, it may still be
recalled, and the accused afforded the opportunity to be heard by himself and counsel.

          There is no reason why the rule in criminal cases has to be different from that in civil cases. The preeminent right to
due process of law applies not only to life and liberty but also to property. There can be no fair hearing unless a party,
who is in danger of losing his house in which he and his family live and in which he has established a modest means of
livelihood, is given the right to be heard by himself and counsel.

          The right to counsel is absolute and may be invoked at all times. More so, in the case of an on-going litigation, it is a
right that must be exercised at every step of the way, with the lawyer faithfully keeping his client company.

          No arrangement or interpretation of law could be as absurd as the position that the right to counsel exists only in
the trial courts and that thereafter, the right ceases in the pursuit of the appeal.

          This is the reason why under ordinary circumstances, a lawyer can not simply refuse anyone the counsel that only
the exercise of his office can impart.

          Curiously, the counsel of the private respondents, ROBERTO TELAN and spouses VICENTE and VIRGINIA, would
still insist that the petitioners, spouses PEDRO and ANGELINA TELAN, had lost their right to appeal because of the
negligence of their counsel, referring to “Atty. Palma.”

          A client is generally bound by the action of his counsel in the management of a litigation even by the attorney’s
mistake or negligence in procedural technique. But how can there be negligence by the counsel in the case at bar when the
“lawyer”, “Atty. Palma,” turned out to be fake? The Affidavit of the petitioner PEDRO TELAN, the sworn Petition, the
Certifications of the Bar Confidant’s Office and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the submitted records of
Criminal Case No. 389-90 more than sufficiently establish the existence of an Ernesto Palma who misrepresented himself
as a lawyer.

Calub vs Suller

Facts:

* In the morning of January 20, 1975, while complainant was away, respondent Atty. Suller went to the complainant’s
house to borrow a blade and because respondent was a friend of the family and a neighbor, the complainant’s wife let
him in. Thereafter, respondent began touching her in different parts of her body. When she protested, respondent
threatened her and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. At that moment, complainant returned home to get
money to pay for real estate taxes. When he entered the house, he saw his wife and respondent having sexual intercourse
on the bed. She was kicking respondent with one foot while the latter pressed on her arms and other leg, preventing her
from defending herself. On. January 13, 1975, Mr. Calub file a criminal complaint for rape against Atty. Suller, thus, the
case was later remanded to the Court of First Instance (RTC) of Agoo, La Union. On June 3, 1975, Cristino G. Calub filed
with the Supreme Court the instant complaint for disbarment against Atty. Suller. Atty. Suller denied the accusation as a
fabrication. On July 21, 1975, the Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and
recommendation. On January 23, 1992, the Committee issued an order terminating the proceedings and considering the
case submitted for resolution as notice to complainant remained unserved while respondent failed to appear despite due
notice. On March 3, 1993, the Board of Governors, Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued a resolution recommending
that the disciplinary penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year be meted on respondent.

Issue: whether or not respondent lawyer should be disbarred.

Ruling:

The record discloses that the Court of First Instance acquitted respondent Suller for failure of the prosecution to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Such acquittal, however, is not determinative of this administrative case. The testimonies
of witnesses in the criminal complaint, particularly that of the complainant suffice to show that respondent acted in a
grossly reprehensible manner in having carnal knowledge of his neighbor’s wife without her consent in her very home.

A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows
him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the
court.

In this case, we find that suspension for one year recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is not sufficient
punishment for the immoral act of respondent. The rape of his neighbor’s wife constituted serious moral depravity even if
his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal prosecution for rape. He is not worthy to remain a
member of the bar. The privilege to practice law is bestowed upon individuals who are competent intellectually,
academically and, equally important, morally.13 “Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to
the legal profession, but it must also be possessed at all times in order to maintain one’s good standing in that exclusive
and honored fraternity.”14

WHEREFORE, respondent Abraham A. Suller is DISBARRED from the practise of law. Let his name be stricken off the
Roll of Attorneys.