The Lawyer and Society

Canon 1- Duty to uphold the Constitution and Obey the Law

Brion Jr. v Brillantes

Facts:

Petitioner Marciano P. Brion, Jr., in this petition for disbarment, avers that
respondent violated the court’s decree of perpetual disqualification imposed upon
respondent Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr. (in A.M. No. MTJ-92-706, entitled Lupo
Almodiel Atienza v. Judge Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr.) from assuming any post in
government service, including any posts in government-owned and controlled
corporations, when he accepted a legal consultancy post at the Local Water
Utilities Administration (LWUA), from 1998 to 2000. Said consultancy included an
appointment by LWUA as 6th member of the Board of Directors of the Urdaneta
(Pangasinan) Water District. Upon expiration of the legal consultancy agreement,
this was subsequently renewed as a Special Consultancy Agreement.

Respondent admits the existence of the Legal Consultancy Contract as well as

the Special Consultancy Contract. However, he raises the affirmative defense
that under Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 27, Series
of 1993, services rendered pursuant to a consultancy contract shall not be
considered government services, and therefore, are not covered by Civil Service
Law, rules and regulations.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent has transgressed the letter and spirit of the court’s
decree in the Atienza case.

Held:

By performing duties and functions, which clearly pertain to a contractual

employee, albeit in the guise of an advisor or consultant, respondent has
transgressed both letter and spirit of the Court’s decree in Atienza.

The Court finds that for all intents and purposes, respondent performed duties
and functions of a non-advisory nature, which pertain to a contractual employee
of LWUA. As stated by petitioner in his reply, there is a difference between a
consultant hired on a contractual basis (which is governed by CSC M.C. No. 27,
s. 1993) and a contractual employee (whose appointment is governed, among
others, by the CSC Omnibus Rules on Appointment and other Personnel
Actions). The lawyer’s primary duty as enunciated in the Attorney’s Oath is to
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law
and legal processes. That duty in its irreducible minimum entails obedience to
the legal orders of the courts. Respondent’s disobedience to this Court’s order
prohibiting his reappointment to any branch, instrumentality, or agency of
government, including government owned and controlled corporations, cannot be
camouflaged by a legal consultancy or a special consultancy contract.

Hence, Atty. Brillantes was suspended and ordered to pay a fine of Ten
Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00).

Bautista v Gonzales adm matter 1625

FACTS:

In a verified complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista, respondent Ramon A. Gonzales

was charged with malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s
oath. Required by this Court to answer the charges against him, respondent filed
a motion for a bill of particulars asking this Court to order complainant to amend
his complaint by making his charges more definite. In a resolution the Court
granted respondent’s motion and required complainant to file an amended
complaint. Complainant submitted an amended complaint for disbarment,
alleging that respondent committed the following acts:

1. Accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients, namely, Alfaro

Fortunado, Nestor Fortunado and Editha Fortunado [hereinafter referred to as
the Fortunados] to pay all expenses, including court fees, for a contingent fee of
fifty percent (50%) of the value of the property in litigation.

xxx

4. Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter into a contract with
him on August 30, 1971 for the development into a residential subdivision of the
land involved in Civil Case No. Q-15143, covered by TCT No. T-1929, claiming
that he acquired fifty percent (50%) interest thereof as attorney’s fees from the
Fortunados, while knowing fully well that the said property was already sold at a
public auction on June 30, 1971, by the Provincial Sheriff of Lanao del Norte and
registered with the Register of Deeds of Iligan City;

xxx

Pertinent to No. 4 above, the contract, in No. 1 above, reads:

We the [Fortunados] agree on the 50% contingent fee, provided, you [respondent
Ramon Gonzales] defray all expenses, for the suit, including court fees.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent committed serious misconduct involving a

champertous contract?
HELD:

YES. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for six (6) months.

RATIO:

The Court finds that the agreement between the respondent and the Fortunados
contrary to Canon 42 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provides that a
lawyer may not properly agree with a client to pay or bear the expenses of
litigation. [See also Rule 16.04, Code of Professional Responsibility]. Although a
lawyer may in good faith, advance the expenses of litigation, the same should be
subject to reimbursement. The agreement between respondent and the
Fortunados, however, does not provide for reimbursement to respondent of
litigation expenses paid by him. An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to
pay expenses of proceedings to enforce the client’s rights is champertous
[citation omitted]. Such agreements are against public policy especially where, as
in this case, the attorney has agreed to carry on the action at his own expense in
consideration of some bargain to have part of the thing in dispute [citation
omitted]. The execution of these contracts violates the fiduciary relationship
between the lawyer and his client, for which the former must incur administrative
sanctions.
Feliciano v. Bautista lozada

Unlawful, Dishonest & Immoral Conduct

Arciga v. Maniwang1608
fasd
Zaguirre v. Castillo 4921
fasd

Cordova v. Cordova 3249

fasd

Crimes involving moral turpitude

Rodolfo D. Pactolin Admn Case 7940

fasd

Effect of Executive Pardon

In re lontok 1922
fasd

In re Vailoces 439
fasd

In Re Gutierrez 363
fasd