1. Francisco v. Portugal (A.C. No.

6155, March 14, 2006)

Facts:

SPO1 Ernesto Francisco, SPO1 Donato Tan and PO3 Rolando Joaquin were involved in a shooting incident
which resulted in the death of two individuals and the serious injury of another. A trial ensued and the
Sandiganbayan found them guilty. Complainants engaged the services of Atty. Jaime Potugal for the
accused who filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied. Respondent then filed an Urgent Motion
for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration, and with the SC a Petition for Review on Cetiorari.
Thereafter, complainants never heard from respondent again, as he had moved out. After a year,
complainants personally verified the status of the petition, as they had neither news from respondent
about the case. They were shocked that the SC already denied the petition for late filing and non-payment
of docket fees. Complainants also learned that warrants of arrest had already been issued because
respondent did nothing to prevent the reglementary period for seeking reconsideration from lapsing.

Respondent states that he was not the original counsel of the accused and was merely requested by the
original counsel to assist the accused and be present at the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan decision.
Respondent claims that there was no formal engagement undertaken by the parties. As to the petition,
respondent maintains that it was filed on time by registered mail and paid the corresponding docket fees.
He explained his decision to formally withdraw as counsel for the accused when he wrote a letter to PO3
Joaquin, who served as the contact person between respondent and complainants and attaching the
Notice to Withdraw which respondent instructed the accused to sign and file with the Court.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent committed a violation of the CPR in this case.

Held:

Yes, respondent violated Rule 14.01 of the CPR which directs lawyers not to discriminate clients as to their
belief of the guilt of the latter.

The Court did not appreciate the offensive appellation respondent called the shooting incident that the
accused was engaged in. He described the incident, thus: "the accused police officers who had been
convicted of homicide for the 'salvage' of Froilan G. Cabiling and Jose M. Chua and attempted homicide
of Mario C. Macato."

Though he might think of his clients as that, still it is unprofessional to be labeling an event as such when
even the Sandiganbayan had not done so.
 2. Catalan, Jr. v. Silvosa (A.C. No. 7360, July 24, 2012)

Facts:

Atty. Policarpio Catalan, Jr. accused Atty. Joselito Silvosa of appearing as private counsel in People v.
Esperon case where he appeared as public prosecutor, violating Rule 6.03 of the CPR. Apart from the fact
that repondent and the accused are relatives, he displayed manifest bias towards the accused. Provincial
Prosecutor Guillermo Ching granted petitioner’s request to relieve respondent from handling the Esperon
case. The RTC rendered judgment convicting the accused. Thereafter, as private lawyer and as counsel for
the accused, respondent filed a motion to reinstate bail pending finality of judgment.

In his defense, respondent states that he resigned as prosecutor from the Esperon case. The trial court
released its decision in the Esperon case after this and cancelled the accused's bail. He claims that his
appearance was only for the reinstatement of bail and denied any relationship between himself and the
accused. He relies on Rule 2.01 which provides that "A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons the
cause of the defenseless or the oppressed" and on Canon 14 which provides that "A lawyer shall not refuse
his services to the needy."

Issue:

Whether or not the provision of Canon 14 of the CPR validates respondent’s representation in the Esperon
Case

Held:

No, the defense that a lawyer should not refuse his services to the needy will not proper when other
prohibitions are violated following its application. Foregoing considered, he shall be held for violating Rule
6.03 and Rule 15.03 of the CPR. Canon 14 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not refuse his services
to the needy.

Respondent desperately attempted to minimize his involvement in the same case on two occasions. He
claims his participation as public prosecutor was only to appear in the arraignment and in the pre-trial
conference. He likewise claims his subsequent participation as collaborating counsel was limited only to
the reinstatement of the original bail. Indeed, the prohibition against representation of conflicting
interests applies although the attorney's intentions were honest and he acted in good faith.
 3. Tuano v. People (205871, September 28, 2016)

Facts:

Ruel Tuano was charged with violation of R.A. No. 9165 for having possessed one plastic sachet with 0.064
grams of shabu. The RTC convicted accused, as affirmed by the CA. The SC also sustained the conviction
of accused. The accused moved for reconsideration and prayed for his acquittal. The SC reconsidered and
acquitted accused for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, an
Order of Release was issued and sent to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections.

Thereafter, the SC received from the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections a letter informing it
that accused died prior to the issuance of the Resolution. A copy of the Death Certificate was attached to
the letter. The SC received a memorandum from the Division Clerk of Court requesting instructions on the
proper date of finality of the Court's Resolution, in light of accused's death prior to the Resolution's
issuance.

Issue:

Whether or not the counsels of petitioner in this case is liable for Rule 14.04 of the CPR

Held:

Yes, they violated Rule 14.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer who
accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his professional fees shall observe the same standard of
conduct governing his relations with paying clients. Counsels for accused were grossly remiss in this duty.
Accused has died but they continued to file pleadings on his behalf.

Employment as a lawyer of the PAO which is tasked to provide free legal assistance for indigents and low-
income persons so as to promote the rule of law in the protection of the rights of the citizenry and the
efficient and speedy administration of justice. Against this backdrop, respondent should have been more
judicious in the performance of his professional obligations. Lawyers in the government are public
servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the public service.

Much is demanded from those who engage in the practice of law because they have a duty not only to
their clients, but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. The lawyer's diligence and dedication to
his work and profession not only promote the interest of his client, they likewise help attain the ends of
justice by contributing to the proper and speedy administration of cases, bring prestige to the bar and
maintain respect to the legal profession.