8/13/2019 Legal Ethics- Canon 19

1/2

Rural Bank of Calape Inc. vs Atty. FloridoA.C. No. 5736 June 18, 2010

FACTS:

RBCI filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent for "acts constituting gravecoercion and threats when he, as counsel for the minority stockholders of RBCI, led his clients in

physically taking over the management and operation of the bank through force, violence and

intimidation. They also forcibly evicted Cirilo A. Garay, the bank manager, destroyed the banksvault, and installed their own staff to run the bank. RBCI alleged that respondent violated his

oath and Canon 19 and Rules 1.02 and 15.07 Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent

explained that he acted in accordance with the authority granted upon him by his clients, theNazareno-Relampagos group, the lawfully and validly elected Board of Directors of RBCI.

Respondent said he was merely effecting a lawful and valid change of management.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 19 of Code of Professional

Responisibility?

HELD:The respondent is found guilty of violating Canon 19 and Rules 1.02 and 15.07 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent knew or ought to have known that his clientscould not just forcibly take over the management and premises of RBCI without a valid courtorder. Respondent had no legal basis to implement the takeover of RBCI and that it was a "naked

power grab without any semblance of legality whatsoever.

Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within

the bounds of the law. For this reason, Rule 15.07 of the Code requires a lawyer to impress upon

his client compliance with the law and principles of fairness. A lawyer must employ only fairand honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client.8It is his duty to counsel his clients

to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from doing an intentional

wrong to their adversaries.

Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice and peace. Upon taking their

professional oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law. Verily, when they appear

before a tribunal, they act not merely as representatives of a party but, first and foremost, asofficers of the court. Thus, their duty to protect their clients interests is secondary to their

obligation to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. While they are obliged to

present every available legal remedy or defense, their fidelity to their clients must always be

made within the parameters of law and ethics, never at the expense of truth, the law, and the fairadministration of justice.

A lawyers duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice.To that end, his

clients success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulouslyobservant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to

by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his clients cause, is condemnable and

unethical.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/ac_5736_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/ac_5736_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/ac_5736_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/ac_5736_2010.html#fnt8

8/13/2019 Legal Ethics- Canon 19

2/2

Pena vs Atty. AparicioA.C. No. 7298 June 25, 2007

FACTS:

The respondent, Atty. Lolito Aparicio, appeared as a legal counsel for Hufana in anillegal dismissal case before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) againstcomplainant Fernando Pena. The respondent, in behalf of his client, submitted a claim for

separation pay arising from her alleged illegal dismissal but Pena rejected the claim as baseless.

Thereafter, respondent sent a letter to complainant reiterating his clients claim for separationpays. Through his letter, he threatened complainant that should Pena failed to pay the amounts

they propose as settlement he would file and claim bigger amounts including moral damages, as

well as multiple charges such as tax evasion, falsification of documents and cancellation of

business license to operate due to violations of laws.

ISSUE: Whether or not Aparicio violated Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, enjoining every lawyer to represent his client with great zeal within the bounds ofthe law?

HELD:

Under Canon 19, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baselesscriminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client designed to secure a leverage to

compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the lawyer's client.

In the case at bar, respondent did exactly what Canon 19 and its Rule proscribe. Through

his letter, he threatened complainant that should the latter fail to pay the amounts they propose as

settlement, he would file and claim bigger amounts including moral damages, as well as multiple

charges such as tax evasion, falsification of documents, and cancellation of business license tooperate due to violations of laws. The threats are not only unethical for violating Canon 19, but

they also amount to blackmail.

It is quite obvious that respondent's threat to file the cases against complainant was

designed to secure some leverage to compel the latter to give in to his client's demands. It was

not respondent's intention to point out complainant's violations of the law as he so gallantlyclaims. Far from it, the letter even contains an implied promise to "keep silent" about the said

violations if payment of the claim is made on the date indicated.

Indeed, the writing of demand letters is a standard practice and tradition in thisjurisdiction. It is usually done by a lawyer pursuant to the principal-agent relationship that he has

with his client, the principal. However, the letter in this case contains more than just a simple

demand to pay. It even contains a threat to file retaliatory charges against complainant which

have nothing to do with his client's claim for separation pay. The letter was obviously designedto secure leverage to compel complainant to yield to their claims. Indeed, letters of this nature

are definitely proscribed by the Code of Professional Responsibility.