Buenaventura rule 1003 a lawyer shallobserve the

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ed by any artifice. Rule 15.07 – A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness Rule 19.01 – A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and hsall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. Sec 20, Rule 138, Rules of Court: It is the duty of an attorney: (c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defences only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law (d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law b. The case has prescribed but Atty. X files it anyway thinking it is defendant’s duty to raise the issue. Anyway, the judge might not rule against him. BUENAVENTURA Rule 10.03 ­ A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. Rule 12.04 ­ A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgement or misuse Court processes. In this case, Atty. X filed a case knowing that prescription has already lapsed. He violated Rule 10.03 for non­observance of the rules of procedure and Rule 12.04 in so far as he misused Court processes. In a 2004 case (Cheng vs. Agravante), the respondent’s filing of the Memorandum on 6 Appeal four days after the deadline proves that his efforts fell short of the diligence required of a lawyer. Respondent’s failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period constitutes negligence and malpractice proscribed byt the CPR, which provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. c. The wife, through Atty. X, has filed multiple cases against her husband, along and jointly with his mistress, some of which had basis, but the others were clearly motivated solely by ill will and rancor. DORIA If in this case the client, through Atty. X, filed multiple cases in different courts, such cases being grounded on the same facts, then there exists forum shopping. According to the Supreme Court in its ruling in Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank1 , “Forum shopping is the act of litigants who repetitively avail themselves of multiple judicial remedies in different fora... all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances; and raising substantially similar issues… or for the purpose of increasing their chances of obtaining a favorable decision, if not in one court, then in another.” Forum shopping is frowned upon by the Rules of Court as it “constitutes abuse of court processes which tends to degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.” In line with the concept of forum shopping pictured in this case, Atty. X would have also violated Rules 12.02, 19.01, and 19.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The first expressly prohibits the filing of multiple actions arising from the same cause. The second prohibits a lawyer from presenting unfounded criminal charges. And the last orders a counsel to rectify the wrong done upon knowing that his client has perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal. Assuming the non­attendance of forum shopping in this case, Atty. X’s cognizance of the fact that some of the cases he filed and presented had no legal basis and were motivated solely by ill will and rancor, will still make him liable for misconduct and outright violation of the Code. The consequence of which will either be a suspension or disbarment as per the provisions of Section 5.0 of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline’s Guidlines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. d. Accused was convicted and to prevent his incarceration, Atty. X files for probation although he is unsure if accused is not a flight risk. FRANCISCO ­ No person maybe deprived of life or liberty, but due process of law. Probation should be filed in pursuance of the proceeding statement even Atty. X is unsure if accused is a flight risk or not. Lawyer’s personal belief has no real bearing in providing justice to the accused. In Perea vs. Almadro “An attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. it is the duty of a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence and he should exert his best efforts to protect within the bounds of law the 1 Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 193415 (April 18, 2012) 7 interest of his client. A lawyer should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, otherwise his negligence in fulfilling his duty will render him liable for disciplinary action. In Cheng vs. Agravante “A lawyer owes entire devotion in protectting the interes...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online