16 PEOPLE v ROSQUETA
Facts:
§ There
was a criminal case against Antonio Rosqueta, Jr., Eugenio Rosqueta and Citong
Bringas. On appeal, the SC issued a
resolution ordering Atty. Gregorio Estacio (counsel de parte of the accused) to
explain why disciplinary actions should not be taken against him for his
failure to file the brief for appellants during the required period.
§ Estacio
failed to explain, so he was suspended from the practice of law.
§ He
then filed a motion for reconsideration saying that he did file the briefs but
he sent it to Rosqueta Sr., whose house was burned down along with the
briefs. He also said that the reason why
he did not file the briefs was because the accused declared that they intended
t withdraw their appeal for lack of money.
§ The
SC did subsequently receive affidavits from the accused withdrawing their
appeal.
Issue:
§ W/n
Estacio’s acts should be punished.
Held:
§ SC
says yes. His acts were not consistent
with the idea that the law is not a business but a profession. Lawyers do their job not for the sole
consideration of money. Estacio should
have continued with his duties despite knowing that the accused did not have
money anymore.
§ SC
commended what some lawyers would have done in that situation which was to be
declared as counsel de officio so that the client remains properly represented
by a lawyer who is already familiar with the case.
§ SC
said that Estacio’s suspension for 5 mos. is already sufficient punishment for
his acts. Thus, the suspension is lifted
and Estacio is not anymore required to file the briefs but he is censured for negligence
and inattention to duty.
17 CANOY v ORTIZ
Facts:
A Complaint was filed Canoy accusing Atty. Ortiz of
misconduct and malpractice. It was alleged that Canoy filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal against Coca Cola Philippines. Atty. Ortiz appeared as
counsel for Canoy in this proceeding. Canoy submitted all the documents and
records to Atty. Ortiz for the preparation of the position paper. Thereafter,
he made several unfruitful visits to the office of Atty. Ortiz to follow-up the
progress of the case. He was shocked to learn that his complaint was actually
dismissed way back in 1998, for failure to prosecute, the parties not having
submitted their position papers. Canoy alleged that Ortiz had never
communicated to him about the status of the case.
Atty. Ortiz informs the Court that he has mostly catered to
indigent and low-income clients, at considerable financial sacrifice to
himself. Atty. Ortiz admits that the period within which to file the position
paper had already lapsed. He attributes this failure to timely file the
position paper to the fact that after his election as Councilor of Bacolod
City, “he was frankly preoccupied with both his functions as a local government
official and as a practicing lawyer.”
Issue: W/N Atty. is liable to be sanctioned.
Held:
Atty. Ortiz is to be sanctioned. Suspension
from the practice of law for one (1) month.
Several of the canons and rules in the Code of Professional
Responsibility guard against the sort of conduct.
CANON 18–A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND
DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.03–A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule
18.04–A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.
His failure to do so constitutes a violation of Rule 18.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and
must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He owes
entire devotion to the interest of the client. The relationship of
lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the
client to be adequately and fully informed of the developments of the case and
should not be left in the dark.
Neither is the Court mollified
by the circumstance of Atty. Ortiz’s election as a City Councilor of Bacolod
City, as his adoption of these additional duties does not exonerate him of his
negligent behavior.
18 PEOPLE v STA TERESA
Facts:
Angeles Sta.
Teresa was found by the trial court to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
raping his 12-year old daughter, and was given the penalty of death. The case is now on automatic review.
When accused was
arraigned, he pleaded not guilty. After
9 days, his counsel de oficio made a manifestation that the accused wanted to
change his plea to “guilty.” The
prosecution no longer presented testimonial evidence and merely presented
exhibits to which counsel de oficio did not comment nor object. During the
promulgation of RTC’s decision, counsel failed to appear and the trial judge
had to appoint
another counsel
de oficio for the purpose of promulgation.
Issue: W/N
counsel de officio discharged his duties properly
Held: NO.
§ The
abbreviated and aborted presentation of the prosecution evidence and the
improvident plea of guilty was not in accordance with requirements of due
process
§ Considering
the gravity of the offense charged and the finality of the penalty, the counsel
de oficio’s performance was utterly wanting.
As a lawyer sworn to uphold justice and the law, he had the duty to
exert utmost efforts to defend his client and protect his rights, no matter how
guilty or evil he appears to be. This duty becomes more compelling is his
client is accused of a grave crime and is in danger of forfeiting his life
§ The
right to counsel means more that just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of standard
questions and objections. Counsel must provide effective legal assistance and
commit himself to the cause for the defense.
There must be active involvement by the lawyer and he must be
well-versed on the case, the procedures, law, and jurisprudence.
19 KHAN v SIMBILLO
FACTS:
§ An
advertisement in Philippine Daily Inquirer came out which reads: “ANNULMENT OF
MARRIAGE SPECIALIST 532-4333/521-2667.”
§ SC
ordered its staff to call the number and ask some information.
§ Espeleta
called the number and the wife of Atty. Rizalino Simbillo answered who said
that his husband was an expert in handling annulment cases and guarantees a
court decree within 4-6 month. The
services of Atty. Simbillo is for P48,000. half of which is payable at the
filing of the case and the balance after the decision has been rendered.
§ Similar
advertisement also appeared in The Philippine Star and Manila Bulletin.
§ Khan,
Assist. Court Administrator, filed a case against Simbillo for violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 2.03 and 3.01.
§ Simbillo
admitted that he caused the advertisement but he argued that solicitation and
advertisement is not prohibited per se and that it is about time to change our
views about the prohibition on advertising and solicitation. He also said that the interest of the public
is not served by the prohibition and suggested that the ban be lifted.
§ IBP
recommended that Simbillo be suspended for 1 year and that repetition of
similar act will be dealt with more severely.
§ While
the case was being investigated upon by the court, Simbillo again advertised his
legal services, for 2 times, in the Buy & Sell Free Ads Magazine.
ISSUE:
§ W/N
Simbillo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
§ YES!
§ Rule
2.03 provides a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business while Rule 3.01 states that a lawyer shall
not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his
qualifications or legal services.
§ It has been repeatedly stressed that the
practice of law is not a business. It is
a profession in which the duty to public service, not money, is the primary
consideration. The gaining of livelihood
should be a secondary consideration.
§ Aside
from advertising himself as an “Annulment of Marriage Specialist,” his
assurance of his clients that an annulment may be obtained in 4-6 months from
the filing of the case encourages people, who might other have 2nd
thought, to dissolve their marriage.
§ Solicitation
of legal business is not proscribed.
However, solicitation must be compatible with the dignity of the legal
profession. The use of simple signs
stating the name/s of the lawyers, the office and residence address and the
fields of expertise, as well as advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the
same brief data, are permissible.
§ The
use of calling cards is now acceptable.
20 In RE Tagorda
Facts:
§
Luis Tagorda is a member of the
provincial board of Isabela
§
Previous to the last election, he
used placards which in a way was advertising his services as a lawyer and
notary public
§
He also wrote a letter to a
lieutenant of a barrio in Echague,Isabela. In essence he was informing the
lieutenant that he will be in Echague during the weekends and the lieutenant
should convey this information to the other people in his town.
Issue:
§
W/N the acts of Tagorda is
advertising
Held:
§
Yes, Tagorda is in a way advertising
his services and this is contrary to the Canons of Professional Ethics (wala pa
yung code of professional responsibility, 1929 case to)
§
The most worthy and effective
advertising for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional
capacity.
§
Solicitation of business by
circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not
warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional.
§
It is unprofessional for a lawyer to
volunteer advice to bring lawsuit.
§
Solicitation of cases result in the
lowering of the confidence of the community and integrity of the members of the
bar. It results in needless litigations and in incenting to strife.
§
Tagorda suspended for a month.
No comments:
Post a Comment