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
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.
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
- Fall '14
- Law, Lawyer, Atty., Atty. X