Arellano University School of Law

Arellano University School of Law

Taft Avenue Corner Menlo St. Pasay City, Philippines
Tel. No.: (632) 404-3089 to 93 Fax.No.: (632) 521-4691

INSTANCES WHEN A LAWYER CAN

REFUSE TO ACCEPT A CASE
By

Rabadon, Karen Joy Malogan (2016-0059)

A TERM PAPER
submitted to
Atty. Erik Lazo

in partial fulfillment of the

requirement for the subject of
Legal Counseling
August 2020
 Instances When a Lawyer can Refuse to Accept a Case

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to enumerate the instances when a Lawyer can refuse to accept a case.
Moreover, this paper will discuss when and how a Lawyer-client relationship begins to exist and
the justifying circumstances wherein a Lawyer may withdraw handling the case of his client.

DISCUSSION

In most cases wherein legal matters are involved and its application is vital in resolving a
dispute between two or more parties, hiring an attorney is sometimes the best option. In the case
of Virgo vs. Atty. Amorin, the Supreme Court discussed the nature of the Attorney-client
relationship. It ruled that, an attorney-client relationship is said to exist when a lawyer acquiesces
or voluntarily permits the consultation of a person, who in respect to a business or trouble of any
kind, consults a lawyer with a view of obtaining professional advice or assistance. The Supreme
Court further ruled that it is not essential that the client should have employed the lawyer on any
previous occasion or that any retainer should have been paid, promised or charged for; neither is
it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the
consultation was had, for as long as the advice and assistance of the attorney is sought and
received in matters pertinent to his profession. 1

In most cases and applying it to an ordinary day-to-day basis, when someone, who is
involved in a dispute or has a claim against someone, went to a Lawyer and seek his advice, then
that lawyer, applying his knowledge in law, rendered legal services and advices to that potential
client, that act is already tantamount to an attorney-client relationship. In that instance, the
attorney-client privileged already took place and hence, as a Lawyer, he may not reveal oral or
written communications with clients that clients reasonably expect to remain private. A lawyer
who has received a client’s confidences cannot repeat them to anyone outside the legal team
without the client’s consent. In that sense, the privilege is the client’s, not the lawyer’s—the
client can decide to forfeit (or waive) the privilege, but the lawyer cannot.

Once a lawyer-client relationship exists, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility states that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. This
provision is derived from the nature and relation of attorney and client which is one of trust and
confidence of the highest order. It is highly fiduciary in nature and demands utmost fidelity and
good faith. In the case of PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., the Supreme Court discussed the how
important the role of a lawyer is once an attorney-client relationship is established. It ruled that a
lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts connected with his client’s case. He learns from his
1
Wilhemina C. Virgo vs. Atty. Oliver Amorin, A.C. No. 7861, January 30, 2009.
client the weak points of the action as well as the strong ones. Such knowledge must be
considered sacred and guarded with care and no opportunity must be given him to take
advantage of the client’s secrets.2

Lastly, there is an implied duty on the part of the lawyer to finish the case he is into. It is
the lawyer’s responsibility to manage his time well and it is not an excuse to withdraw a case
because he accepted other cases and such are piling up. The Supreme Court in the case of
Venterez, et. al vs. Atty. Cosme, ruled that among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle
that an attorney who undertakes an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its termination, that
is, until the case becomes final and executory. 3Moreover, the non-payment of fees does not
diminish a lawyer’s duty and should not be reason not to inform the client of an importance
development, or worse, to withhold vital information from her. Our laws are equipped with
remedies for deliberate refusal to pay, because it is but just and proper that if refusal to pay just
compensation ensues in any transaction, the proper remedy is to institute an action before the
proper court and such actuation of the respondent herein did not constitute deceit, malpractice or
gross misconduct.

CONCLUSION

Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a Lawyer shall withdraw
his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. Rule 22.01,
enumerated the instances when a lawyer may withdraw his services such as: when the client
pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with the matter he is handling;
when the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and rules; when
his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the client; when the
mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out the
employment effectively; when the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails
to comply with the retainer agreement; when the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office
and other similar cases.

In the cases presented above, it is justified for a lawyer to decide to withdraw the case
should one or more of the above-mentioned circumstances exists. However, termination of
services without the written consent of the client is prohibited and is violative of law. In the case
decided by the Supreme Court, it ruled that, a lawyer who desires to retire from an action without
consent of his client must file a petition for withdrawal in court. He must serve a copy of his
petition upon his client and the adverse party. 4 In this case, it can be conclude that, even though
a lawyer has valid and justifying reasons to withdraw from the case of his client, it not acceptable
that he will just discontinue rendering legal services because there are requirements needed to be
complied with in order that he may withdraw from the case, such as the court approval is needed.
2
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) vs. Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division), G.R. 151089-12,
April 12, 2005.
3
Elisa V. Venterez, Genaro De Vera, Inocencia V. Ramirez, Pacita V. Mills, Antonina V. Palma and Ramon De
Vera vs. Atty. Rodrigo Cosme, A.C. No. 7421, October 10, 2007
4
Atty. Jalandoni vs. Atty. Villarosa, A.C. No. 5303, June 15, 2006
It is also a must that a lawyer must see to it that a new lawyer is recorded before terminating his
services. Hence, a client would not need to worry that his case will be thrown off the trash
because a new lawyer is guaranteed to take over his case and to represent him. It is also well-
noted that the cessation of law practice is not a justifying reason to withdraw from a case. In a
case decided by the Supreme Court, it ruled that neither is the cessation of his law practice an
excuse for his failure to file the required brief. Even if it were true that Atty. Briones has stopped
practicing law, he still could not ignore the directive coming from the Court. It does not appear
from the records of G.R. No. 130965 that Atty. Briones has withdrawn his appearance. Unless he
has withdrawn his appearance in the case, the Court would still consider him as counsel for that
accused-appelland and he is expected to comply with all its orders and directives. 5

RECOMMENDATION

Before establishing an attorney-client relationship, it is important for the Lawyer to

discuss some matters to his client, such as of advising the client of the payment structure and fee
schedule, assuring the client that the matters divulged shall be kept confidential and in
accordance with the attorney-client privilege, advising the client of his or her legal rights and
responsibilities, assuring that the client that the counsel will represent the client’s interests
competently, professionally and diligently, proposing an interim legal course of action to resolve
the client’s problem based on an independent professional analysis of applicable facts and law. It
is also important to assess the client’s chances of winning his case, and as mandated by the
Supreme Court to help them avoid clogging the cases and for speedy disposition of cases, it is a
must and now become a requirement to inform the client of settlement offers and other possible
resolutions.

However, even at the onset of becoming a lawyer to a client, a lawyer may refuse to
accept because of valid and justifying reasons. Accordingly, in dealings with an attorney for
representation, a client should be honest and forthcoming and always keep the lawyer updated on
any changes in circumstances. Failure to do so, would give a valid reason for the Lawyer to
refuse to accept the case. There are other valid grounds on which an attorney can refuse to accept
a case, such as if he finds himself in conflict with the client. Conflict of interest arises not only in
terms of pedigree or relationship with his potential and future client, but also derived from the
previous dealings and associations of his clients. For example, his potential client is in conflict
with someone or has a dispute with someone whom the Lawyer previously represented in his
previous case. In this scenario, it is clear that the Lawyer is justified in refusing to accept the case
to avoid being biased throughout the whole duration of the case. Not only that the Lawyer can
refuse, but also, the Court, may moto proprio withdraw the counsel from the case if it finds that
the Lawyer is in conflict of interest with his client.

Lastly, refusal to pay fees, as a general rule is not a valid ground for a Lawyer to refuse to
accept a case. The exception is that, if it is clear that the potential client is capable of paying the
fees, but is refusing to fee because of inexcusable reasonings which is tantamount to bad faith. In

5
In Re: Atty. David Briones, A.C. No. 5468, August 15, 2001.
this case, both parties, the Lawyer and his potential client fails to come up with a good payment
structure and fee schedule, that is why, a Lawyer is justified in refusing to accept the case.

REFERENCE LIST

A. Wilhemina C. Virgo vs. Atty. Oliver Amorin, A.C. No. 7861, January 30, 2009.

B. Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) vs. Sandiganbayan (Fifth

Division), G.R. 151089-12, April 12, 2005.

C. Elisa V. Venterez, Genaro De Vera, Inocencia V. Ramirez, Pacita V. Mills, Antonina V.

Palma and Ramon De Vera vs. Atty. Rodrigo Cosme, A.C. No. 7421, October 10, 2007

D. Atty. Jalandoni vs. Atty. Villarosa, A.C. No. 5303, June 15, 2006

E. In Re: Atty. David Briones, A.C. No. 5468, August 15, 2001.