Legal Ethics I

Legal Ethics – THE PRACTICE OF LAW
Cases
A.C. No. 7472 March 30, 2010 was resuming her practice of law on November 17, 2001, Case No. 699-2002; (2) Civil Case No. 355-0-2005; and (3)
which she actually did. Sp. Proc. No. M-6153.
LIGAYA MANIAGO, Complainant,
vs. A problem arose when Judge Josefina Farrales, in her In compliance therewith, complainant submitted a
ATTY. LOURDES I. DE DIOS, Respondent. capacity as Acting Executive Judge of the RTC, Olongapo Supplemental Affidavit in the vernacular, which reads:
City, erroneously issued a directive on March 15, 2007,
ordering respondent to desist from practicing law and
RESOLUTION 2. Sa Criminal Case No. 699-2002 entitled
revoking her notarial commission for the years 2007 and
People of the Philippines vs. Hiroshi Miyata ay
2008. Knowing that the directive was rather questionable,
[nagsimulang] mag[-]appear si Atty. Lourdes de
NACHURA, J.: respondent, nonetheless, desisted from law practice in due
Dios mula April 9, 2003, na [naka-]attach ang
deference to the court order. Thereafter, respondent filed a
Certification mula sa Branch 73[,] Regional Trial
Motion for Clarification with the Supreme Court on account
The instant case arose from an Affidavit-Complaint dated Court[,] Olongapo City.
of Judge Farrales’ letters to all courts in Olongapo City and
April 2, 2007 filed by Ligaya Maniago, seeking the to some municipalities in Zambales, which "gave the
disbarment of Atty. Lourdes I. de Dios for engaging in the impression that Atty. De Dios is not yet allowed to resume 3. Sa Civil Case No. 355-0-2006 ay
practice of law despite having been suspended by the her practice of law and that her notarial commission for the [nagsimulang] mag[-]appear si Atty. de Dios
Court. years 2007 and 2008 is revoked." Acting on the said noong October 10, 2005, nakasaad din ito sa
motion, the Court issued a resolution on April 23, 2007 in Certification mula sa Branch 73, Regional Trial
Complainant alleged that she filed a criminal case against this wise: Court of Olongapo City. At sa Sp. Proc. No. M-
Hiroshi Miyata, a Japanese national, before the Regional 6153 ay ito ay na[-]ifile ni Atty. de Dios noong
Trial Court (RTC), Olongapo City, Branch 73, for violation of September 26, 2005 at hanggang ngayon ay
A.C. No. 4943 (Diana de Guzman v. Atty. Lourdes I. De
Presidential Decree No. 603, docketed as Criminal Case pending pa sa Court of Appeals.
Dios) – Respondent’s Urgent Motion for Clarification dated
No. 699-2002. The accused was represented by Atty. De 14 March 2007 praying that the Court declare her to have
Dios, with office address at 22 Magsaysay Drive, Olongapo served her six (6) months (sic) suspension and her 4. Bilang karagdagan po ay naka[-]attach ang
City. Complainant then learned from the RTC staff that Atty. resumption of law practice on 17 November 2001 onwards Certified Xerox Copy ng Minutes of the Session
De Dios had an outstanding suspension order from the as proper is NOTED. ng Subic Municipal Trial Court na kung saan ay
Supreme Court since 2001, and was, therefore, prohibited
nag[-]appear si Atty. de Dios sa Civil Case No.
from appearing in court. Complainant further alleges that
042-01 entitled Andrea Lorenzo, plaintiff, -versus-
there is a civil case (Civil Case No. 355-0-2005) and Considering the motion for clarification, the Court resolves
Simeon Pullido noong December 14, 2001.
another case (Special Proceeding No. M-6153) filed against to DEEM Atty. Lourdes I. De Dios to have SERVED her six
Miyata before the RTC, Makati City, Branch 134, where (6) month suspension and her recommencement of law
Atty. De Dios appeared as his counsel. Complainant practice on 17 November 2001 as PROPER pursuant to the 5. At makikita rin po sa Annex A-5 ng Comment
averred that Atty. De Dios ought to be disbarred from the Resolution dated 30 January 2002. ni Atty. de Dios, x x x -
practice of law for her flagrant violation and deliberate
disobedience of a lawful order of the Supreme Court.
Respondent averred that for the period stated in the 5.[a.] Nag file ng kaso si Atty. Lourdes de Dios
affidavit of complainant Maniago, during which she noong May 17, 2001 entitled Shirley Pagaduan
In her Comment, Atty. De Dios admitted that there were allegedly practiced law, she was neither suspended nor in vs. Danilo Pagaduan[,] Civil Case No. 234-0-
cases filed against her client, Miyata. She, however, denied any way prohibited from practice. The complaint, she 2001. Ito ay ginawa ni Atty. de Dios isang (1)
that she was under suspension when she appeared as his added, was baseless and malicious, and should be araw pa lamang mula magsimula ang kanyang
counsel in the cases. dismissed outright. suspension noon[g] May 16, 2001.
Respondent explained that an administrative case was In the Resolution dated September 12, 2007, the Court 5.b. Nag file din ng kaso si Atty. de Dios noong
indeed filed against her by Diana de Guzman, docketed as referred the matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) May 18, 2001 entitled Filmixco versus Dr. Ma.
A.C. No. 4943, where she was meted the penalty of 6- for evaluation, report and recommendation. Initially, the Perla Tabasondra-Ramos and Dr. Ricardo
month suspension. She served the suspension immediately OBC directed the complainant to file a supplemental Ramos Civil Case No. 236-0-2001. Ito ay
upon receipt of the Court’s Resolution on May 16, 2001 up affidavit, stating therein the exact period of appearances of dalawang (2) araw mula magsimula ang
to November 16, 2001. In a Manifestation filed on October Atty. De Dios and the particular courts where respondent suspension ni Atty. de Dios noong May 16, 2001.
19, 2001, respondent formally informed the Court that she appeared as counsel in the following cases: (1) Criminal
Averell B. Abrasaldo – I-Estrellado

Cases
5.c. At nag notaryo si Atty. de Dios ng isang (a) lawyer’s suspension is not automatic upon the end of the 1) After a finding that respondent lawyer must be
affidavit executed by Carolina C. Bautista noong period stated in the Court’s decision, and an order from the suspended from the practice of law, the Court
May 16, 2001, (b) Affidavit executed by Jessica Court lifting the suspension at the end of the period is shall render a decision imposing the penalty;
Morales-Mesa on May 17, 2001 at (c) isang necessary in order to enable [him] to resume the practice of
Statement of non-liability of Alfredo C. Diaz on his profession.2
2) Unless the Court explicitly states that the
May 16, 2001. Ang mga pag notaryo na ito ay
decision is immediately executory upon receipt
ginawa noong nagsimula na ang suspension ni
Thus, according to the OBC, a suspended lawyer must first thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to
Atty. de Dios noong May 16, 2001.
present proof(s) of his compliance by submitting file a motion for reconsideration thereof. The
certifications from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and denial of said motion shall render the decision
6. Ginawa ko ang Supplemental Affidavit na ito from the Executive Judge that he has indeed desisted from final and executory;
bilang patunay sa mga nakasaad base sa aking the practice of law during the period of suspension.
personal na kaalamanan at mga dokumentong Thereafter, the Court, after evaluation, and upon a
3) Upon the expiration of the period of
hawak ko upang ipakita na nilabag ni Atty. de favorable recommendation from the OBC, will issue a
suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn
Dios ang kanyang suspension base sa sulat ni resolution lifting the order of suspension and thus allow him
Statement with the Court, through the Office of
Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant Ma. to resume the practice of law. The OBC alleged that it was
the Bar Confidant, stating therein that he or she
Cristina B. Layusa na may petsang 12 February unfortunate that this procedure was overlooked in A.C. No.
has desisted from the practice of law and has not
2007 at sa admission ni Atty. de Dios na 4943, where Atty. De Dios was able to resume her practice
appeared in any court during the period of his or
nagsimula ang kanyang suspension noong May of law without submitting the required certifications and
her suspension;
16, 2001. passing through the OBC for evaluation. In order to avoid
confusion and conflicting directives from the Court, the
OBC recommended that the Court adopt a uniform policy 4) Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be
A Supplemental Comment was thereafter filed by
on the matter of the lifting of the order of suspension of a furnished to the Local Chapter of the IBP and to
respondent, stating that there were no new matters raised
lawyer from the practice of law.1avvphi1 the Executive Judge of the courts where
in the Supplemental Affidavit, and asserting that "the
respondent has pending cases handled by him or
opinion of Bar Confidant, Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa, as
her, and/or where he or she has appeared as
contained in her letter dated 12 February 2007, cannot The Court notes the Report and Recommendation of the
counsel;
supersede the Resolution dated April 23, 2007 of this OBC.
Honorable Court." According to her, the resolution should
be the "final nail to the coffin of this case." 5) The Sworn Statement shall be considered as
It must be remembered that the practice of law is not a right
proof of respondent’s compliance with the order
but a mere privilege and, as such, must bow to the inherent
of suspension;
On November 18, 2008, the OBC submitted its regulatory power of the Supreme Court to exact compliance
Memorandum for the Court’s consideration. with the lawyer’s public responsibilities. 3Whenever it is
made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the 6) Any finding or report contrary to the
trust and confidence of his clients and of the public, it statements made by the lawyer under oath shall
The OBC explained that the letter adverted to by
becomes not only the right but also the duty of the Supreme be a ground for the imposition of a more severe
complainant in her affidavit was the OBC’s reply to an
Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him the punishment, or disbarment, as may be
inquiry made by the Office of the Court Administrator
privilege of ministering within its Bar, to withdraw that warranted.
regarding the status of Atty. De Dios.1 Therein, the OBC
privilege.4 However, as much as the Court will not hesitate
made it clear that the lifting of the suspension order was not
to discipline an erring lawyer, it should, at the same time,
automatic, following the pronouncement of the Court in J.K. SO ORDERED.
also ensure that a lawyer may not be deprived of the
Mercado and Sons Agricultural Enterprises, Inc. and
freedom and right to exercise his profession unreasonably.
Spouses Jesus and Rosario K. Mercado, complainants v.
A.M. No. 1928 August 3, 1978
Atty. Eduardo de Vera and Jose Rongkales Bandalan, et al.
and Atty. Eduardo C. de Vera v. Atty. Mervyn G. Encanto, IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is hereby RESOLVED
et al., which states: that the following guidelines be observed in the matter of In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency
the lifting of an order suspending a lawyer from the practice of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILION (IBP Administrative Case
of law: No. MDD-1)
The Statement of the Court that his suspension stands until
he would have satisfactorily shown his compliance with the
Court’s resolution is a caveat that his suspension could R E S O L U T I O N
thereby extend for more than six months. The lifting of a

Cases
Thereafter, the case was set for hearing on June 3, 1976. SEC. 9. Membership dues. Every
After the hearing, the parties were required to submit member of the Integrated Bar shall pay
memoranda in amplification of their oral arguments. The such annual dues as the Board of
CASTRO, C.J.:
matter was thenceforth submitted for resolution. Governors shall determine with the
approval of the Supreme Court. ...
The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed
At the threshold, a painstaking scrutiny of the respondent's
practicing attorney in the Philippines.
pleadings would show that the propriety and necessity of The core of the respondent's arguments is that the above
the integration of the Bar of the Philippines are in essence provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights
On November 29, 1975, the Integrated Bar of the conceded. The respondent, however, objects to particular in the sense that he is being compelled, as a pre-condition
Philippines (IBP for short) Board of Governors unanimously features of Rule of Court 139-A (hereinafter referred to as to maintaining his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be
adopted Resolution No. 75-65 in Administrative Case No. the Court Rule) 1 — in accordance with which the Bar of the a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues,
MDD-1 (In the Matter of the Membership Dues Delinquency Philippines was integrated — and to the provisions of par. and that as a consequence of this compelled financial
of Atty. Marcial A. Edillon) recommending to the Court the 2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws (hereinabove support of the said organization to which he is admittedly
removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of cited). personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to
Attorneys for "stubborn refusal to pay his membership liberty and property guaranteed to him by the Constitution.
dues" to the IBP since the latter's constitution Hence, the respondent concludes, the above provisions of
The authority of the IBP Board of Governors to recommend
notwithstanding due notice. the Court Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no
to the Supreme Court the removal of a delinquent
legal force and effect.
member's name from the Roll of Attorneys is found in par. 2
On January 21, 1976, the IBP, through its then President Section 24, Article Ill of the IBP By-Laws (supra), whereas
Liliano B. Neri, submitted the said resolution to the Court for the authority of the Court to issue the order applied for is The respondent similarly questions the jurisdiction of the
consideration and approval, pursuant to paragraph 2, found in Section 10 of the Court Rule, which reads: Court to strike his name from the Roll of Attorneys,
Section 24, Article III of the By-Laws of the IBP, which contending that the said matter is not among the justiciable
reads: cases triable by the Court but is rather of an "administrative
SEC. 10. Effect of non-payment of
nature pertaining to an administrative body."
dues. — Subject to the provisions of
.... Should the delinquency further Section 12 of this Rule, default in the
continue until the following June 29, payment of annual dues for six months The case at bar is not the first one that has reached the
the Board shall promptly inquire into shall warrant suspension of Court relating to constitutional issues that inevitably and
the cause or causes of the continued membership in the Integrated Bar, and inextricably come up to the surface whenever attempts are
delinquency and take whatever action default in such payment for one year made to regulate the practice of law, define the conditions
it shall deem appropriate, including a shall be a ground for the removal of the of such practice, or revoke the license granted for the
recommendation to the Supreme Court name of the delinquent member from exercise of the legal profession.
for the removal of the delinquent the Roll of Attorneys.
member's name from the Roll of
The matters here complained of are the very same issues
Attorneys. Notice of the action taken
The all-encompassing, all-inclusive scope of membership in raised in a previous case before the Court, entitled
shall be sent by registered mail to the
the IBP is stated in these words of the Court Rule: "Administrative Case No. 526, In the Matter of the Petition
member and to the Secretary of the
for the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, Roman
Chapter concerned.
Ozaeta, et al., Petitioners." The Court exhaustively
SECTION 1. Organization. — There is
considered all these matters in that case in its Resolution
hereby organized an official national
On January 27, 1976, the Court required the respondent to ordaining the integration of the Bar of the Philippines,
body to be known as the 'Integrated
comment on the resolution and letter adverted to above; he promulgated on January 9, 1973. The Court there made the
Bar of the Philippines,' composed of all
submitted his comment on February 23, 1976, reiterating unanimous pronouncement that it was
persons whose names now appear or
his refusal to pay the membership fees due from him.
may hereafter be included in the Roll of
Attorneys of the Supreme Court. ... fully convinced, after a
On March 2, 1976, the Court required the IBP President thoroughgoing conscientious study of
and the IBP Board of Governors to reply to Edillon's all the arguments adduced in Adm.
The obligation to pay membership dues is couched in the
comment: on March 24, 1976, they submitted a joint reply. Case No. 526 and the authoritative
following words of the Court Rule:
materials and the mass of factual data
contained in the exhaustive Report of

Cases
the Commission on Bar Integration, he has created. As the U. S. Supreme Court through Mr. (5) Promulgate rules concerning
that the integration of the Philippine Justice Roberts explained, the expression "affected with a pleading, practice, and pro. procedure
Bar is 'perfectly constitutional and public interest" is the equivalent of "subject to the exercise in all courts, and the admission to the
legally unobjectionable'. ... of the police power" (Nebbia vs. New York, 291 U.S. 502). practice of law and the integration of
the Bar ...,
Be that as it may, we now restate briefly the posture of the When, therefore, Congress enacted Republic Act No.
Court. 6397 5 authorizing the Supreme Court to "adopt rules of and Section 1 of Republic Act No. 6397, which reads:
court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar under
such conditions as it shall see fit," it did so in the exercise of
An "Integrated Bar" is a State-organized Bar, to which SECTION 1. Within two years from the
the paramount police power of the State. The Act's avowal
every lawyer must belong, as distinguished from bar approval of this Act, the Supreme
is to "raise the standards of the legal profession, improve
associations organized by individual lawyers themselves, Court may adopt rules of Court to
the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to
membership in which is voluntary. Integration of the Bar is effect the integration of the Philippine
discharge its public responsibility more effectively." Hence,
essentially a process by which every member of the Bar is Bar under such conditions as it shall
the Congress in enacting such Act, the Court in ordaining
afforded an opportunity to do his share in carrying out the see fit in order to raise the standards of
the integration of the Bar through its Resolution
objectives of the Bar as well as obliged to bear his portion the legal profession, improve the
promulgated on January 9, 1973, and the President of the
of its responsibilities. Organized by or under the direction of administration of justice, and enable
Philippines in decreeing the constitution of the IBP into a
the State, an integrated Bar is an official national body of the Bar to discharge its public
body corporate through Presidential Decree No. 181 dated
which all lawyers are required to be members. They are, responsibility more effectively.
May 4, 1973, were prompted by fundamental
therefore, subject to all the rules prescribed for the
considerations of public welfare and motivated by a desire
governance of the Bar, including the requirement of
to meet the demands of pressing public necessity. Quite apart from the above, let it be stated that even
payment of a reasonable annual fee for the effective
without the enabling Act (Republic Act No. 6397), and
discharge of the purposes of the Bar, and adherence to a
looking solely to the language of the provision of the
code of professional ethics or professional responsibility The State, in order to promote the general welfare, may
Constitution granting the Supreme Court the power "to
breach of which constitutes sufficient reason for interfere with and regulate personal liberty, property and
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and
investigation by the Bar and, upon proper cause appearing, occupations. Persons and property may be subjected to
procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of
a recommendation for discipline or disbarment of the restraints and burdens in order to secure the general
law," it at once becomes indubitable that this constitutional
offending member. 2 prosperity and welfare of the State (U.S. vs. Gomez Jesus,
declaration vests the Supreme Court with plenary power in
31 Phil 218), for, as the Latin maxim goes, "Salus populi est
all cases regarding the admission to and supervision of the
supreme lex." The public welfare is the supreme law. To
The integration of the Philippine Bar was obviously dictated practice of law.
this fundamental principle of government the rights of
by overriding considerations of public interest and public
individuals are subordinated. Liberty is a blessing without
welfare to such an extent as more than constitutionally and
which life is a misery, but liberty should not be made to Thus, when the respondent Edillon entered upon the legal
legally justifies the restrictions that integration imposes
prevail over authority because then society win fall into profession, his practice of law and his exercise of the said
upon the personal interests and personal convenience of
anarchy (Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil. 726). It is an profession, which affect the society at large, were (and are)
individual lawyers. 3
undoubted power of the State to restrain some individuals subject to the power of the body politic to require him to
from all freedom, and all individuals from some freedom. conform to such regulations as might be established by the
Apropos to the above, it must be stressed that all proper authorities for the common good, even to the extent
legislation directing the integration of the Bar have been of interfering with some of his liberties. If he did not wish to
But the most compelling argument sustaining the
uniformly and universally sustained as a valid exercise of submit himself to such reasonable interference and
constitutionality and validity of Bar integration in the
the police power over an important profession. The practice regulation, he should not have clothed the public with an
Philippines is the explicit unequivocal grant of precise
of law is not a vested right but a privilege, a privilege interest in his concerns.
power to the Supreme Court by Section 5 (5) of Article X of
moreover clothed with public interest because a lawyer
the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines, which reads:
owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his
On this score alone, the case for the respondent must
brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation,
already fall.
and takes part in one of the most important functions of the Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have
State — the administration of justice — as an officer of the the following powers:
court. 4 The practice of law being clothed with public The issues being of constitutional dimension, however, we
interest, the holder of this privilege must submit to a degree now concisely deal with them seriatim.
xxx xxx xxx
of control for the common good, to the extent of the interest

Cases
1. The first objection posed by the respondent is that the 3. The respondent further argues that the enforcement of a guaranty that the power will not be misused or prostituted.
Court is without power to compel him to become a member the penalty provisions would amount to a deprivation of ..."
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, hence, Section 1 of property without due process and hence infringes on one of
the Court Rule is unconstitutional for it impinges on his his constitutional rights. Whether the practice of law is a
The Court's jurisdiction was greatly reinforced by our 1973
constitutional right of freedom to associate (and not to property right, in the sense of its being one that entitles the
Constitution when it explicitly granted to the Court the
associate). Our answer is: To compel a lawyer to be a holder of a license to practice a profession, we do not here
power to "Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice ...
member of the Integrated Bar is not violative of his pause to consider at length, as it clear that under the police
and the admission to the practice of law and the integration
constitutional freedom to associate. 6 power of the State, and under the necessary powers
of the Bar ... (Article X, Sec. 5(5) the power to pass upon
granted to the Court to perpetuate its existence, the
the fitness of the respondent to remain a member of the
respondent's right to practise law before the courts of this
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group legal profession is indeed undoubtedly vested in the Court.
country should be and is a matter subject to regulation and
of which he is not already a member. He became a
inquiry. And, if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory
member of the Bar when he passed the Bar
measure is recognize, then a penalty designed to enforce We thus reach the conclusion that the provisions of Rule of
examinations. 7 All that integration actually does is to
its payment, which penalty may be avoided altogether by Court 139-A and of the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar of the
provide an official national organization for the well-defined
payment, is not void as unreasonable or arbitrary. 12 Philippines complained of are neither unconstitutional nor
but unorganized and incohesive group of which every
illegal.
lawyer is a ready a member. 8
But we must here emphasize that the practice of law is not
a property right but a mere privilege, 13 and as such must WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is the unanimous
Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate
bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact sense of the Court that the respondent Marcial A. Edillon
with anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the meetings
compliance with the lawyer's public responsibilities. should be as he is hereby disbarred, and his name is
of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its
hereby ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys of the
elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he
Court.
is subjected is the payment of annual dues. The Supreme 4. Relative to the issue of the power and/or jurisdiction of
Court, in order to further the State's legitimate interest in the Supreme Court to strike the name of a lawyer from its
elevating the quality of professional legal services, may Roll of Attorneys, it is sufficient to state that the matters of G.R. No. L-12426 February 16, 1959
require that the cost of improving the profession in this admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of
fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the lawyers and their regulation and supervision have been and
PHILIPPINE LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION, petitioner,
regulatory program — the lawyers.9 are indisputably recognized as inherent judicial functions
vs.
and responsibilities, and the authorities holding such are
CELEDONIO AGRAVA, in his capacity as Director of the
legion. 14
Assuming that the questioned provision does in a sense Philippines Patent Office, respondent.
compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar,
such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police In In Re Sparks (267 Ky. 93, 101 S.W. (2d) 194), in which
Arturo A. Alafriz for petitioner.
power of the State. 10 the report of the Board of Bar Commissioners in a
Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and
disbarment proceeding was confirmed and disbarment
Solicitor Pacifico P. de Castro for respondent.
ordered, the court, sustaining the Bar Integration Act of
2. The second issue posed by the respondent is that the
Kentucky, said: "The power to regulate the conduct and
provision of the Court Rule requiring payment of a
qualifications of its officers does not depend upon MONTEMAYOR, J.:
membership fee is void. We see nothing in the Constitution
constitutional or statutory grounds. It is a power which is
that prohibits the Court, under its constitutional power and
inherent in this court as a court — appropriate, indeed
duty to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the This is the petition filed by the Philippine Lawyer's
necessary, to the proper administration of justice ... the
practice of law and the integration of the Philippine Bar Association for prohibition and injunction against Celedonio
argument that this is an arbitrary power which the court is
(Article X, Section 5 of the 1973 Constitution) — which Agrava, in his capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent
arrogating to itself or accepting from the legislative likewise
power the respondent acknowledges — from requiring Office.
misconceives the nature of the duty. It has limitations no
members of a privileged class, such as lawyers are, to pay
less real because they are inherent. It is an unpleasant task
a reasonable fee toward defraying the expenses of
to sit in judgment upon a brother member of the Bar, On may 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular
regulation of the profession to which they belong. It is quite
particularly where, as here, the facts are disputed. It is a announcing that he had scheduled for June 27, 1957 an
apparent that the fee is indeed imposed as a regulatory
grave responsibility, to be assumed only with a examination for the purpose of determining who are
measure, designed to raise funds for carrying out the
determination to uphold the Ideals and traditions of an qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the
objectives and purposes of integration. 11
honorable profession and to protect the public from Philippines Patent Office, the said examination to cover
overreaching and fraud. The very burden of the duty is itself

Cases
patent law and jurisprudence and the rules of practice Although as already stated, the Director of Patents, in the legal instruments covering an extensive field of
before said office. According to the circular, members of the past, would appear to have been holding tests or business and trust relations and other
Philippine Bar, engineers and other persons with sufficient examinations the passing of which was imposed as a affairs. Although these transactions may have no
scientific and technical training are qualified to take the said required qualification to practice before the Patent Office, to direct connection with court proceedings, they
examination. It would appear that heretofore, respondent our knowledge, this is the first time that the right of the are always subject to become involved in
Director has been holding similar examinations. Director of Patents to do so, specially as regards members litigation. They require in many aspects a high
of the bar, has been questioned formally, or otherwise put degree of legal skill, a wide experience with men
in issue. And we have given it careful thought and and affairs, and great capacity for adaptation to
It is the contention of the petitioner Philippine Lawyer's
consideration. difficult and complex situations. These customary
Association that one who has passed the bar examinations
functions of an attorney or counselor at law bear
and is licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law in the
an intimate relation to the administration of justice
Philippines and who is in good standing, is duly qualified to The Supreme Court has the exclusive and constitutional
by the courts. No valid distinction, so far as
practice before the Philippines Patent Office, and that power with respect to admission to the practice of law in the
concerns the question set forth in the order, can
consequently, the cat of the respondent Director requiring Philippines1 and to any member of the Philippine Bar in
be drawn between that part which involves
members of the Philippine Bar in good standing to take and good standing may practice law anywhere and before any
advice and drafting of instruments in his office. It
pass an examination given by the Patent Office as a entity, whether judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative, in
is of importance to the welfare of the public that
condition precedent to their being allowed to practice before the Philippines. Naturally, the question arises as to whether
these manifold customary functions be performed
said office, such as representing applicants in the or not appearance before the patent Office and the
by persons possessed of adequate learning and
preparation and prosecution of applications for patent, is in preparation and the prosecution of patent applications, etc.,
skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all
excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law. constitutes or is included in the practice of law.
times under the heavy trust obligations to clients
which rests upon all attorneys. (Moran,
In his answer, respondent Director, through the Solicitor The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3 (1953
General, maintains that the prosecution of patent cases cases or litigation in court; it embraces the ed.), p. 665-666, citing In re Opinion of the
"does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but preparation of pleadings and other papers Justices (Mass.), 194 N.E. 313, quoted in Rhode
includes the application of scientific and technical incident to actions and social proceedings, the Is. Bar Assoc. vs. Automobile Service Assoc. (R.
knowledge and training, so much so that, as a matter of management of such actions and proceedings on I. ) 179 A. 139, 144). (Emphasis ours).
actual practice, the prosecution of patent cases may be behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in
handled not only by lawyers, but also engineers and other addition, conveying. In general, all advice to
In our opinion, the practice of law includes such
persons with sufficient scientific and technical training who clients, and all action taken for them in
appearance before the Patent Office, the representation of
pass the prescribed examinations as given by the Patent matters connected with the law corporation
applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the
Office; . . . that the Rules of Court do not prohibit the Patent services, assessment and condemnation
prosecution of their applications for patent, their oppositions
Office, or any other quasi-judicial body from requiring services contemplating an appearance before a
thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in patent cases.
further condition or qualification from those who would wish judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage,
In the first place, although the transaction of business in the
to handle cases before the Patent Office which, as stated in enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy
Patent Office involves the use and application of technical
the preceding paragraph, requires more of an application of and insolvency proceedings, and conducting
and scientific knowledge and training, still, all such
scientific and technical knowledge than the mere proceedings in attachment, and in matters of
business has to be rendered in accordance with the Patent
application of provisions of law; . . . that the action taken by estate and guardianship have been held to
Law, as well as other laws, including the Rules and
the respondent is in accordance with Republic Act No. 165, constitute law practice as do the preparation and
Regulations promulgated by the Patent Office in
otherwise known as the Patent Law of the Philippines, drafting of legal instruments, where the work
accordance with law. Not only this, but practice before the
which similar to the United States Patent Law, in done involves the determination by the trained
Patent Office involves the interpretation and application of
accordance with which the United States Patent Office has legal mind of the legal effect of facts and
other laws and legal principles, as well as the existence of
also prescribed a similar examination as that prescribed by conditions. (5 Am. Jur. p. 262, 263). (Emphasis
facts to be established in accordance with the law of
respondent. . . . supplied).
evidence and procedure. For instance: Section 8 of our
Patent Law provides that an invention shall not be
Respondent further contends that just as the Patent law of Practice of law under modern conditions consists patentable if it is contrary to public order or morals, or to
the United States of America authorizes the Commissioner in no small part of work performed outside of any public health or welfare. Section 9 says that an invention
of Patents to prescribe examinations to determine as to court and having no immediate relation to shall not be considered new or patentable if it was known or
who practice before the United States Patent Office, the proceedings in court. It embraces conveyancing, used by others in the Philippines before the invention
respondent, is similarly authorized to do so by our Patent the giving of legal advice on a large variety of thereof by the inventor named in any printed publication in
Law, Republic Act No. 165. subjects, and the preparation and execution of the Philippines or any foreign country more than one year

Cases
before the application for a patent therefor, or if it had been orders and decisions of the Patent Director involved But respondent Director claims that he is expressly
in public use or on sale in the Philippines for more than one exclusively or mostly technical and scientific knowledge and authorized by the law to require persons desiring to practice
year before the application for the patent therefor. Section training, then logically, the appeal should be taken not to a or to do business before him to submit an examination,
10 provides that the right to patent belongs to the true and court or judicial body, but rather to a board of scientists, even if they are already members of the bar. He contends
actual inventor, his heirs, legal representatives or assigns. engineers or technical men, which is not the case. that our Patent Law, Republic Act No. 165, is patterned
Section 25 and 26 refer to connection of any mistake in a after the United States Patent Law; and of the United
patent. Section 28 enumerates the grounds for cancellation States Patent Office in Patent Cases prescribes an
Another aspect of the question involves the consideration of
of a patent; that although any person may apply for such examination similar to that which he (respondent) has
the nature of the functions and acts of the Head of the
cancellation, under Section 29, the Solicitor General is prescribed and scheduled. He invites our attention to the
Patent Office.
authorized to petition for the cancellation of a patent. following provisions of said Rules of Practice:
Section 30 mentions the requirements of a petition for
cancellation. Section 31 and 32 provide for a notice of . . . . The Commissioner, in issuing or withholding
Registration of attorneys and agents. — A
hearing of the petition for cancellation of the patent by the patents, in reissues, interferences, and
register of an attorneys and a register agents are
Director of Patents in case the said cancellation is extensions, exercises quasi-judicial functions.
kept in the Patent Office on which are entered the
warranted. Under Section 34, at any time after the Patents are public records, and it is the duty of
names of all persons recognized as entitled to
expiration of three years from the day the patent was the Commissioner to give authenticated copies to
represent applicants before the Patent Office in
granted, any person patent on several grounds, such as, if any person, on payment of the legal fees. (40
the preparation and prosecution of applicants for
the patented invention is not being worked in the Am. Jur. 537). (Emphasis supplied).
patent. Registration in the Patent Office under the
Philippines on a commercial scale, or if the demand for the
provisions of these rules shall only entitle the
patented article in the Philippines on a commercial scale, or
. . . . The Commissioner has the only original person registered to practice before the Patent
if the demand for the patented article in the Philippines is
initiatory jurisdiction that exists up to the granting Office.
not being met to an adequate extent and reasonable terms,
and delivering of a patent, and it is his duty to
or if by reason of the patentee's refusal to grant a license
decide whether the patent is new and whether it
on reasonable terms or by reason of the condition attached (a) Attorney at law. — Any attorney at law in
is the proper subject of a patent; and his action in
by him to the license, purchase or use of the patented good standing admitted to practice before any
awarding or refusing a patent is a judicial
article or working of the patented process or machine of United States Court or the highest court of any
function. In passing on an application the
production, the establishment of a new trade or industry in State or Territory of the United States who fulfills
commissioner should decide not only questions
the Philippines is prevented; or if the patent or invention the requirements and complied with the
of law, but also questions of fact, as whether
relates to food or medicine or is necessary to public health provisions of these rules may be admitted to
there has been a prior public use or sale of the
or public safety. All these things involve the applications of practice before the Patent Office and have his
article invented. . . . (60 C.J.S. 460). (Emphasis
laws, legal principles, practice and procedure. They call for name entered on the register of attorneys.
supplied).
legal knowledge, training and experience for which a
member of the bar has been prepared.
xxx xxx xxx
The Director of Patents, exercising as he does judicial or
quasi-judicial functions, it is reasonable to hold that a
In support of the proposition that much of the business and
member of the bar, because of his legal knowledge and (c) Requirement for registration. — No person will
many of the act, orders and decisions of the Patent Director
training, should be allowed to practice before the Patent be admitted to practice and register unless he
involve questions of law or a reasonable and correct
Office, without further examination or other qualification. Of shall apply to the Commissioner of Patents in
evaluation of facts, the very Patent Law, Republic Act No.
course, the Director of Patents, if he deems it advisable or writing on a prescribed form supplied by the
165, Section 61, provides that:
necessary, may require that members of the bar practising Commissioner and furnish all requested
before him enlist the assistance of technical men and information and material; and shall establish to
. . . . The applicant for a patent or for the scientist in the preparation of papers and documents, such the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he is of
registration of a design, any party to a proceeding as, the drawing or technical description of an invention or good moral character and of good repute and
to cancel a patent or to obtain a compulsory machine sought to be patented, in the same way that a possessed of the legal and scientific and
license, and any party to any other proceeding in lawyer filing an application for the registration of a parcel of technical qualifications necessary to enable him
the Office may appeal to the Supreme Court from land on behalf of his clients, is required to submit a plan to render applicants for patent valuable service,
any final order or decision of the director. and technical description of said land, prepared by a and is otherwise competent to advise and assist
licensed surveyor. him in the presentation and prosecution of their
application before the Patent Office. In order that
In other words, the appeal is taken to this Tribunal. If the
the Commissioner may determine whether a
transaction of business in the Patent Office and the acts,

Cases
person seeking to have his name placed upon petition of the person so refused recognition or so 338 of the National Internal Revenue Code, Commonwealth
either of the registers has the qualifications suspended by the district court of the United Act No. 466 as amended, states that the Secretary of
specified, satisfactory proof of good moral States for the District of Columbia under such Finance, upon recommendation of the Collector of Internal
character and repute, and of sufficient basic conditions and upon such proceedings as the Revenue, shall promulgate all needful rules and regulations
training in scientific and technical matters must said court may by its rules determine. (Emphasis for the effective enforcement of the provisions of the code.
be submitted and an examination which is held supplied) We understand that rules and regulations have been
from time to time must be taken and passed. The promulgated not only for the Bureau of Customs and
taking of an examination may be waived in the Internal Revenue, but also for other bureaus of the
Respondent Director concludes that Section 78 of Republic
case of any person who has served for three Government, to govern the transaction of business in and
Act No. 165 being similar to the provisions of law just
years in the examining corps of the Patent Office. to enforce the law for said bureaus.
reproduced, then he is authorized to prescribe the rules and
regulations requiring that persons desiring to practice
Respondent states that the promulgation of the Rules of before him should submit to and pass an examination. We Were we to allow the Patent Office, in the absence of an
Practice of the United States Patent Office in Patent Cases reproduce said Section 78, Republic Act No. 165, for express and clear provision of law giving the necessary
is authorized by the United States Patent Law itself, which purposes of comparison: sanction, to require lawyers to submit to and pass on
reads as follows: examination prescribed by it before they are allowed to
practice before said Patent Office, then there would be no
SEC. 78. Rules and regulations. — The Director
reason why other bureaus specially the Bureau of Internal
The Commissioner of Patents, subject to the subject to the approval of the Secretary of
Revenue and Customs, where the business in the same
approval of the Secretary of Commerce may Justice, shall promulgate the necessary rules and
area are more or less complicated, such as the
prescribe rules and regulations governing regulations, not inconsistent with law, for the
presentation of books of accounts, balance sheets, etc.,
the recognition of agents, attorneys, or other conduct of all business in the Patent Office.
assessments exemptions, depreciation, these as regards
persons representing applicants or other
the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and the classification of
parties before his office, and may require of such
The above provisions of Section 78 certainly and by far, are goods, imposition of customs duties, seizures, confiscation,
persons, agents, or attorneys, before being
different from the provisions of the United States Patent etc., as regards the Bureau of Customs, may not also
recognized as representatives of applicants or
Law as regards authority to hold examinations to determine require that any lawyer practising before them or otherwise
other persons, that they shall show they are of
the qualifications of those allowed to practice before the transacting business with them on behalf of clients, shall
good moral character and in good repute,
Patent Office. While the U.S. Patent Law authorizes the first pass an examination to qualify.
are possessed of the necessary qualifications to
Commissioner of Patents to require attorneys to show that
enable them to render to applicants or other
they possess the necessary qualifications and competence
persons valuable service, and are likewise to In conclusion, we hold that under the present law, members
to render valuable service to and advise and assist their
competent to advise and assist applicants or of the Philippine Bar authorized by this Tribunal to practice
clients in patent cases, which showing may take the form of
other persons in the presentation or law, and in good standing, may practice their profession
a test or examination to be held by the Commissioner, our
prosecution of their applications or other before the Patent Office, for the reason that much of the
Patent Law, Section 78, is silent on this important point.
business before the Office. The Commissioner of business in said office involves the interpretation and
Our attention has not been called to any express provision
Patents may, after notice and opportunity for a determination of the scope and application of the Patent
of our Patent Law, giving such authority to determine the
hearing, suspend or exclude, either generally or Law and other laws applicable, as well as the presentation
qualifications of persons allowed to practice before the
in any particular case from further practice before of evidence to establish facts involved; that part of the
Patent Office.
his office any person, agent or attorney shown to functions of the Patent director are judicial or quasi-judicial,
be incompetent or disreputable, or guilty of gross so much so that appeals from his orders and decisions are,
misconduct, or who refuses to comply with the Section 551 of the Revised Administrative Code authorizes under the law, taken to the Supreme Court.
said rules and regulations, or who shall, with every chief of bureau to prescribe forms and make
intent to defraud in any matter, deceive, mislead, regulations or general orders not inconsistent with law, to
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for prohibition is
or threaten any applicant or prospective secure the harmonious and efficient administration of his
granted and the respondent Director is hereby prohibited
applicant, or other person having immediate or branch of the service and to carry into full effect the laws
from requiring members of the Philippine Bar to submit to
prospective applicant, or other person having relating to matters within the jurisdiction of his bureau.
an examination or tests and pass the same before being
immediate or prospective business before the Section 608 of Republic Act 1937, known as the Tariff and
permitted to appear and practice before the Patent Office.
office, by word, circular, letter, or by advertising. Customs Code of the Philippines, provides that the
No costs.
The reasons for any such suspension or Commissioner of Customs shall, subject to the approval of
exclusion shall be duly recorded. The action of the Department Head, makes all rules and regulations
the Commissioner may be reviewed upon the necessary to enforce the provisions of said code. Section

Cases
G.R. No. 155224 August 23, 2006 Still not satisfied, respondents filed in the same trial court 7 a counsel without paying for it. In the same vein, it avoids
motion unjust enrichment on the part of the lawyer himself.
VINSON B. PINEDA, Petitioner,
vs. for payment of lawyers’ fees for P50 million.8 Further, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional
ATTY. CLODUALDO C. DE JESUS, ATTY. CARLOS Responsibility advises lawyers to avoid controversies with
AMBROSIO and ATTY. EMMANUEL clients concerning their compensation and to resort to
On April 14, 2000, the trial court ordered petitioner to
MARIANO, Respondents. judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.
pay P5 million to Atty. de Jesus, P2 million to Atty.
Suits to collect fees should be avoided and should be filed
Ambrosio and P2 million to Atty. Mariano.
only when circumstances force lawyers to resort to it.11
DECISION
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reduced the amount as
In the case at bar, respondents’ motion for payment of their
CORONA, J.: follows: P1 million to Atty. de Jesus, P500,000 to Atty.
lawyers’ fees was not meant to collect what was justly due
Ambrosio and P500,000 to Atty. Mariano. The motion for
them; the fact was, they had already been adequately paid.
reconsideration was denied. Hence, this recourse.
The subject of this petition for review is the April 30, 2002
decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 68080
Demanding P50 million on top of the generous sums and
which modified the order2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) The issues raised in this petition are:
perks already given to them was an act of unconscionable
of Pasig City, Branch 151, in JDRC Case No. 2568
greed which is shocking to this Court.
entitled Ma. Aurora D. Pineda v. Vinson B. Pineda.
(1) whether the Pasig RTC, Branch 151 had jurisdiction
over the claim for additional legal fees and
As lawyers, respondents should be reminded that they are
The facts follow.
members of an honorable profession, the primary vision of
(2) whether respondents were entitled to additional legal which is justice. It is respondents’ despicable behavior
On April 6, 1993, Aurora Pineda filed an action for fees. which gives lawyering a bad name in the minds of some
declaration of nullity of marriage against petitioner Vinson people. The vernacular has a word for it: nagsasamantala.
Pineda in the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 151, docketed as The practice of law is a decent profession and not a money-
First, a lawyer may enforce his right to his fees by filing the
JDRC Case No. 2568. Petitioner was represented by making trade. Compensation should be but a mere
necessary petition as an incident of the main action in
respondents Attys. Clodualdo de Jesus, Carlos Ambrosio incident.12
which his services were rendered or in an independent suit
and Emmanuel Mariano.
against his client. The former is preferable to avoid
multiplicity of suits.9 Respondents’ claim for additional legal fees was not
During the pendency of the case, Aurora proposed a justified. They could not charge petitioner a fee based on
settlement to petitioner regarding her visitation rights over percentage, absent an express agreement to that effect.
The Pasig RTC, Branch 151, where the case for the
their minor child and the separation of their properties. The The payments to them in cash, checks, free products and
declaration of nullity of marriage was filed, had jurisdiction
proposal was accepted by petitioner and both parties services from petitioner’s business — all of which were not
over the motion for the payment of legal fees. Respondents
subsequently filed a motion for approval of their agreement. denied by respondents — more than sufficed for the work
sought to collect P50 million which was equivalent to 10%
This was approved by the trial court. On November 25, they did. The "full payment for settlement"13 should have
of the value of the properties awarded to petitioner in that
1998, the marriage between petitioner and Aurora Pineda discharged petitioner’s obligation to them.
case. Clearly, what respondents were demanding was
was declared null and void.
additional payment for legal services rendered in the same
case. The power of this Court to reduce or even delete the award
Throughout the proceedings, respondent counsels were of attorneys’ fees cannot be denied. Lawyers are officers of
well-compensated.3 They, including their relatives and the Court and they participate in the fundamental function
Second, the professional engagement between petitioner
friends, even availed of free products and treatments from of administering justice.14 When they took their oath, they
and respondents was governed by the principle of quantum
petitioner’s dermatology clinic. This notwithstanding, they submitted themselves to the authority of the Court and
meruit which means "as much as the lawyer
billed petitioner additional legal fees amounting to P16.5 subjected their professional fees to judicial control. 15
deserves."10 The recovery of attorney’s fees on this basis is
million4 which the latter, however, refused to pay. Instead,
permitted, as in this case, where there is no express
petitioner issued them several checks totaling P1.12
agreement for the payment of attorney’s fees. Basically, it is WHEREFORE, the petition is
million5 as "full payment for settlement."6
a legal mechanism which prevents an unscrupulous client hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The decision of the Court
from running away with the fruits of the legal services of of Appeals dated April 30, 2002 in CA–G.R. CV No. 68080

Cases
is hereby MODIFIED. The award of additional attorney’s However, on 5 December 1995, respondent withdrew its Despite respondent's demands for his legal fees, petitioner
fees in favor of respondents is hereby DELETED. appearance as counsel of petitioner, due to policy failed and refused to pay. Thus, respondent filed a
differences. On 18 December 1995, respondent sent the Complaint8 for a sum of money also before the RTC of
termination billing3 for the services they rendered and billed Makati, Branch 148, docketed as Civil Case No. 99-514.
SO ORDERED.
petitioner the total amount of P1,000,000.00 plus 2% Respondent prayed for the payment of the
interest for every month of delay in payment, based on the following: P1,000,000.00 as the latter's lawful fees for
G.R. No. 160334 September 11, 2006 provision for termination of services stated in their Fee services rendered in Civil Case No. 95-224, plus 2%
Agreement, thus: interest from date of final demand until paid; P250,000.00
as exemplary damages; P200,000.00 representing billable
GUENTER BACH, petitioner, time spent in prosecuting the case, plus
vs. (C) Interest for late payment
another P150,000.00 for any appeal taken; and P50,000.00
ONGKIKO KALAW MANHIT & ACORDA LAW as litigation expenses and the cost of suit.
OFFICES, respondent.
All fees mentioned herein are payable within
seven (7) days from receipt of our statement of
Within the period for filing an Answer, petitioner filed a
DECISION account. It is understood that all late payments
Motion9 to dismiss on the ground that respondent's claim
shall be subject to interest payment at the rate of
had already been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise
2 % per month of delay, a fraction of a month
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: extinguished. Petitioner contended that prior to
being considered as one month, counted from
respondent's withdrawal as counsel in Civil Case No. 95-
the date the fees shall fall due, without need of
224, petitioner had already paid respondent's services in
This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to reverse the prior demand.
the total amount of P200,000.00. On 9 August 1999, the
Decision1 dated 8 October 2003 of the Court of Appeals in Motion to Dismiss was denied 10 by the RTC for lack of
CA-G.R. CV No. 74445, entitled, "Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & merit. Petitioner failed to file his Answer; thus, he was
xxxx
Accorda Law Offices v. Guenter Bach." declared in default and respondent was allowed to present
its evidence ex parte.11
(F) Termination Clause
The facts as culled from the records of the case are as
follows: On 24 January 2002, the RTC rendered its judgment in
It is understood that you may terminate our favor of the respondent, the dispositive portion of which
services at any time. In such an event, we shall
On 7 November 1994, petitioner Guenter Bach engaged reads:
be entitled to collect fees for legal services
the services of respondent law firm Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit already performed and results obtained based
& Accorda Law Offices to represent him in a Petition for WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
on quantum meruit."4
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed before the Regional hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and
Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 143, docketed as against the defendant and the latter is hereby
Civil Case No. 95-224. The parties signed a "Fee On 7 March 1996, respondent filed with the RTC a ordered to pay the following:
Agreement," for the legal services to be rendered by Notice5 of Charging Lien over the properties of the spouses
respondent. The provision for payment of the legal services Bach.
reads: 1. The amount of P750,000.00 as plaintiff's lawful
6 fees for services rendered under Civil Case No.
On 5 February 1997, the RTC issued an Order directing 95-224, plus interest at the rate of 2% per month
(a) seven and one-half (7 ½ % ) of all cash the annotation of the charging lien in the amount from the date of demand until paid;
recoveries, including damages, interests, of P1,000,000.00 on all the titles of the spouses Bach's
attorney's fees and costs; as well as personal and real properties enumerated in the notice of
charging lien. 2. P700,000.00 representing billable time which
was spent in prosecuting this case;
(b) five percent (5 %) of the market value of all
properties awarded to [the petitioner] by the court On 11 February 1999, respondent received a copy of the
or obtained through the compromise agreement, Order7 dated 8 June 1998, granting petitioner's Motion to 3. P50,000.00 as and litigation expenses, and
valued at the time of recovery.2 Withdraw his petition in Civil Case No. 95-224.
4. Costs of suit.12

Cases
Not satisfied, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, Supreme Court's power of review the findings of facts of the worth of the attorney's services. Courts may ascertain also
which modified the RTC Decision, thus: Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the if the attorney's fees are found to be excessive, what is
Supreme Court. There are, however, recognized reasonable under the circumstances.18 In no case,
exceptions to this rule, namely: (1) when the findings are however, must a lawyer be allowed to recover more than
WHEREFORE, Based on the foregoing
grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; what is reasonable, pursuant to Section 24, Rule 138 of the
premises, the instant appeal is PARTLY
(2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd Rules of Court, which provides:
GRANTED and the appealed January 24, 2002
or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion;
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati
(4) when the judgment is based on misapprehension of
City-Branch 148 in Civil Case No. 99-514 is SEC. 24. Compensation of attorney's fees;
facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when
hereby MODIFIED. Accordingly, the award agreement as to fees.- An attorney shall be
in making the findings the Court of Appeals went beyond
of P700,000.00 representing billable time entitled to have and recover from his client no
the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the
allegedly spent in the prosecution of the case a more than a reasonable compensation for his
admissions of both the appellee and the appellant; (7) when
quo is hereby DELETED. All other aspects of the services, with a view to the importance of the
the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the
appealed DECISION are UPHELD.13 subject - matter of the controversy, the extent of
findings are conclusions without citation of specific
the services rendered, and the professional
evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set
standing of the attorney. No court shall be bound
Hence, this Petition filed by petitioner Guenter Bach raising forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and
by the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses
the following issues to wit: reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when
as to the proper compensation, but may
the findings of facts are premised on the supposed absence
disregard such testimony and base its conclusion
of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record;
WHETHER OR NOT UNDER THE CONCEPT on its own professional knowledge. A written
and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked
OF QUANTUM MERUIT, THE AMOUNT contract for services shall control the amount
certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which if
OF P750,000.00 AS FEES FOR SERVICES to be paid therefor unless found by the court
properly considered, would justify a different
RENDERED WITH INTEREST PEGGED AT 2% to be unconscionable or unreasonable.
conclusion.16 Exceptions (4) and (11) are present in the
A MONTH FROM DATE OF DEMAND UNTIL (Underscoring supplied.)
case at bar, and so this Court shall make its own
FULLY PAID IS REASONABLE determination of the facts relevant for the resolution of the
case. We have identified the circumstances to be considered in
WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS LEGAL BASIS determining the reasonableness of a claim for attorney's
TO AWARD P50,000.00 AS AND FOR fees as follows: (1) the amount and character of the service
Ordinarily, therefore, we would have remanded this case for
LITIGATION EXPENSES AND COSTS OF rendered; (2) labor, time, and trouble involved; (3) the
further reception of evidence as to the extent and value of
SUIT.14 nature and importance of the litigation or business in which
the services rendered by respondent to petitioner.
the services were rendered; (4) the responsibility imposed;
However, so as not to needlessly prolong the resolution of
(5) the amount of money or the value of the property
On the first issue, petitioner contends that the P750,000.00 a comparatively simple controversy, we deem it just and
affected by the controversy or involved in the employment;
awarded to the respondent by way of quantum meruit, with equitable to fix in the present recourse a reasonable
(6) the skill and experience called for in the performance of
interest of 2% a month from date of demand until fully paid, amount of attorney's fees in favor of respondent.
the services; (7) the professional character and social
is excessive, unreasonable and confiscatory. Thus, standing of the attorney; (8) the results secured; and (9)
petitioner prays for reduction of the same. There are two concepts of attorney's fees. In the ordinary whether the fee is absolute or contingent, it being
sense, attorney's fees represent the reasonable recognized that an attorney may properly charge a much
Both the Court of Appeals and the trial court approved the compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal larger fee when it is contingent than when it is not.19
attorney's fees in the total amounts of P750,000.00 plus 2 services rendered to the latter. On the other hand, in its
% interest for the services rendered by respondent in Civil extraordinary concept, attorney's fees may be awarded by
Rule 20.1, Canon 20 of the Code of Professional
Case No. 95-224. In this regard, the rule is that the issue of the court as indemnity for damages to be paid by the losing
Responsibility enumerates the following factors which
the reasonableness of attorney's fees based on quantum party to the prevailing party.17
should guide a lawyer in determining his fees:
meruit is a question of fact, and well-settled is the rule that
conclusions and findings of fact by the lower courts are The issue in this case concerns attorney's fees in the
entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed (a) the time spent and extent of services
ordinary concept. Generally, the amount of attorney's fees
except for strong and cogent reasons. The findings of the rendered or required;
due is that stipulated in the retainer agreement which is
Court of Appeals by itself, which are supported by conclusive as to the amount of the lawyer's compensation.
substantial evidence, are almost beyond the power of In the absence thereof, the amount of attorney's fees is (b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions
review by the Supreme Court.15 Thus, in the exercise of the fixed on the basis of quantum meruit, i.e., the reasonable involved;

Cases
(c) the importance of the subject matter; 3. Further, respondent annotated a notice 22 of lis 11. Respondent prepared a Petition29 for
pendens on the property of Spouses Bach in appointment of a receiver and to compel
Dasmarinas, Cavite covered by TCT No. T- petitioner's wife to render an accounting;
(d) the skill demanded;
339282, thereby preventing disposition of the
property by Luzviminda Bach;
12. Other services included the filling of several
(e) the probability of losing other employment as
oppositions30 to certain motions filed by
a result of the acceptance of the proffered case;
4. Additionally, respondent annotated a petitioner's wife;
notice23 of lis pendens on the property of
(f) the customary charges for similar services and Spouses Bach in Tanza, Cavite, covered by TCT
13. Respondent filed a motion31 to set the case
the schedule of fees of the IBP Chapter to which No. T-255263, thereby preventing disposition of
for preliminary investigation;
he belongs; the property by Luzviminda Bach;
14. Respondent filed an ex parte motion32 to

(g) the amount involved in the controversy and 5. Respondent also worked on the annotation of
declare petitioner's wife in default;
the benefits resulting to the client from the the notice24 of lis pendens on the property of
service; Spouses Bach in Makati, covered by TCT No. S-
62541, thereby preventing disposition of the 15. Respondent submitted a supplemental
property by Luzviminda Bach; comment33 on the motion for leave to withdraw
(h) the contingency or certainty of compensation;
funds from Certificate of Participation filed by
petitioner's wife;
6. Respondent worked on the annotation of a
(i) the character of the employment, whether notice of lis pendens on the property of Spouses
occasional or established; and Bach in Dasmariñas, Cavite, covered by TCT No. 16. Respondent filed a manifestation and
T-380848, thereby preventing disposition of the motion34 praying the court to direct petitioner's
(j) the professional standing of the lawyer. property by Luzviminda Bach; wife to designate her lead counsel in the case;
In determining a reasonable fee to be paid to 7. Respondent annotated a notice25 of lis 17. Respondent prepared a Reply35 to comments
respondent as compensation for their services pendens on the property of Spouses Bach on opposition of petitioner;
on quantum meruit, based on the factors situated in Tagaytay City, covered by TCT No. P-
abovequoted, it is proper to consider all the facts 705, thereby preventing disposition of the
18. Respondent was able to secure an
and circumstances obtaining in this case. property by Luzviminda Bach;
Order36 from the said court freezing the United
Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) account in the
It is undisputed that respondent firm had rendered services 8. Respondent filed the Petition 26 for Declaration name of petitioner's wife, Luzviminda Bach,
as counsel for the petitioners in Civil Case No. 95-244. The of Nullity of Marriage and Dissolution of the containing about P6,500,000.00, representing the
services rendered consist of the following: Conjugal Partnership of Gains of petitioner with balance of the proceeds from the sale of their
his wife; conjugal property in Pasig City;
1. Respondent was able to annotate a
notice20 of lis pendens on the property of 9. Respondent prepared an affidavit27 in favor of 19. Respondent represented petitioner in
Spouses Bach in Caloocan City covered by TCT petitioner attesting to the fact of petitioner's numerous hearings in Civil Case No. 95-224,
No. C-12112, thereby preventing easy disposition marriage and their properties acquired during his evidenced by the signatures of the lawyers of
of the property by Luzviminda Bach; marriage with Luzviminda Bach: respondent Law Firm in the minutes dated 25
April 1995, 27 April, 1995, 14 June 1995, 27 June
1995, 1 August 1995, 11 August 1995, 22
2. Respondent was likewise able to annotate a 10. Respondent prepared an ex parte motion28 to
September 1995,10 October 1995, 17 October
notice21 of lis pendens on the property of declare petitioner's wife to have waived her right
1995, 1 December 1995, 7 December 1995, 29
Spouses Bach in Pasig City covered by TCT No. to file answer for failure to file the same within the
March 1996 and 16 January 1997;37
48223, thereby preventing disposition of the period granted by law and to direct the public
property by Luzviminda Bach; prosecutor to determine whether or not a
collusion exist;

Cases
20. Conducted several preliminary and post governing ordinary obligations and contracts. It deleted the participates in the fundamental function of administering
litigation conferences in the proceedings for 6% interest imposed by the appellate court on the payment justice in society.45 It follows that a lawyer's compensation
preliminary injunction leading to the freezing of of attorney's fees. It ratiocinated by citing Mambulao for professional services rendered are subject to the
the bank account of the parties; and Lumber Co. v. Philippine National Bank,42 thus: supervision of the court, not just to guarantee that the fees
he charges and receives remain reasonable and
commensurate with the services rendered, but also to
21. Prepared and sent out numerous letters to Contracts for attorney's services in this
maintain the dignity and integrity of the legal profession to
third parties and entities to protect the interest of jurisdiction stands upon an entirely different
which he belongs. Upon taking his attorney's oath as an
petitioner and notices to petitioner updating him footing from contracts for the payment of
officer of the court, a lawyer submits himself to the authority
of the status of the case and the courses of compensation for any other services. x x x
of the courts to regulate his right to charge professional
action taken by respondent Law Firm.38 [A]n attorney is not entitled in the absence of
fees.46
express contract to recover more than a
reasonable compensation for his services; and
In sum, the services rendered by the respondent as
even when an express contract is made, the Though we reduced the award of attorney's fees and
enumerated above and as admitted 39 by Atty. Mario
court can ignore it and limit the recovery to disallowed the imposition of interest thereon, the fact that
Ongkiko during the ex parte hearing, consist of annotating
reasonable compensation if the amount of the an attorney plays a vital role in the administration of justice
notice of lis pendens on the conjugal properties of petitioner
stipulated fee is found by the court to be underscores the need to secure to him his honorarium
and his wife; filing the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
unreasonable. This is a very different rule from lawfully earned as a means to preserve the decorum and
Marriage; preparing and filing various pleadings and
that announced in section 1091 of the Civil Code respectability of the legal profession. A lawyer is as much
documents relevant to the case; obtaining a freeze order of
with reference to the obligation of contracts in entitled to judicial protection against injustice, imposition of
petitioner's funds in the UCPB; attending hearings in Civil
general, where it is said that such obligation has fraud on the part of his client as the client against abuse on
Case No. 05-224, and sending notices to petitioner
the force of law between the contracting parties. the part of his counsel. The duty of the court is not alone to
updating the latter of the status of the case. Nothing in Civil
Had the plaintiff herein made an express contract see that a lawyer acts in a proper and lawful manner; it is
Case No. 95-224 so far appears complicated and no extra
to pay his attorney an uncontingent fee also its duty to see that a lawyer is paid his just fees. With
ordinary skill was needed for lawyers of respondent Law
of P2,115.25 for the services to be rendered in his capital consisting only of his brains and with his skill
Firm to accomplish what they had done in the case before
reducing the note here in suit to judgment, it acquired at tremendous cost not only in money but in
they withdrew their appearance. We do not find herein a
would not have been enforced against him had expenditure of time and energy, he is entitled to the
situation so intricate that demands more than a careful
he seen fit to oppose it, as such a fee is protection of any judicial tribunal against any attempt on the
scrutiny of the legal matters involved. These are simply the
obviously far greater than is necessary to part of his client to escape payment of his just
normal duties of a lawyer that he is bound by law to render
remunerate the attorney for the work involved compensation. It would be ironic if after putting forth the
to his clients with utmost fidelity for which his client must
and is therefore unreasonable. In order to enable best in him to secure justice for his client, he himself would
not be burdened to pay an extra price. It bears stressing
the court to ignore an express contract for not get his due.47
that at the time respondent firm withdrew their appearance
attorney's fees, it is necessary to show, as in
due to policy differences with petitioner, the case was still in
other contracts, that it is contrary to morality
its initial stage. Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err in awarding
or public policy (Art.1255, Civil Code). It is
expenses of litigation. Article 2208, paragraphs 2, 5 and 11,
enough that it is unreasonable or
of the Civil Code, authorize the recovery of such fees "(2)
Guided by the above yardstick and so much of the pertinent unconscionable. (Emphases supplied.)
When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the
data as are extant in the records of this case and in the
plaintiff to litigate x x x or to incur expenses to protect his
exercise of our sound discretion, we hold that the amount
We have held that lawyering is not a moneymaking venture interest; x x x (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and
of P500,000.00 is a reasonable and fair compensation for
and lawyers are not merchants.43 Law advocacy, it has evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly
the legal services rendered by respondent to the petitioner.
been stressed, is not capital that yields profits. The returns valid, just and demandable claim; x x x and (11) In any
it births are simple rewards for a job done or service other case where the court deems it just and equitable that
The imposition of legal interest on the amount payable to rendered. It is a calling that, unlike mercantile pursuits attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be
private respondent as attorney's fees is unwarranted. Even which enjoy a greater deal of freedom from governmental recovered." Considering the fact that respondent was
as we agree that parties can freely stipulate on the terms of interference, is impressed with a public interest, for which it drawn into this litigation by petitioner to protect and defend
payment, still the imposition of interest in the payment of is subject to State regulation.44 their interest and taking into account the services already
attorney's fees is not justified. In the case of Cortes v. Court rendered by respondent to petitioner, the sum
of Appeals,40 we ruled that Article 2209 41 of the Civil Code of P30,000.00 as expenses of litigation and cost of suit
A lawyer is not merely the defender of his client's cause
does not even justify the imposition of legal interest on the would be reasonable under the premises.
and a trustee of his client's cause of action and assets; he
payment of attorney's fees as it is a provision of law
is also, and first and foremost, an officer of the court and

Cases
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED
WITH MODIFICATIONS to the effect that the attorney's
fees awarded to respondent is REDUCED to P500,000.00,
the legal interest of 2% on the amount due to respondent
is DELETED, and the award of litigation expenses
is REDUCED to P30,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
(except In Re: Cunanan)

Legal Ethics I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Ethics I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Ethics I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Ethics – THE PRACTICE OF LAW

Averell B. Abrasaldo – I-Estrellado

Averell B. Abrasaldo – I-Estrellado

Averell B. Abrasaldo – I-Estrellado

Averell B. Abrasaldo – I-Estrellado

Averell B. Abrasaldo – I-Estrellado

Averell B. Abrasaldo – I-Estrellado

Averell B. Abrasaldo – I-Estrellado

Averell B. Abrasaldo – I-Estrellado

Averell B. Abrasaldo – I-Estrellado

Averell B. Abrasaldo – I-Estrellado

Averell B. Abrasaldo – I-Estrellado

14. Respondent filed an ex parte motion32 to

Averell B. Abrasaldo – I-Estrellado

Averell B. Abrasaldo – I-Estrellado

(except In Re: Cunanan)

Averell B. Abrasaldo – I-Estrellado

You might also like