Legal Ethics

The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show
that they possess and continue to posssess the legal qualifications for the profession. A lawyers
failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the
presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed
to him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional
ethics. (Bankard, Inc. Vs National Labor Relations Commission, 692 SCRA 459, March 6, 2013)
Administrative Complaints; Disbarnmentt; Suspension; The withdrawal of an
administrative charge for suspension or disbarment based on an attorneys professional
misconduct or negligence will not furnish a ground to dismiss the charge. Suspension or
disbarment proceedings that are warranted will still proceed regardless of the lack of interest on
the part of the complainant. (Pesto vs Millo, 693 SCRA 281, March 13, 2013)
Code of Professional Responsibility; Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility requires an attorney to exert every effort and to consider it his duty to assist in
the speedy and efficient administration of justice.On the part of petitioners counsel, he was
expectedly aware of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which required him as
an attorney to exert every effort and to consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. He should not ever ignore such duty, even upon the pretext of giving
his entire devotion to the interest of his clients. He ought not to forget that as an attorney, he
was, first and foremost, an officer of the court, bound to exert every effort to comply with the
requirement under Canon 12. [Philworth Asia, Inc. vs. Philippine Commercial International Bank,
697 SCRA 206(2013)]
Article 1491 (5) of the Civil Code prohibits lawyers from acquiring by purchase or
assignment the property or rights involved which are the object of the litigation in which
they intervene by virtue of their profession.Absent a showing that the RTCs ruling on the
foregoing issues was reversed and set aside, we find that the CA reversibly erred in ruling on
the validity of the Agreement which respondents executed not only with petitioners
predecessor-in-interest, Manuel, but also with Atty. Zepeda. Since it is generally accepted that
no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, the rule is settled that a
court must first acquire jurisdiction over a party either through valid service of summons or
voluntary appearance for the latter to be bound by a court decision. The fact that Atty.
Zepeda was not properly impleaded in the suit and given a chance to present his side of the
controversy before the RTC should have dissuaded the CA from invalidating the Agreement
and holding that attorneys fees should, instead, be computed on a quantum meruit basis.
Admittedly, Article 1491 (5) of the Civil Code prohibits lawyers from acquiring by purchase or
assignment the property or rights involved which are the object of the litigation in which they
intervene by virtue of their profession. The CA lost sight of the fact, however, that the
prohibition applies only during the pendency of the suit and generally does not cover contracts
for contingent fees where the transfer takes effect only after the finality of a favorable judgment.
[Heirs of Manuel Uy Ek Liong vs. Castillo, 697 SCRA 294(2013)]
Conflict of Interest; Three Tests in Determining Whether a Lawyer is Guilty of
Representing Conflicting Interest.Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining
whether a lawyer is guilty of representing conflicting interest: One test is whether a lawyer is
duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose
that claim for the other client. Thus, if a lawyers argument for one client has to be opposed by
that same lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the rule. Another test of
inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full
discharge of the lawyers duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion
of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. Still another test is whether
the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any
confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment. [Lee vs.
Simando, 698 SCRA 20(2013)]
Disbarment; A lawyer who holds a government office may be disciplined as a member of the
Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer Chapter 1 of
the Code, delineate the lawyers responsibility to society: Rule 1.01 engraves the overriding
prohibition against lawyers from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful
conduct; Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers from encouraging any suit or proceeding or delaying any
mans cause for any corrupt motive or interest; meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly directed to
lawyers in government service, enjoining them from using ones public position to: (1) promote
private interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private interests to interfere with
public duties. It is well to note that a lawyer who holds a government office may be disciplined
as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a
lawyer. In this light, a lawyers compliance with and observance of the abovementioned rules
should be taken into consideration in determining his moral fitness to continue in the practice of
law [Abella vs. Barrios, Jr., 698 SCRA 683(2013)]