LEGAL PROFESSION

ISKO NOTES | Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

RULE 13 ! ATTORNE"S AN# A#MISSION TO T$E %AR & '$O MA" PRA(TI(E LA')
S*+tion 1, Who may practice law. Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law. %AR MATTER NO, -./ In t0* Matt*1 o2 P*tition to aut0o1i3* S0a1ia40 #ist1i+t (ou1t 5udg*s to A66oint S0a1i4a La7y*1s as Nota1i*s Pu8li+ May 1/9 1::; Facts Petitioner Royo M. Gampong, a Bachelor of Laws LlB! graduate of "otre #ame $niversity who was admitted to the Philippine %hari&a Bar filed an instant petition praying that this 'ourt, after due notice and hearing, issue an order authori(ing all %hari&a #istrict 'ourt )udges to appoint %hari&a Lawyers who possess the *ualifications and none of the dis*ualifications as notaries public within their respective +urisdictions. Decision 'onsidering that a person who has passed the %hari&a Bar ,-amination is only a special member of the Philippine Bar and not a full.fledged member thereof even if he holds a Bachelor of Laws #egree, he is not *ualified to practice law before the regular courts. As a general rule, a %hari&a Lawyer is not possessed of the basic re*uisite of /practice of law0 in order to be appointed as a notary public under %ection 122 of the "otarial Law in relation to %ection 3, Rule 324 of the Revised Rules of 'ourt. %,M, No, <. = MAN#ATOR" (ONTINUING LEGAL E#U(ATION
RULE 11 GENERAL (OMPLIAN(E PRO(E#URES S*+tion 1, Compliance card. ,ach member shall secure from the M'L, 'ommittee a 'ompliance 'ard before the end of his compliance period. 5e shall complete the card by attesting under oath that he has complied with the education re*uirement or that he is e-empt, specifying the nature of the e-emption. %uch 'ompliance 'ard must be returned to the address indicated therein not later than the day after the end of the member&s compliance period. S*+tion /, Member record keeping requirement. ,ach member shall maintain sufficient record of compliance or e-emption, copy furnished the M'L, 'ommittee. 6he record re*uired to be provided to the members by the provider pursuant to %ection 2 c! of Rule 7 should be sufficient record of attendance at a participatory activity. A record of non.participatory activity shall also be maintained by the member, as referred to in %ection 2 of Rule 8. RULE 1/ NON=(OMPLIAN(E PRO(E#URES S*+tion 1, What constitutes non-compliance. 6he following shall constitute non. compliance9 a! :ailure to complete the education re*uirement within the compliance period; b! :ailure to provide attestation of compliance or e-emption; c! :ailure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance including evidence of e-empt status! within the prescribed period; d! :ailure to satisfy the education re*uirement and furnish evidence of such compliance within si-ty <=! days from receipt of a non.compliance notice; e! Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade compliance with the M'L, re*uirements. S*+tion /, Non-compliance notice and 60-day period to attain compliance . A member failing to comply will receive a "on.'ompliance "otice stating the specific deficiency and will be given si-ty <=! days from the date of notification to e-plain the deficiency or otherwise show compliance with the re*uirements. %uch notice shall contain, among other things, the following language in capital letters9

>?$R :A@L$R, 6? PR?A@#, A#,B$A6, )$%6@:@'A6@?" :?R "?". '?MPL@A"', ?R PR??: ?: '?MPL@A"', C@65 65, M'L, R,B$@R,M,"6 B> @"%,R6 #A6, <= #A>% :R?M 65, #A6, ?: "?6@',!, %5ALL B, A 'A$%, :?R L@%6@"G A% A #,L@"B$,"6 M,MB,R. 6he Member may use this period to attain the ade*uate number of credit hours for compliance. 'redit hours earned during this period may only be counted toward compliance with the prior compliance period re*uirement unless hours in e-cess of the re*uirement are earned, in which case, the e-cess hours may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period re*uirement.lawphil.net RULE 13 (ONSE>UEN(ES OF NON=(OMPLIAN(E S*+tion 1, Non-compliance fee. A member who, for whatever reason, is in non. compliance at the end of the compliance period shall pay a non.compliance fee. S*+tion /, isting as delinquent member. Any member who fails to satisfactorily comply with %ection 1 of Rule 31 shall be listed as a delin*uent member by the @BP Board of Governors upon the recommendation of the M'L, 'ommittee, in which case, Rule 327.A of the Rules of 'ourt shall apply. RULE 1; REINSTATEMENT S*+tion 1, !rocess. 6he involuntary listing as a delin*uent member shall be terminated when the member provides proof of compliance with the M'L, re*uirement, including payment of non.compliance fee. A member may attain the necessary credit hours to meet the re*uirement for the period of non.compliance during the period the member is on inactive status. 6hese credit hours may not be counted toward meeting the current compliance period re*uirement. 'redit hours attained during the period of non.compliance in e-cess of the number needed to satisfy the prior compliance period re*uirement may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period re*uirement. S*+tion /, "ermination of delinquent listing administrati#e process. 6he termination of listing as a delin*uent member is administrative in nature but it shall be made with notice and hearing by the M'L, 'ommittee.

& RE>UIREMENTS FOR APPLI(ANTS FOR A#MISSION TO T$E %AR

S*+tion /, $equirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. ,very applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citi(en of the Philippines, at least twenty.one years of age, of good moral character, and resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the %upreme 'ourt satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines. S*+tion 3, $equirements for lawyers who are citi%ens of the &nited 'tates of (merica. 'iti(ens of the $nited %tates of America who, before )uly D, 37D<, were duly licensed members of the Philippine Bar, in active practice in the courts of the Philippines and in good and regular standing as such may, upon satisfactory proof of those facts before the %upreme 'ourt, be allowed to continue such practice after taEing the following oath of office9 @ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in the Philippines, do solemnly swear that @ recogni(e the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; @ will support its 'onstitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; @ will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; @ will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; @ will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of may Enowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well as to the courts as to my clients; and @ impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. %o help me God. S*+tion ;, $equirements for applicants from other )urisdictions. Applicants for admission who, being :ilipino citi(ens, are enrolled
ISKO NOTES | Page 3

LEGAL PROFESSION
ISKO NOTES | Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

attorneys in good standing in the %upreme 'ourt of the $nited %tates or in any circuit court of appeals or district court therein, or in the highest court of any %tate or 6erritory of the $nited %tates, and who can show by satisfactory certificates that they have practiced at least five years in any of said courts, that such practice began before )uly D, 37D<, and that they have never been suspended or disbarred, may, in the discretion of the 'ourt, be admitted without e-amination. Application of this rule may be found in In R*? P*tition o2 Ramon >uisum8ing 2o1 Admission to t0* %a19 %a1 Matt*1 No, ;1: @NoA*m8*1 1: :B S*+tion <, (dditional requirements for other applicants. All applicants for admission other than those referred to in the two preceding section shall, before being admitted to the e-amination, satisfactorily show that they have regularly studied law for four years, and successfully completed all prescribed courses, in a law school or university, officially approved and recogni(ed by the %ecretary of ,ducation. 6he affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by a certificate from the university or school of law, shall be filed as evidence of such facts, and further evidence may be re*uired by the court. "o applicant shall be admitted to the bar e-aminations unless he has satisfactorily completed the following courses in a law school or university duly recogni(ed by the government9 civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law, political law, labor and social legislation, medical +urisprudence, ta-ation and legal ethics. S*+tion C, !re- aw. "o applicant for admission to the bar e-amination shall be admitted unless he presents a certificate that he has satisfied the %ecretary of ,ducation that, before he began the study of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authori(ed and recogni(ed university or college, re*uiring for admission thereto the completion of a four.year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor&s degree in arts or sciences with any of the following sub+ects as ma+or or field of concentration9 political science, logic, ,nglish, %panish, history and economics. %AR MATTER NO, :1; R*? A66li+ation o2 Di+*nt* (0ing Fo1 Admission to t0* P0ili66in* %a1 O+to8*19 1 1::: Issue 'an a legitimate child born under the 3728 'onstitution of a :ilipino mother and an alien father validly elect Philippine citi(enship 3D years after he has reached the age of ma+orityF 6his is the *uestion sought to be resolved in the present case involving the application for admission to the Philippine Bar of Aicente #. 'hing. Decision 'hing failed to validly elect Philippine citi(enship. 6he span of 3D years that lapsed from the time he reached the age of ma+ority until he finally e-pressed his intention to elect Philippine citi(enship is clearly way beyond the contemplation of the re*uirement of electing /upon reaching the age of ma+ority.0 6he 'ourt denied Aicente 'hingGs application for admission to the Philippine Bar.

%AR MATTER NO, -1/ R*? P*tition o2 Al A1gosino to taE* t0* La7y*1s Oat0 Ma1+0 1:9 1::Facts Petitioner Al Argosino passed the bar e-aminations held in 3772. 6he 'ourt however deferred his oath.taEing due to his previous conviction for RecEless @mprudence Resulting @n 5omicide. 6he criminal case which resulted in petitioner&s conviction arose from the death of a neophyte during fraternity initiation rites sometime in %eptember 3773. Issue Chether or not petitioner can be allowed to taEe the lawyerGs oath despite his previous conviction in a criminal case Decision 6he 'ourt allowed Argosino to taEe the lawyerGs oath. @n allowing him, the 'ourt recogni(es that Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber. ?n the contrary, the various certifications show that he is a devout 'atholic with a genuine concern for civic duties and public service. 6he 'ourt was persuaded that Mr. Argosino has e-erted all efforts to atone for the death of Raul 'amaligan. 6he 'ourt gave him the benefit of the doubt, taEing +udicial notice of the general tendency of youth to be rash, temerarious and uncalculating. A,M, NO, <;<=S%( %a18a A, P*d1o #*+*m8*1 /C9 1:-; Facts 5ector %. Pedro is a successful bar candidate in the 378< e-aminations, having obtained an average of 43.3<H, but was not yet allowed to taEe the lawyer&s oath because of a complaint for immorality filed against him by Purisima Barba. Barba alleged that sometime in )uly, 3782, Pedro came to her house and with lewd designs succeeded in gratifying his carnal desires, an act repeated thereafter on three different occasions accompanied by pledges to marry, as a result of which a child was born. Pedro, however, did not fulfill his promise but married another woman instead. Issue Chether or not petitioner can be allowed to taEe the lawyerGs oath despite a complaint of immorality filed against him Decision 6he 'ourt allowed petitioner to taEe his oath. ,ighteen years had gone by from the time of the 378< e-aminations. 5e was a successful bar candidate but because of this lapse from moral propriety, he has not been allowed to taEe the lawyer&s oath. @t liEewise appears, from the testimonials submitted, that he has behaved rather well. At least, no other misdeed has been attributed to him. 6here is no affront to reason then in ruling that the punishment, while deserved, has lasted long enough. 5e has sufficiently rehabilitated himself. Retribution has been e-acted, 5e has e-piated for his offense. @t is understandable that the bitterness in the heart of complainant cannot easily be erased, but that should not prove decisive. ,ven the most heinous of crimes prescribe after a certain period. 6he 'ourt felt that all the years he has been denied the privilege of being a lawyer would satisfy the re*uirement that failure to live up to the
ISKO NOTES | Page 1

& GOO# MORAL ($ARA(TER

,very applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citi(en of the Philippines, at least twenty.one years of age, o2 good mo1al +0a1a+t*1, and resident of the Philippines; and must 61odu+* 8*2o1* t0* Su61*m* (ou1t satis2a+to1y *Aid*n+* o2 good mo1al +0a1a+t*19 and t0at no +0a1g*s against 0im9 inAolAing mo1al tu16itud*9 0aA* 8**n 2il*d o1 a1* 6*nding in any +ou1t in t0* P0ili66in*s.

LEGAL PROFESSION
ISKO NOTES | Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

re*uisite moral standard is not to be taEen lightly.

& APPLI(ATION9 EFAMINATIONS AN# PASSING ADERAGE

S*+tion -, "ime for filing proof of qualifications. All applicants for admission shall file with the clerE of the %upreme 'ourt the evidence re*uired by section 1 of this rule at least fifteen 38! days before the beginning of the e-amination. @f not embraced within section 2 and D of this rule they shall also file within the same period the affidavit and certificate re*uired by section 8, and if embraced within sections 2 and D they shall e-hibit a license evidencing the fact of their admission to practice, satisfactory evidence that the same has not been revoEed, and certificates as to their professional standing. Applicants shall also file at the same time their own affidavits as to their age, residence, and citi(enship. S*+tion , Notice of (pplications. "otice of applications for admission shall be published by the clerE of the %upreme 'ourt in newspapers published in Pilipino, ,nglish and %panish, for at least ten 3=! days before the beginning of the e-amination. S*+tion :, *+amination, sub)ects. Applicants, not otherwise provided for in sections 2 and D of this rule, shall be sub+ected to e-aminations in the following sub+ects9 'ivil Law; Labor and %ocial Legislation; Mercantile Law; 'riminal Law; Political Law 'onstitutional Law, Public 'orporations, and Public ?fficers!; @nternational Law Private and Public!; 6a-ation; Remedial Law 'ivil Procedure, 'riminal Procedure, and ,vidence!; Legal ,thics and Practical ,-ercises in Pleadings and 'onveyancing!. S*+tion 1., -ar e+amination. by questions and answers. and in writing. Persons taEing the e-amination shall not bring papers, booEs or notes into the e-amination rooms. 6he *uestions shall be the same for all e-aminees and a copy thereof, in ,nglish or %panish, shall be given to each e-aminee. ,-aminees shall answer the *uestions personally without help from anyone. $pon verified application made by an e-aminee stating that his penmanship is so poor that it will be difficult to read his answers without much loss of time., the %upreme 'ourt may allow such e-aminee to use a typewriter in answering the *uestions. ?nly noiseless typewriters shall be allowed to be used. 6he committee of bar e-aminer shall taEe such precautions as are necessary to prevent the substitution of papers or commission of other frauds. ,-aminees shall not place their names on the e-amination papers. "o oral e-amination shall be given. S*+tion 11, (nnual e+amination. ,-aminations for admission to the bar of the Philippines shall taEe place annually in the 'ity of Manila. 6hey shall be held in four days to be disignated by the chairman of the committee on bar e-aminers. 6he sub+ects shall be distributed as follows9 :irst day9 Political and @nternational Law morning! and Labor and %ocial Legislation afternoon!; %econd day9 'ivil Law morning! and 6a-ation afternoon!; 6hird day9 Mercantile Law morning! and 'riminal Law afternoon!; :ourth day9 Remedial Law morning! and legal ,thics and Practical ,-ercises afternoon!. S*+tion 1/, Committee of e+aminers. ,-aminations shall be conducted by a committee of bar e-aminers to be appointed by the %upreme 'ourt. 6his committee shall be composed of a )ustice of the %upreme 'ourt, who shall act as chairman, and who shall be designated by the court to serve for one year, and eight members of the bar of the Philippines, who shall hold office for a period of one year. 6he names of the members of this committee shall be published in each volume of the official reports. S*+tion 13, /isciplinary measures. "o candidate shall endeavor to influence any member of the committee, and during e-amination the candidates shall not communicate with each other nor shall they give or

receive any assistance. 6he candidate who violates this provisions, or any other provision of this rule, shall be barred from the e-amination, and the same to count as a failure against him, and further disciplinary action, including permanent dis*ualification, may be taEen in the discretion of the court. S*+tion 1;, !assing a#erage. @n order that a candidate may be deemed to have passed his e-aminations successfully, he must have obtained a general average of I8 per cent in all sub+ects, without falling below 8= per cent in any sub+ects. @n determining the average, the sub+ects in the e-amination shall be given the following relative weights9 'ivil Law, 38 per cent; Labor and %ocial Legislation, 3= per cent; Mercantile Law, 38 per cent; 'riminal Law; 3= per cent9 Political and @nternational Law, 38 per cent; 6a-ation, 3= per cent; Remedial Law, 1= per cent; Legal ,thics and Practical ,-ercises, 8 per cent. S*+tion 1<, $eport of the committee, filing of e+amination papers. "ot later than :ebruary 38th after the e-amination, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, the committee shall file its report on the result of such e-amination. 6he e-amination papers and notes of the committee shall be filed with the clerE and may there be e-amined by the parties in interest, after the court has approved the report. S*+tion 1C, 0ailing candidates to take re#iew course. 'andidates who have failed the bar e-aminations for three times shall be dis*ualified from taEing another e-amination unless they show the satisfaction of the court that they have enrolled in and passed regular fourth year review classes as well as attended a pre.bar review course in a recogni(ed law school. 6he professors of the individual review sub+ects attended by the candidates under this rule shall certify under oath that the candidates have regularly attended classes and passed the sub+ects under the same conditions as ordinary students and the ratings obtained by them in the particular sub+ect.

& A#MISSION TO T$E %ARG 5U#GMENTG S( EF(LUSIDE PO'ERG PRA(TI(E OF LA' IS A PRIDILEGE 9 NOT A RIG$T
A,M, NO, 11C/ In R*? Lanu*Ao August /:9 1:-< Facts 6he %upreme 'ourt received a confidential letter on the alleged raising of grade of at least one e-aminee in the 37I3 Bar ,-aminations. 6he 'ourt checEed the records of the 37I3 Bar and found that the grades in five sub+ects J Political Law and Public @nternational Law, 'ivil Law, Mercantile Law, 'riminal Law and Remedial Law J of a successful bar candidate with office code "o. 78D Ramon ,. Galang a.E.a. Roman Galang! underwent some changes. Galang passed in the 37I3 bar e-aminations with a grade of ID.38H, which was considered by the 'ourt as I8H, the passing marE for the 37I3 bar e-aminations. @t appeared in the investigation that Bar 'onfidant Aictorio Lanuevo asEed the e-aminers to rechecE the papers of Galang and reconsider if his grade can be raised because he allegedly got high grades in other sub+ects. Decision Both Lanuevo and Galang were disbarred and their names were stricEen from the Roll of Attorneys. 6he 'ourt stressed that once the bar e-aminer has submitted the corrected notebooEs to the Bar 'onfidant, it cannot be withdrawn for any purpose whatsoever without prior authority from the 'ourt. 6he 'ourt also e-pressed its strong disapproval of the actuations of the bar e-aminers.
ISKO NOTES | Page 2

LEGAL PROFESSION
ISKO NOTES | Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

punished for contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official transactions. In R*? (unanan Ma1+0 1 9 1:<; Facts Republic Act "o. 7I1, which fi-ed the passing marEs for bar e-aminations from 37D< up to and including 3788, was passed by 'ongress. @t was Enown as the /Bar. :lunEers Act of 3782.0 @t ordered that /any bar candidate who obtained a general average of I=H in any bar e-aminations after )uly D, 37D< up to the August 3783 bar e-aminations; I3H in the 3781 bar e-aminations; I1H in the in the 3782 bar e-aminations; I2H in the 378D bar e-aminations; IDH in the 3788 bar e-aminations without obtaining a grade below fifty per cent in any sub+ect be allowed to taEe and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as member of the Philippine Bar90 Issue Chether or not R.A. 7I1 is valid Decision 6he 'ourt ruled that the portion of Republic Act "o. 7I1 referring to the e-aminations of 37D< to 3781 is unconstitutional and, therefore, void and without force and effect. :or lacE of unanimity in the eight )ustices, that part of Article 3 which refers to the e-aminations subse*uent to the approval of the law, that is from 3782 to 3788 inclusive, is valid and shall continue to be in force. All petitions of the candidates who failed in the e-aminations of 37D< to 3781 are denied, and all candidates who in the e-aminations of 3782 obtained a general average of I3.8 per cent or more, without having a grade below 8= per cent in any sub+ect, are considered as having passed, whether they have filed petitions for admission or not. S*+tion //, (ttorney who appears in lower court presumed to represent client on appeal. An attorney who appears de parte in a case before a lower court shall be presumed to continue representing his client on appeal, unless he files a formal petition withdrawing his appearance in the appellate court. S*+tion /3, (uthority 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 taEing appeals, and in all matters of ordinary +udicial 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. S*+tion /;, Compensation of attorneys, 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, with a view to the importance of the sub+ect matter of the controversy, the e-tent of the services rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney. "o court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys as e-pert witnesses as to the proper compensation, but may disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on its own professional Enowledge. A written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable. S*+tion /<, &nlawful retention of client1s funds, contempt. Chen an attorney un+ustly retains in his hands money of his client after it has been demanded, he may be punished for contempt as an officer of the 'ourt who has misbehaved in his official transactions; but proceedings under this section shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution. S*+tion /C, Change of attorneys. An attorney may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in court. 5e may also retire at any time from an action or special proceeding, without the consent of his client, should the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire. @n case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be entered on the docEet of the court in place of the former one, and written notice of the change shall be given to the advance party. A client may at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his place, but if the contract between client and attorney has been reduced to writing and the dismissal of the attorney was without +ustifiable cause, he shall be entitled to recover from the client the full compensation stipulated in the contract. 5owever, the attorney may, in the discretion of the court, intervene in the case to protect his rights. :or the payment of his compensation the attorney shall have a lien upon all +udgments for the payment of money, and e-ecutions issued in pursuance of such +udgment, rendered in the case wherein his services had been retained by the client.

& A#MISSION AN# OAT$9 (ERTIFI(ATE9 ATT"HS ROLL

S*+tion 1-, (dmission and oath of successful applicants. An applicant who has passed the re*uired e-amination, or has been otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the bar, shall taEe and subscribe before the %upreme 'ourt the corresponding oath of office. S*+tion 1 , Certificate. 6he %upreme 'ourt shall thereupon admit the applicant as a member of the bar for all the courts of the Philippines, and shall direct an order to be entered to that effect upon its records, and that a certificate of such record be given to him by the clerE of court, which certificate shall be his authority to practice. S*+tion 1:, (ttorney1s roll. 6he clerE of the %upreme 'ourt shall Eept a roll of all attorneys admitted to practice, which roll shall be signed by the person admitted when he receives his certificate.

& AUT$ORIT" TO %IN# (LIENTS

A,(, NO, /;-3 Guiang A, Antonio F*81ua1y 39 1::3 Facts Aurora Guiang filed a petition for suspension and disbarment from the practice of law on the ground of negligence and mal. practice of Atty. Leonardo B. Antonio petitionerGs former counsel!. @n one civil case, the 'ourt of Appeals had rendered a decision adverse to plaintiffs, one of whom was the petitioner. 6he 'A
ISKO NOTES | Page D

& AUT$ORIT" TO APPEAR9 (OMPENSATION9 LIEN

S*+tion /1, (uthority of attorney to appear. An attorney is presumed to be properly authori(ed to represent any cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney is re*uired to authori(e him to appear in court for his client, but the presiding +udge may, on motion of either party and on reasonable grounds therefor being shown, re*uire any attorney who assumes the right to appear in a case to produce or prove the authority under which he appears, and to disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the name of the person who employed him, and may thereupon maEe such order as +ustice re*uires. An attorneys wilfully appear in court for a person without being employed, unless by leave of the court, may be

LEGAL PROFESSION
ISKO NOTES | Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

granted Atty. AntonioGs motion for Reconsideration on April 11, 3743 and giving petitioner up to May 1I, 3743 to file the motion. ?n May 1<, 3743, Atty. Antonio filed another motion for e-tension which was granted. ?n )une 1<, 3743, respondent filed the Motion for Reconsideration which the 'ourt of Appeals denied on )uly 1I, 3743. Respondent failed to file the appeal within the 38.day period from receipt of the denial by the 'ourt of Appeals. 5e said petitioner failed to furnish and deliver to him all the necessary documents; petitioner was nowhere to be found when she was needed and she could not be contacted; and that respondent had to send petitioner to #avao 'ity to get some documents, and by the time she returned, the period for appeal had e-pired. Decision 6he 'ourt suspended respondent from the practice of law for si- months. 6he Bar 'onfidant found the respondent guilty of negligence and malpractice for violating Rule 34.=2, 'anon 34 of the 'ode of Professional Responsibility which provides that /A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.0 Added to this offense are the highly improper statements in respondent&s pleadings describing his client&s case as Khopeless or beyond legal remedyK after neglecting to file the appeal on time.. Respondent blames petitioner for not returning on time from #avao 'ity yet in his Answer to the letter.complaint of petitioner, Guiang was in her house a weeE or so before the lapse or the period for appeal. 5e could have informed petitioner that the period for filing the appeal was soon to lapse or he could have adopted steps to prevent default. @n his entry of appearance before the 'ourt of Appeals, he complained that important documents were still with the 'LA? lawyer in Manila, which was not true because the 'LA? lawyer turned over the complete records to him. G,R, No, :;;<L*ga1da A, (A Ma1+0 1 9 1::1 Facts Aictoria Legarda was the defendant in a case where "ew 'athay 5ouse wanted her to sign the lease agreement and to construct a restaurant on her lot in Cest Ave., B'. %he was issued a writ on preliminary in+unction. 6his was the point where Antonio 'oronel entered his appearance as counsel for Legarda. 5e filed a motion for e-tension of time to file an answer to the complaint. 6hat was the last #ean 'oronel was heard of. Legarda failed to file her answer with the court thus evidence was presented e+ parte. )udgment was rendered against her. 6he property was e-ecuted and sold and the one. year redemption period e-pired. %he appealed to the 'A but this time through another lawyer. 'oronel still handled the case and filed a reply to the consolidated comment and memoranda. 'A decided against Legarda, 'oronel filed no motion for reconsideration. %he was ordered to vacate the premises but was not relayed to her by 'oronel. %he appealed to the %', which annulled the decisions of the trial court and 'A because of her counsel&s negligence. 6he 'ourt also directed 'oronel to answer for his negligence. 'oronel motioned for e-tension of time because he hasn&t had the time to attend to Legarda&s case because of the more than 4= Marcos cases handled by him. 5e filed another motion because he became ill. 6he 'ourt +unEed this.

Issue Chether or not 'oronel served his client with competence and diligence. Decision 6he 'ourt held that 'oronelGs failure to e-ercise due diligence in protecting and attending to the interest of his client caused the latter material pre+udice. 'onsidering that he is a law school dean and a top *uality lawyer, he should be giving top.*uality service. 5owever, he did not. /Chile this 'ourt is cogni(ant of the rule that, generally, a client will suffer the conse*uences of the negligence, mistaEe or lacE of competence of his counsel, in the interest of +ustice and e*uity, e-ceptions may be made to such rule, in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case. Adherence to the general rule would, in the instant case, result in the outright deprivation of their property through a technicality.0 G,R, No, 11.3:: SM( A, Lagu*sma August 1<9 1::Facts 6he %M' %upervisors and ,-empt $nion filed this petition to reverse and set aside the ?rder of public respondent, $ndersecretary of the #epartment of Labor and ,mployment, Bienvenido ,. Laguesma that e-cluded the employees under supervisory levels 2 and D and the so.called e-empt employees from the proposed bargaining unit and ruled out their participation in the certification election. @t also sought to allow the grouping together of three separate plants, ?tis, 'abuyao, and %an :ernando into one bargaining unit. Issue 3. 1. Chether or not supervisory employees 2 and D and the e-empt employees are considered confidential employees @f they are not, do the employees of the three plants constitute an appropriate single bargaining unit

Decision 6he 'ourt reversed the assailed order. ?n the first issue, the 'ourt ruled that said employees do not fall within the term /confidential employees0 who may be prohibited from +oining a union. ?n the second issue, it held that the fact that the three plants are located in three different places, namely, in 'abuyao, Laguna, in ?tis, Pandacan, Metro Manila, and in %an :ernando, Pampanga is immaterial. Geographical location can be completely disregarded if the communal or mutual interests of the employees are not sacrificed. G,R, No, 11C/. P*o6l* A, Salido 5uly <9 1::C Facts Accused.appellant, Allan Lawasa, is involved in the crime of Eidnapping. @t was stated that on )anuary <, 3772 at around I o&clocE in the morning, Loreta 'hua, her two sons %tanley and )ermyn, and her housemaid ,li(abeth Luega, were on board Mrs. 'hua&s car, driven by Bartolome Mabuti, when they were blocEed by another car, along 6aft Avenue. 6hree unidentified
ISKO NOTES | Page 8

LEGAL PROFESSION
ISKO NOTES | Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

men, later found to be Allan Lawasa, Molibas %indad, and KAlvinK Macaria alighted from the blocEing car, introduced themselves as 'riminal @nvestigation %ervice '@%! agents and boarded Mrs. 'hua&s vehicle. %indad tooE the wheel from Mabuti, Macaria sat beside Mabuti and %tanley in the front seat, while Lawasa sat beside Luega, )ermyn, and Mrs. 'hua at the bacE seat. 6hey then proceeded towards %outh %uper 5ighway, with the car that blocEed them and another bacE.up car following them. $pon reaching %usana 5eights at around 7 o&clocE, the three vehicles stopped. Mrs. 'hua alighted from her car, with Lawasa following. 6hey talEed for a while. 6hen Lawasa returned and boarded Mrs. 'hua&s car. 6hey drove away with the occupants of the two cars, leaving Mrs. 'hua behind. Luega, Mabuti and the two children were then blindfolded and their hands tied. 6hey were brought to a nipa hut in the middle of a sugar field where they were Eept. 5ere, Luega was raped by one of the men whom she was not able to identify. ?n )anuary I, 3772, the 'riminal @nvestigation %ervice of the Philippine "ational Police P"P! conducted an operation in Bongo, Laguna for the rescue of the Eidnapped individuals. At about I o&clocE of the same evening, police operatives rescued Mabuti, Luega, and the 'hua children, from the hands of their abductors after a brief gunfight. ?n )anuary 4, 3772, a team led by 'hief @nspector Allen :ortes of the P"P from 'amp 'rame apprehended accused Bulod, %ilangan, Balabagin, and 'odale( in Bacoor, 'avite and brought them to 'amp 'rame for *uestioning. ?n their way to 'amp 'rame, :ortes and his team met a speeding :ord 'ortina car with Plate "o. "LA 77I, which was suspected as one of the cars used by the Eidnappers. $pon intercepting said vehicle, the peace officers found Lawasa, %indad, Macaria, %alido, and Medal, who were thereupon arrested and subse*uently charged with Eidnapping and serious illegal detention. 6he accused.appellant and other accused persons in this case were arrested, prosecuted and found guilty of Eidnapping before the Regional 6rial 'ourt of the "ational 'apital )udicial Region. 6hey were sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua and to indemnify, +ointly and severally with the other two above.named accused, the offended party in the sum of P1=,===.==. Accused.appellant denies involvement in the crime and claims he was d*61iA*d t0* o66o1tunity to su8mit 0is *Aid*n+* and to dis61oA* t0* *Aid*n+* 2o1 t0* 61os*+ution du* to t0* in*22i+i*n+y and n*glig*n+* o2 0is +ouns*l9 for which reason, accused.appellant urges us to reopen the case with respect to him. 5e appealed before the %upreme 'ourt and sought for a retrial. Issue Chether or not the accused.appellant is bound by his counselGs alleged negligence Decision >,%. @n the case at bar, accused.appellant has not shown such carelessness or negligence in his lawyer&s discharge of his duties, or that his counsel was singularly inept or motivated by bad faith or e-cusably misled by the facts, so as to +ustify us in not applying the rule that clients are bound by the acts of their counsel, including his mistaEes. 6he record shows that accused.appellant&s counsel attended the hearings, cross.e-amined the prosecution witnesses,

presented accused.appellant to testify and introduced his own evidence which to him was sufficient and relevant, and after an adverse decision, appealed the case. @f there is anybody to blame, it is accused.appellant himself. Accused.appellant, in his testimony and in his brief, admitted having accosted of blocEed the car driven by Mrs. 'hua&s driver, Bartolome Mabuti, allegedly because he was re*uested to help arrest Mabuti Appellant&s brief, p. 3D!. %uch testimony and related evidence were considered by the trial court #ecision R6', par. 2, p. D!. 6his belies accused.appellant&s claim that his counsel did not present evidence. 6his is perhaps the reason why accused.appellant does not challenge the decision of the trial court, but opted to train his guns on his former counsel. @f indeed accused.appellant felt and believed that his counsel was inept, then he should have taEen action, such as discharging him earlier, instead of waiting until an adverse decision was handed, and thereupon heap all blame and condemnation on his counsel, who cannot now be heard to defend himself. 6he %' dismissed the petition and affirmed the R6'Gs decision with slight modification that the civil indemnity of P1=,===.== which accused.appellant was ordered to pay offended party in increased to P8=,===.== in consonance with current +urisprudence. G,R, No, :<-1 Tu6as A, (A F*81ua1y C9 1::1 Facts Record shows that the petitioners received a copy of the decision of the Regional 6rial 'ourt of Pasay 'ity on April 2, 3747, and that the motion for reconsideration thereof was filed on April 3I, 3747, or fourteen days later. 6he order of May 2, 3747, denying the motion was received by the petitioners& counsel on May 7, 3747. @nstead of filing the petition for review with the 'ourt of Appeals within the remainder of the 38.day reglementary period, that is, on May 3=, 3747, the petitioner did so only on May 12, 3747, or 3D days later. 6he petition was therefore clearly tardy. Petitioners appealed to the %'. Decision 6he 'ourt of Appeals did not commit any reversible error in dismissing the petitioners& appeal on the ground of tardiness. ?n the contrary, the challenged resolution is conformable to the applicable law and +urisprudence that, despite the confusion of the petitionersG former counsel, carried no esoteric meaning not available to the ordinary practitioner. 6he petitioners& counsel did not file the petition for review within the remaining period, which he should have Enown was only one day. "either did he move for an e-tension that would have been granted as a matter of course. 6he petition for review being indisputably late, he could not thereafter asE that it be treated as a petition for certiorari under Rule <8 of the Rules of 'ourt, which can be filed within a reasonable time. 6his remedy cannot be employed as a substitute for a lost appeal. 2 @t follows that for having themselves forfeited the right to appeal, the petitioners cannot now plaintively claim that they have been denied due process. G,R, No, -;C:ISKO NOTES | Page <

LEGAL PROFESSION
ISKO NOTES | Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

Ala8an3as A, IA( NoA*m8*1 /:9 1::1 Facts Alicia Palma filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages against Lino Alaban(as and "elly Alaban(as before the ':@. Property at issue was a lot sold by plaintiff to defendants with unpaid balance of P4,===. 6he complaint was dismissed and plaintiff was ordered to pay defendants the court.determined sums. @n the same dismissal decision, defendants were, however, ordered to pay plaintiff the balance to the lot and the plaintiff to e-ecute thereafter the corresponding deed to transfer. Palma appealed the decision. But with her failure to file her brief within the reglementary period and after a 7=.day e-tension, 'A dismissed her appeal. But same court later revoEed said dismissal. @t reasoned that9 appellant Palma did not Enow about the dismissal until informed that the Alaban(as held a victory party to celebrate their /winning of the case0; and the failure to file brief was due to gross misconduct of her counsel. @t ordered the Alaban(as to vacate the lot, demolish their house thereon, and pay Palma the balance on the sub+ect lot. Palma turned to %upreme 'ourt to seeE relief. Decision Petition is meritorious. Reasons9 3. ?nce a decision becomes final and e-ecutory, it is removed from the power or +urisdiction of the 'ourt which rendered it to further amend, much less revoEe, it. 1. 6he client is bound by his counselGs conduct, negligence and mistaEe in handling the case, and the client cannot be heard to complain that the result might have been different had his lawyer proceeded differently. @t is only in case of gross or palpable negligence of counsel when the courts must step in and accord relief to a client who suffered thereby. G,R, No, L=; 33< Aguila A, (FI %atangas A61il 1<9 1: Facts Petitioner )uan Aguila is the son of ,scolastico Alabastro and )uliana Matien(o. ,scolastico was )ulianaGs second husband whom she married after her first husband died. )uan was claiming the property as the sole child of the second marriage. 5is claim was, however, disputed by the children of one Maria Alabastro, who was the only child during )ulianaGs first marriage. 6hey sued for partition and damages against )uan before the ':@ Batangas. 6hey alleged that )uliana and her second husband had not ac*uired anything during the second marriage. )udgment was rendered in favor of the children of the first marriage and petitioner was precluded to present own evidence owing to what he later called /gross ineptitude of his counsel,0 who failed to appear at two scheduled meetings. A motion for reconsideration and a second motion for reconsideration to present evidence were both denied by the trial court. 5e was, however, given an e-tension of 1= days to file record on appeal and another e-tension of 38 days. 6he trial court later denied the record on appeal because the decision had become final and e-ecutory. Petitioner *uestioned the acts of the trial court before the 'A. 6he court denied the appeal and so was the motion for

reconsideration. 5e then appealed to the %' but the appeal and the motion for reconsideration were liEewise denied. 6wo more motions for reconsideration were filed but were also denied. %' warned petitioner that no further motion for reconsideration will be entertained. Peititioner filed another case, this time, for the reconveyance of the properties before the ':@ Batangas. Respondents argued that petitioner was barred by res +udicata. 6he trial court considered the ob+ection and dismissed the case. Petitioner again appealed to %'. Issue 3. 1. 2. 'an petitioner invoEe his right to substantial +ustice and due process as against the res )udicata ruleF May petitionerGs petition for reconveyance of the property disputed be entertained in this caseF 'an petitioner reopen a case on the ground of neglect and mistaEe on the part of his counselF

Decision 6he %' denied the petition. ?n the first issue, the %' did not agree with petitionerGs contention that he was deprived the opportunity to submit evidence. @n fact, the trial court +udge meticulously e-amined the evidences even if he could have simply denied the motion for reconsideration outright. ?n the second issue, the %' said that reconveyance may only be sought in cases, where there is a mistaEe or fraud, property is registered in the name of a person not its owner. @t cannot be employed to negate the effects of a valid decision of a court of +ustice determining the conflicting claims of ownership. ?n the third issue, the %' reiterated the rule that /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 mistaEes of his lawyer.0 Petitioner wanted to nullify the previous court decisions on the ground that his counsel was grossly inept. 6his was not accepted by the %' saying that doing otherwise, /all a defeated party would have to do to salvage his case is claim neglect or mistaEe on the part of his counsel as a ground for reversing the adverse +udgment. 6here would be no end to litigation if these were allowed.0 6he %' also noted that in this case, the petitioner should have noticed the succession of errors committed by his counsel and taEen appropriate steps for his replacement. Petitioner, however, sought the aid of another counsel when it was already too late. G,R, No, L=-:/;; Aylion A, S*Ailla #*+*m8*1 1.9 1: Facts A petition for probate of a holographic last will and testament of Mateo Ayllon %r. was filed on I "ovember 37II by ,rlinda Ayllon, the petitioner, with the 'ourt of :irst @nstance of Guiuan ,astern %amar. @n said will, the testator made disposition of specific properties to the petitioner, as his surviving spouse with whom he had no children, and to the respondents, as his sons and daughters by a first marriage. 6he respondents opposed the probate, and so hearings were held until the case was submitted for decision at about the end of 3743. Chile the case was awaiting the court&s decision the Petitioner, without the aid of a lawyer, entered into a verbal amicable settlement with the respondents. Relying on the verbal settlement and believing that she will be given one.half 3N1! of the house and lot situated at 'oncepcion %treet, Guiuan ,aster
ISKO NOTES | Page I

LEGAL PROFESSION
ISKO NOTES | Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

%amar, in return for her abandoning the rest of the properties willed to her, petitioner wrote her lawyer a letter re*uesting the latter to file a motion to dismiss the case. Petitioner&s lawyer complied with her re*uest. ?n 3D March 374D, the case was dismissed. 5owever, the respondents apparently did not comply with their verbal agreement with the petitioner. 5ence, the petitioner filed an affidavit with the court on 11 March 374D, asEing for the withdrawal of her motion to dismiss and for revival of the case. ?n I %eptember 374D, the trial court reconsidered the order of dismissal, and revived the case. But, on 3= %eptember 3748, the court issued an order recalling the order of I %eptember 374D, thereby reviving the order of dismissal of 3D March 374D, on the grounds that 3! the case was amicably settled, and 1! the petitioner failed to present three 2! witnesses who could @dentify the handwriting of the testator in the disputed holographic will, as provided under Article 433 of the 'ivil 'ode. . ?n 12 %eptember 3748, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the trial court dismissing the case, but the motion was denied. . $pon petitioner&s appeal to the 'ourt of Appeals, the latter court re*uired the petitioner to file a Record on Appeal within %i-ty <=! days from notice. 6he counsel of the petitioner received the notice on 33 :ebruary 374I, so that the last day to file the record on appeal was on 31 April 374I. But, instead of preparing and eventually filing the Record on Appeal, the petitioner&s counsel filed an Appeal Brief dated 14 :ebruary 374I, but actually filed through the mails on 3I March 374I. 5ence, in a Resolution O dated 17 May 374I, the (ou1t o2 A66*als dismiss*d t0* a66*al on a++ount o2 2ailu1* o2 +ouns*l o2 t0* 6*tition*1 to 2il*d a 1*+o1d on a66*al9 70i+0 is 1*Iui1*d in a66*als in s6*+ial 61o+**dings. Issue Chether or not the accused.appellant is bound by his counselGs alleged negligence. Decision >,%. Petitioner&s counsel failed to file a record on appeal despite due notice and the period of si-ty <=! days given to him to file said record on appeal. @nstead of filing the record on appeal, as re*uired, 70at t0* 6*tition*14s +ouns*l did 7as to 2il* an A66*al %1i*2. And even after petitioner&s counsel received a copy of the respondents& Motion for the #ismissal of the Appeal for failure of the petitioner to file a record on appeal, not0ing 7as don* 8y 6*tition*14s +ouns*l to +o11*+t o1 am*nd t0* *11on*ous 61o+*du1* 0* 0ad taE*n. 6hus, it is clear that the failure of the petitioner, through counsel, to file the record on appeal was not inadvertent. @n other words, petitioner&s counsel ignored compliance with the re*uirement of filing a record on appeal, as provided for by the Rules. 5ence, there is no reversible error on the part of the 'ourt of Appeals, in dismissing petitioner&s appeal. Petitioner has, in effect, lost the right to establish the validity of the alleged holographic will of the late Mateo Ayllon yet, as his surviving spouse, petitioner has not lost her hereditary rights which are ac*uired by law. And, in the interest of +ustice, and to avoid multiplicity of suits, the trial court in %pecial Proceeding "o. D87 was re*uired by the %' to determine and ad+udicate the respective hereditary shares of petitioner and respondents in the estate of the late Mateo Ayllon in accordance with the

rules on intestate succession. 6he petition was #,"@,#, but the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, specifically, to determine and ad+udicate to the petitioner and respondents their respective hereditary shares in the estate left by Mateo Ayllon in accordance with the rules on intestate succession. G,R, No, L=3CCCC T*so1o A, (A #*+*m8*1 1:9 1:-3 Facts @n a mayoralty election in %to. #omingo, @locos %ur, candidate Ben+amin %anidad obtained 3,<71 votes and was declared winner as against his closest rival ?rlino 6esoro who garnered 3,848 votes. Alleging poll anomalies, the latter filed a protest. @n the trial court, both parties agreed, after due hearing, to +ust submit the case for decision on the basis of the ballots and other documentary e-hibits without adduction of further evidence. 6his was e-actly what was done by the trial court, which, after e-amining the ballots involved in the protest and counter.protest, found that petitioner 6ersoro was the election winner with 3,<1< votes as against %anidad with 3,83D votes. 6hereafter, respondent %anidad perfected his appeal to 'A. 5owever, after 'A granted the motion of the original lawyers of %anidad to withdraw as counsel, Atty. 'onsatante Pimentel, the new counsel, filed a motion to remand for a new trial to allow him to further present additional evidence. 6he motion was denied by 'A, and so he turned to the %upreme 'ourt.. Decision Petition denied. %anidad is now estopped from seeEing a second chance to submit additional evidence, after he and his previous counsel submitted the case for decision on the basis of evidence already before the trial court. 5e should not now be rewarded for his miscalculations or strategic error. Moreover, the alleged newly discovered evidence was actually forgotten evidence, which respondent %anidad and his counsel already Enew or should have Enown during the trial. Appellate courts do not sit to remedy the tactical mistaEe committed by the parties or their counsel at the trial. @t has been repeatedly enunciated that /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 mistaEes of his lawyer. @f such grounds were to be admitted as reasons for reopening cases, there would never be an end to a suit so long as new counsel could be employed who could allege and show that prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or e-perienced or learned. MistaEes of attorneys as to the competency of a witness, the sufficiency, relevancy or irrelevancy or certain evidence, the proper defense, or the burden of proof, failure to introduce certain evidence, to summon witnesses, and to argue the case are not proper grounds for a new trial, unless the incompetency of counsel is so great that his client is pre+udiced and prevented from properly presenting his case. G,R, No, 111;Salonga A, (A Ma1+0 139 1::Facts Petitioner George %alonga proposed to buy.out all the
ISKO NOTES | Page 4

LEGAL PROFESSION
ISKO NOTES | Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

leaseholding rights of Milagros @(on, president of private respondent Paul Geneve ,ntertainment 'orporation on a property located at "o. 21 )upiter %t., Bel.air Aillage, MaEati 'ity in the amount of P8.8 million. %alonga did not have the sum of money, he proposed instead to Mrs. @(on a +oint venture enterprise between his company, %olid @ntertain 'orporation and private respondentGs company, Paul Geneve 'orporation. 6he idea was that %olid @ntertain 'orporation and Paul Geneve 'orporation will form a new corporation in the name %olidis*ue @nc. 6he documents all in seven sets were drafted by both partiesG respective counsels. Mrs. @(on has signed the +oint venture agreement. 6he document with e-tra copies was then delivered to %alonga for his signature and for notari(ation. 6he document together with the e-tra copies remained unsigned and une-ecuted. Cith the memorandum of agreement still unsigned, not notari(ed and in the possession of %alonga, the latter transferred all his e*uipments and properties from his former business site, Metro #isco, to the sub+ect premises in *uestion after informing Mrs. @(on that he did not have a place where he can transfer his things and asEed that he be allowed to put it at "o. 21 )upiter %t. 'lub @bi(a was thus opened and made operational on the leased premises under the name %olid @ntertain 'orporation. "o corporation under the name %olids*ue @nc. was ever registered as agreed upon in the %ecurities and ,-change 'ommission. Paul Geneve ,ntertainment 'orporation filed a complaint for specific performance with temporary restraining order and preliminary in+unction with prayer for damages against George %alonga and %olid @ntertain 'orporation to enforce a memorandum of agreement that was supposedly perfected between the parties. #uring the scheduled hearing for in+unction, only private respondents appeared despite notice to petitioners. :or disobeying the restraining order issued by the court, private respondent sought to cite petitioner for indirect criminal contempt during the hearing on the civil case whereby Atty. Garlito, )r. presented George :. %alonga in support of the opposition to the issuance of the Crit of Preliminary @n+unction. Petitioners and their counsel again failed to appear on the date set for hearing the motion for issuance of the writ of preliminary in+unction. #espite two motions for e-tension of time to file an answer, no answer was filed. PetitionerGs counsel later moved to dissolve the in+unction and set the hearing on another date, but on said latter date, only private respondentGs counsel showed up. #ue to petitionerGs failure to file an answer, Paul Geneve submitted a third e- parte motion to declare %alonga and %olid @ntertain as defendant in default, which was favorably acted upon. 6he trial court +udgment ordered defendants to sign, perform and e-ecute the formalities of the Memorandum of Agreement; and to undertaEe the creation and formation, organi(ation and registration of a new corporation pursuant to and in accordance with Philippine Laws before the %ecurities and ,-change 'ommission, under the business name and style /%olidis*ue @nc.,0 among others. %alonga was also ad+udged guilty of civil contempt and ordered him and %olid @ntertain to +ointly and severally pay a fine of P1,=== a day until he complies with the orders of the court. %alonga appealed to the 'A, saying that the +udgment by the trial court must be annulled on the ground of fraud on the part of their previous counsel and that the +udge never ac*uired +urisdiction over the person of petitioner %alonga in hearing the criminal contempt proceedings, thereby depriving petitioner %alonga of his basic constitutional right to due process. 5owever, 'A disagreed with these arguments and denied the petition. @t reduced the fine from P1,=== to P3,===. %alonga

appealed to %'. Issue 3. Chether or not the alleged blatant, serious and culpable negligence and professional misconduct of petitionersG previous counsel amounted to deprivation of due process of law that will +ustify annulment of the default +udgment rendered by the trial court against petitioners. Chether or not the 'A committed grave and serious reversible error in merely reducing the fine for the indirect contempt instead of nullifying the entire contempt proceedings as having no basis in law and procedure.

1.

Decision Petition was denied by the %'. ?n the first issue, it held that /a +udgment can be annulled only on two grounds9 that the +udgment is void for want of +urisdiction or lacE of due process of law; or that it has been obtained by fraud. Absent any of these grounds, a final and e-ecutory +udgment cannot be voided.0 @n this case, both grounds were not sufficiently proven. /@t is well.settled that the negligence of counsel binds the client. 6his is based on the rule that any act performed by a lawyer within the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his client. 'onse*uently, the mistaEe or negligence of petitionersG counsel may result in the rendition of an unfavorable +udgment against them. ,-ceptions to the foregoing have been recogni(ed by the 'ourt in cases where recEless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when its application results in the outright deprivation of oneGs property through a technicality. "one of these e-ceptions has been sufficiently shown in the present case.0 6he %' also said that the counsel did not commit gross negligence but only simple negligence when he arrived late in hearings or he failed to attend at all. ?n the second issue, the %' cited 2a#ieres #s. 0alcis9 /A courtGs power to punish for contempt is primarily self. preservative, in the e-ercise of which the interest of private parties J be they litigants or not in the case in which it is invoEed J is at best only a coincidental, not a necessary or an indispensable, factor. A citation for indirect contempt issued by the 'ourt itself, even if based on information only privately or informally communicated to the court, operates as the written charge prescribed by the Rule and if duly and regularly heard, maEes a resulting contempt order no less valid than if it had been rendered upon formal charges preferred by a party. litigant. @ndeed, it has been held that such charges may be made, not only by the court or the prosecuting officer, but /P even by a private person.0

& UNLA'FUL RETENTION OF FUN#S AN# ($ARGING LIENS

G,R, No, l=;...TaJada A, (A O+to8*1 /39 1: < Facts Loren(o 6anada Petitioner! and late :rancisco #elgado and among others were former partners in a law firm /#eldago and 6anada.0 "arcisa Mendo(a hired them in a suit pending in ':@ "ueva ,ci+a and agreed to pay a contingent e*uivalent to Q of whatever amount she might recover.
ISKO NOTES | Page 7

LEGAL PROFESSION
ISKO NOTES | Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

6he parties in the case ended up in a compromise agreement. @n a decision rendered on April 4, 37D3, Mendo(a was declared the owner of 7 parcels of land. #ue to difficulty in segregating the share pertaining to the law firm, the petitioners offered to sell their share to Mendo(a. Mendo(a, however, does not have the money by that time. 6he parties ended up with an agreement that Mendo(a will manage and administer the property. :rom 37D3.3784 Mendo(a delivered the petitionersG share with the fruits of the property. %tating 3787, however, she stopped delivering the law firmGs share. 6his made the petitioners to file a suit for the partition of the properties before the ':@. @n her answer, Mendo(a contended that since the case was terminated through a compromise agreement, Q of the properties she obtained from winning the suit is not proportionate to the services rendered by the petitioners. (FI ! @1:C-B 1ul*d in 2aAo1 o2 6*tition*1s @TanadaB9 0al2 o2 t0* lands a+Iui1*d 8y M*ndo3a 7as g1ant*d to t0* 6*tition*1s (A ! modi2i*d t0* (FI d*+ision, P*tition*1sH s0a1* 7as 1*du+*d to K o2 t0* 6a1+*l o2 land, S( ! @1: <B RULE# IN FADOR OF PETITIONERS, (FI #E(ISION REINSTATE# C03 had gi#en its stamp of appro#al to petitioners4 lien 5any )udgment or decree in fa#or of their client to the payment of the said lien consisting of the 6 of whate#er amount or property she may obtain from defendant4s or any of them by reason of the complaint filed in the abo#e title case7 @t further appears that immediately after the promulgation of the Rodas order of April 4, 37D3, "arcisa Mendo(a surrendered to the Register of #eeds the certificates of title covering the lands involved for annotation of the petitioners& lien; and that, pending the physical division of the lands in *uestion, she delivered to the petitioners their one.half share of the yearly produce from 37D3 to 3784. @ndeed, such actuation on her part was tantamount to virtual ac*uiesence in the order of )udge Rodas and she cannot now be allowed to repudiate her representations or assume an inconsistent posture. @t is a rule constantly adhered to Kthat a party who voluntarily e-ecutes, either partially or in toto, a +udgment rendered for or against him, or who voluntarily ac*uiesces in or ratifies, either partially or in toto, the e-ecution of that +udgment is not permitted to appeal from it.K G,R, No, ;1C.Nass*1 A, (u*Aas August /19 1::. 6he "assers and Matutes petitioners! availed the services of Atty. Paterno 'anlas respondent! in the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the late Amadeo Matute Molave, 6he petitioners and respondent had an agreement that the payment of attorneyGs fees will be P<==,===.== share in the property! and PD31,===.== cash!. A condition, stating that the corresponding liability of a party is e-tinguished only upon the full payment of the lien, is also attached to the said agreement. Chen the proceeding for the settlement of the estate has ended, 'anlas moved for the e-ecution of the agreement.

)udge 'uevas ':@ Mla.! approved 'anlasG motion and ordered for its e-ecution. 6he order for the e-ecution of the agreement was assailed by the petitioners. 6hey contended that the e-ecution was improper because there is no 71itt*n ag1**m*nt stating t0* 61*+is* t*1ms o2 6aym*nt o2 (anlasH atto1n*yHs 2**s, ?nly the "assers complied in the undertaEing to pay 'anlasGs fees. Meanwhile, the recalcitrant heirs maintain that the agreement pertains to the payment of fees on installment and this has been orally agreed upon in the 'hambers of )udge 'uevas. S(= RULE# IN FADOR OF (ANLAS, NASSERSH PETITION #ENIE#, "he clause cannot be construed as granting to any obligors. by implication. the option to pay in installments egal principle8 5the creditor cannot be compelled partially to recei#e the prestations in w9c the obligation consists unless there is an e+press stipulation to that effect7 3t was :mons. or so before the agreement was appro#ed and none of the petitioner drew attention to this matter ;fees<, !etitioners ha#en4t paid their due to Canlas nt e#en a single centa#os for =6 years. @t is noteworthy that the agreement of compromise and of partition in *uestion was signed by the obligors with the assistance of their respective counsel, and was not approved by the Probate 'ourt until after eight months or so. At no time did they then draw attention to the absence in the agreement, or in the 'ourt order approving it, of any option on their part to pay their share in the attorney&s fees by parts or @n installments. ,*ually noteworthy, as reflective of the heirs& intention, or lacE of it, to comply with their obligation to pay 'anlas& fees, is that from the time of the e-ecution of the compromise agreement, up to date hereof, si-teen years altogether, they have not paid a single centavo to Mr. 'anlas. "either does the 'ourt find in the record any proof worthy of the name to substantiate the supposed agreement verbally made before )ustice Barredo. 6he self.serving affidavits of the heirs do not, all circumstances considered, *ualify as such proof.

& AUT$ORIT" TO APPEAR FOR GODERNMENT

G,R, No, :/<C1 O18os A, (S( S*6t*m8*1 1/9 1::. Facts @n the course of the reorgani(ation of the #epartment of 6ransportation and 'ommunications #?6'!, Guido '. Agon and Alfonso Magnayon were appointed to the positions of 5ead 6elecommunications ,ngineer, range ID. "erio Madarang who was also appointed to the position of %upervising 6elecommunications ,ngineer, range 31, *uestioned the appointments of Agon and Magnayon by filing an appeal with the Reorgani(ation Appeals Board of the #?6' composed of Moises %. 6olentino, )r. of the ?ffice of the %ecretary, as 'hairman and Assistant %ecretary Rosauro A. %ibal and Graciano L. %itchon of the ?ffice of the %ecretary, as members. @n a resolution dated )anuary 7, 3747 the said Reorgani(ation Appeals Board dismissed Madarang&s appeal
ISKO NOTES | Page 3=

LEGAL PROFESSION
ISKO NOTES | Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

for lacE of merit. 5ence, he appealed to the public respondent 'ivil %ervice 'ommission '%'! @n its resolution dated August 17, 3747, respondent '%' revoEed the appointments of Agon and Magnayon for the contested positions and directed the appointment of Madarang to the said position of 5eads 6elecommunications ,ngineer. #?6' Assistant %ecretary %ibal sought a reconsideration of the said resolution of the '%' but this was denied in a resolution dated "ovember 1, 3747. ?n "ovember 13, 3747, Assistant %ecretary %ibal filed a manifestation with the '%' stating that they will convene their %election and Promotion Board to deliberate on the position of 5ead 6elecommunications ,ngineer reclassified to ,ngineer @A pursuant to "ational 'ompensation 'ircular "o. 84 effective )uly 3, 3747! with *ualified candidates including appellant "erio Madarang. Respondent Madarang re*uested the '%' to taEe appropriate action by implementing its resolutions dated August 17, 3747 and "ovember 1, 3747. 6he '%' directed the immediate implementation of its aforementioned resolution insofar as it concerned the appointment of Madarang. 6his made Agon and Magnayon file their separate motions for reconsideration of the aforestated resolutions of the '%' but these were denied by the said commission. @n behalf of the petitioner, the %olicitor General filed a petition before the %' with prayer for a writ of preliminary in+unction or restraining order. Issue Chether or not the %olicitor General may act in behalf of the petitioners. Decision 6he %olicitor General is the lawyer of the government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and its officials or agents including petitioner and public respondent. 6his is so provided under Presidential #ecree "o. DI49 %,'6@?" 3. :unctions and ?rgani(ation. 3! 6he ?ffice of the %olicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter re*uiring the services of a lawyer. .... ,mphasis supplied.! @n the discharge of this tasE the %olicitor General must see to it that the best interest of the government is upheld within the limits set by law. Chen confronted with a situation where one government office taEes an adverse position against another government agency, as in this case, the %olicitor General should not refrain from performing his duty as the lawyer of the government. @t is incumbent upon him to present to the court what he considers would legally uphold the best interest of the government although it may run counter to a client&s position. @n such an instance the government office adversely affected by the position taEen by the %olicitor General, if it still believes in the merit of its case, may appear in its own behalf through its legal personnel or representative. @n the present case, it appears that after the %olicitor General studied the issues he found merit in the cause of the petitioner based on the applicable law and +urisprudence. 6hus, it is his duty to represent the petitioner as he did by filing this petition. 5e cannot be dis*ualified from appearing for the petitioner even if in so doing his representation runs against the interests of the '%'.

Petition is GRA"6,# and the *uestioned resolutions of the respondent '%' were annulled insofar as they direct the appointment of "erio Madarang to the contested position..

& #UTIES OF ATT"S9 SUSPENSION AN# REMODAL

%ee previous cases9 Guiang v. Antonio; Legrda v. 'A G,R, No, 1.<:3 R*gala A, Sandigan8ayan S*6t*m8*1 /.9 1::C Facts Raul Roco and his colleagues 6eodoro Regala, ,dgardo Angara, Avelino 'ru(, )ose 'oncepcion, Rogelio Ainluan, Aictor La(atin, ,duardo ,scueta and Para+a 5ayudini from the Angara, 'oncepcion, 'ru(, Regala and Abello A''RA! Law ?ffice were charged together with ,duardo 'on+uangco for ac*uiring ill.gotten wealth. 6he Presidential 'ommission on Good Government P'GG! based its charge from the refusal of the law firm to divulge information as to who had been involved in P'GG 'ase "o. ==22 despite the Enowledge of the law firm on the assets, personal transactions, and business dealings of their clients. Later, the P'GG amended the complaint, e-cluding Roco from the list of defendants. %uch e-clusion was based from the manifestation of Roco that he would identify the persons and stocEholders involved in the said P'GG case. 6he law firm petitioned for the P'GG to grant them the same treatment as what had been accorded to Roco. @t was at this point that the P'GG answered with a /set of re*uirements and conditions for e-clusion0 which were the disclosure of the identity of the clients; submission of documents purporting to the substantiation of the lawyer.client relationship; and presentation of the deeds of assignments which the lawyers e-ecuted in favor of its clients, covering the shareholdings of the latter. 6o bolster this set.up, the P'GG presented supposed proof to the effect that Roco had complied with such conditions. 6he :irst #ivision of the %andiganbayan denied the petition of the A''RA lawyers. Issues 3. 1. Chether or not the %andiganbayan strictly applied the concept of agency Chether or not the %andiganbayan erred in not giving the law firm e*ual treatment as that of Roco despite the fact that the confession of Roco did not really reveal the information being asEed by the P'GG Chether or not the %andiganbayan did not uphold the sanctity of the lawyer.client relationship

2.

Decision ?n the first issue, the %' held that the %andiganbayan did not strictly apply the concept of agency, which states that an attorney is more than a mere agent or servant because he possesses special powers of trust and confidence reposed on him by his client. ?n the second issue, it was ruled that the %andiganbayan erred and violated the e*ual protection clause. 6he inclusion of the A''RA lawyers was merely being used as a leverage to compel them to name their clientsP classifying persons as to those who can give valuable information apart from those who cannot is not a valid classification espoused by the e*ual protection clause.
ISKO NOTES | Page 33

LEGAL PROFESSION
ISKO NOTES | Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

?n the third issue, the 'ourt held that the %andiganbayan did not uphold the sanctity of the lawyer.client relationship. As a general rule, the identity of the client should not be shrouded with mystery, as a re*uirement of due process, e-cept when9 a. revealing the name of a client would implicate the latter in the very activity for which he sought the advice of the lawyer; b. the disclosure would e-pose the client to civil liability; and c. the content of the client communication is relevant to the sub+ect matter of the legal problem on which the client seeEs legal assistance. "?6,9 6he case of the prosecution must be built upon evidence gathered by them from their own sources, not from compelled testimony re*uiring them to reveal information pre+udicial to their client. 6he confidentiality privilege e-tends even after the termination of the lawyer.client relationship. S*6a1at* O6inions Ditug9 5,9 concurring9 @t is unreasonable for the %andiganbayan to compel petitioners to breach the trust reposed on the lawyers by their clients. 6he Republic is attempting to establish a case not on what it perceives to be the strength of its own evidence but on what it could elicit from a counsel against his client. #aAid* 51,9 5,9 dissenting9 6he prerogative to determine who shall be made defendants in a civil case is initially vested in the plaintiff, or the P'GG in this case. 6hus, the %andiganbayan did not commit any abuse of discretion when it denied petitionersG prayer for their e-clusion as party.defendants because they did not want to abide with any of the conditions set by the P'GG. ,ven if the court would accommodate the issue of confidentiality of lawyer.client relationship, the same privilege cannot be accorded to petitioners because they were sued as principal defendants in 'ivil 'ase "o. ==22. 'onspiracy is imputed to the parties therein. 6heir inclusion as defendants is +ustified. 6he lawyer.client privilege is not a shield for the commission of a crime or against the prosecution of the lawyer therefor. Puno9 5,9 dissenting9 @ +oin the ma+ority in holding that the %andiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion when it misdelineated the metes and bounds of the attorney.client privilege by failing to recogni(e its e-ceptions 5owever, @ part ways with the ma+ority when it ruled that petitioners need not prove they fall within the e-ceptions to the general rule. @ respectfully submit that the attorney.client privilege is not a magic mantra whose invocation will ipso facto and ipso )ure drape he who invoEes it with its protection. Plainly put, it is not enough to assert the privilege. 6he person claiming the privilege or its e-ceptions has the obligation to present the underlying facts demonstrating the e-istence of the privilege. @t ought to be obvious that petitionersG right to claim the attorney.client privilege is resolutory of the 'omplaint against them, and hence should be decided ahead and independently of their claim to e*ual protection of the law. Pursuant to the rule in legal hermeneutics that courts should not decide constitutional issues unless unavoidable, @ also respectfully submit that there is no immediate necessity to resolve petitioners& claim to e*ual protection of the law at this stage of the proceedings.

G,R, No, L=;31<< O1t*ga A, (A August 1;9 1: Facts ?n May 11, 37D4, )oa*uin ?rtega died intestate. 5e was survived by his wife, ,milia >bane( who initiated intestate proceedings for the settlement of the estate. ?n the other hand, the common law wife, 'ali-ta >ap filed a motion for reconsideration of the order appointing ,milia as administrati-. 'orollary, ,milia presented a verified inventory and appraisal of the estate of the deceased and it was approved by a /probate court.0 $pon Enowing this, the children of 'ali-ta >ap filed in the probate court a motion for intervention in the intestate proceedings, alleging that they were the acEnowledged natural children. @n view of this, )udge Amador Gome( issued an order on "ovember 1D, 37<1 declaring ,milia >bane( and her daughters by )oa*uin ?rtega as the legal heirs. @n this regard, since there is no money claims filed against the estate, probate court declared that proceedings closed and terminated. ?n :ebruary 31, 37I2, 'ali-ta >ap 'ivil 'ase "o.334D.= was amended showing9 3. 'ali-ta >ap was married to )oa*uin ?rtega in 371I before )ustice of Peace %ilverio Mamora 1. 'ali-tasG children were legitimate or legitimated 2. that ,miliaGs children were illegitimate D. that approval by probate court of the inventories submitted in the intestate proceedings had no basis 8. that declaration by the probate court of ,milia >bane( and her children as legal heirs was an error. "evertheless, despite the vehement ob+ections of the petitioners, )udge ,sten(o allowed the amendments. Part of the decision of )udge esten(o shows that /all parcels of lands which are found by his court be the con+ugal partnership properties of 'ali-ta >ap and )oa*uin ?rtega. :or this reason, ,milia filed her petition for certiorari in the 'ourt of appeals on the ground that respondent )udge ,sten(o converted private respondentsGs action for *uieting of title,declaration of nullity of sale, and annulment of tadeclaration. 5owever, 'A #@%M@%%,# the petition on :ebruary 3D, 37I<. Issue Chether or not the declaration of heirs made by )udge ,sten(o is valid. Decision 6he %upreme 'ourt held that the declaration of the heirs made by )udge ,sten(o is void because such matter was already resolved with finality by the probate court. @n addition to this, the court finds it with finality because there was no appeal from respondent. 'onversely, the probate court has no right to determine with finality the ownership thereof. @t was held also that the issue of ownership of specific property be raised in a separate ordinary action. :urther, the %' R,MA"#,# to the trial court full hearing of the case only on *uestion of ownership of the 3ID,D7< s*uare meters of land in %ta. 'ru(, Leyte.

ISKO NOTES | Page 31

LEGAL PROFESSION
ISKO NOTES | Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

A,(, No, -13C Gu*Aa11a A, Eala August 19 /..Facts )oselano Guevarra complainant! first met Atty. )ose ,manuel ,ala, the respondent ,in )anuary 1=== when his complainant&s! then.fiancee @rene Mo+e @rene! introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to Marianne sometimes spelled KMary AnnK! 6antoco with whom he had three children. After his marriage to @rene on ?ctober I, 1===, complainant noticed that @rene had been receiving from respondent cellphone calls, as well as messages some of which read K@ love you,K K@ miss you,K or KMeet you at Megamall.K 5e also noticed that @rene habitually went home very late at night or early in the morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go home from worE. 'omplainant even saw @rene and respondent together on two occasions. ?n the second occasion, he confronted them following which @rene abandoned the con+ugal house. ?n April 11, 1==3, complainant went uninvited to @rene&s birthday celebration at which he saw her and respondent celebrating with her family and friends. ?ut of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately. :ollowing that incident, @rene went to the con+ugal house and hauled off all her personal belongings, pieces of furniture, and her share of the household appliances. 'omplainant later found, in the master&s bedroom, a folded social card bearing the words K@ Love >ouK on its face, which card when unfolded contained a handwritten letter dated ?ctober I, 1===, the day of his wedding to @rene. 'omplainant soon saw respondent&s car and that of @rene constantly parEed at "o. I3.B 33th %treet, "ew Manila where, as he was to later learn sometime in April 1==3, @rene was already residing. 5e also learned still later that when his friends saw @rene on or about )anuary 34, 1==1 together with respondent during a concert, she was pregnant. And so on March D, 1==1 a 'omplaint for #isbarment before the @ntegrated Bar of the Philippines @BP! 'ommittee on Bar #iscipline 'B#! against Atty. )ose ,mmanuel M. ,ala a.E.a. "oli ,ala was filed for Kgrossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer&s oath.K After investigation, @BP.'B# @nvestigating 'ommissioner Milagros A. %an )uan, in a 31.page R,P?R6 A"# R,'?MM,"#A6@?" dated ?ctober 1<, 1==D, found the charge against respondent sufficiently proven. 6he @BP Board of Governors, however, annulled and set aside the Recommendation of the @nvestigating 'ommissioner and accordingly dismissed the case for lacE of merit, by Resolution dated )anuary 14, 1==<. Decision 6he %' upheld the recommendation of the @BP @nvestigating 'ommissioner. ,ala was #IS%ARRE# for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of 'anon 3, Rule 3.=3 and 'anon I, Rule I.=2 of the 'ode of Professional Responsibility. Rule 3.=39 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct $nderscoring supplied!,

Rule I.=29 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. :rom respondent&s Answer, he does not deny carrying on an adulterous relationship with @rene, KadulteryK being defined under Art. 222 of the Revised Penal 'ode as that Kcommitted by any married woman who shall have se-ual intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her. knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be subse*uently declared void.K @talics supplied! Chat respondent denies is having flaunted such relationship, he maintaining that it was Klow profile and Enown only to the immediate members of their respective families.K Cithout doubt, the adulterous relationship between respondent and @rene has been sufficiently proven by more than clearly preponderant evidence that evidence adduced by one party which is more conclusive and credible than that of the other party and, therefore, has greater weight than the other which is the *uantum of evidence needed in an administrative case against a lawyer.

ISKO NOTES | Page 32