pale case digest t lawyer_s duties to legal profession

8/12/2019 Pale Case Digest t Lawyer_s Duties to Legal Profession

1/9

Ducat vs Villalon and ducusinVillalon is the family lawyer of ducats. the original title of ducat sr was handed to villalon.

The handing over has two contradictory versions of reason, first because it is given as part of process to convey theland because of the good services of villalon as villalon claimed, on the other hand, allegedly because the latterreasoned that he shall check the measurements of the land subject of title as alleged by ducat jr.

Ducat sr allegedly because of his want to give the land to villalon executed a deed of sale of the land in favor ofvillalon. But because it was discovered that the land is registered in the name of ducat jr,a deed of sale was forged to

make it appear that there was one, ducusin was the notary public there

uling! villalon is guilty of gross misconduct for being involved in fraudulent notari"ation and forgery of signature

A.M. No. 44 November 29, 1983

EUFROSINA YAP TAN, complainant,vs.NICOLAS EL. SABANAL, respondent.

B!r M!""er No. #9 November 29, 1983

BEN$AMIN CABI%ON, complainant,vs.NICOLAS EL. SABANAL, respondent.

SBC No. &24 November 29, 1983

CORNELIO A%NIS !'( IOMEES . A%NIS, complainants,vs.NICOLAS EL. SABANAL, respondent.

FACTS:

At issue in the above-entitled consolidated cases is the petition of respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal, a

successful Bar eaminee in !"#$, to be admitted to the %hilippine Bar and to be allo&ed to si'n the (oll of

Attorne)s.

Complainants have char'ed respondent &ith: ille'al practice of la& for acceptin' clients and for his

appearances as a la&)er even if he has not )et been admitted to the Bar* dishonest), for fillin' up dail)

tune records as an +nvesti'ator of the Bureau of ands durin' those da)s that he appeared as counsel*

falsification of public documents* 'ross dishonest) in public service* and violations of the Anti-raft and

Corrupt %ractices Act.Sabandal &aived his ri'ht to attend the investi'ations for reasons of financial

constraints and his belief that the evidence he had alread) submitted to'ether &ith his pleadin's are

sufficient to prove his case.

+n support of her char'e of deception b) appearin' as counsel and acceptin' clients, Eufrosina ap Tan, in

Bar /atter No. 00, testified on and submitted the follo&in' documentar) evidence:

1!2 photostatic copies of transcripts of steno'raphic notes of

1a2 the hearin' in CA( Case No. 30# entitled Eufrosina . Tan vs. Spouses 4aniel +man and (osa

Carreon, et als., before the Court of A'rarian (elations&herein respondent manifested 5Att). Nicolas

Sabandal, appearin' for the defendants, our 6onor5 !'( !))e*e( "+!" A"". Se'e' A'*e)e-, o/'-e) o0

reor(, !- -

1b2 the hearin's in Civil Case No. "$ entitled Ben7amin Cabi'on, et al. vs. FlorentinaBuntoran, et al., for

Forcible Enter and 4ama'es, before the /unicipal Court of (oas, 8amboan'a del Norte, on September

93, !"$, &herein one of the appearances recorded &as that of 5Att). Nicolas Sabandal: For the

!


2/9

defendants5, and &here respondent manifested 5Yo/r 5o'or 6)e!-e, !66e!r'* 0or "+e (e0e'(!'"- '

o))!bor!"o' "+ A""., A'*e)e- 7, and on 4ecember !;, !"$ &hen respondent made a manifestation

for the defendants *

192 ero cop) of a letter dated ppositors had also presented evidence of proceedin's &herein

&itnesses testified as to respondents bein' their la&)er and their compensatin' him for his services. +t ma)

be that in the Court of a municipalit), even non-la&)ers ma) appear 1Sec. 30, (ule !3$, (ules of Court2. +f

respondent had so manifested, no one could have challen'ed him. Dhat he did, ho&ever, &as to holdhimself out as a la&)er, and even to &rite the Station Commander of (oas, complainin' of harassment to

5our clients5, &hen he could not but have @no&n that he could not )et en'a'e in the practice of la&. 6is

9


3/9

ar'ument that the term 5client5 is a 5dependent or person under the protection of another and not a person

&ho en'a'es in the profession5 is puerile.

(espondents additional defense that the code of professional ethics does not appl) to him as he is not )et

a member of the Bar proves him unfit to be admitted to the profession that eacts the hi'hest ethical

conduct of all its members, and 'ood moral character even for applicants for admission to the Bar. 6e

could at least have sho&n his fitness for admission b) sho&in' adherence to and observance of the

standards of conduct reuired b) all &ho aspire to profess the la&.

ACC>(4+N, the petition of Nicolas El. Sabandal to be allo&ed to ta@e the oath as member of the

%hilippine Bar and to si'n the (oll of Attorne)s in accordance &ith (ule !3$ of the (ules of Court is hereb)

denied.

I' RE PARA:O

FACTS;The present case had its ori'in in a stor) or ne&s item prepared and &ritten b) the defendant,An'el


4/9

FACTS: (espondent 4ionisio (amos &as admitted to the %hilippine Bar in !";0. 6e &as le'all) married toand livin' &ith Editha Encarnado the marria'e &ith her havin' been celebrated on September 0, !";3.Both complainant and respondent &ere officemates in the >ffice of Councilor ito %u)at, Cit) 6all, /anilasince !";#. Dith the convenience thus offered, respondent, representin' himself to be 5sin'le,5 be'ancourtin' complainant, proposed civil marria'e to her to be later follo&ed &ith a church celebration after&hich the) &ill live to'ether as husband and &ife. From


5/9

2ssue! )hether or not the two administrative complaints have merit4

5eld! (, the complaint in 6dministrative 0ase (o. -77 against respondent $aime %. &insangan is dismissed for lackof merit. espondent ufino B. isma in 6dministrative 0ase (o. 89: is exculpated from the charge of havinginstigated the filing of an unfounded suit. 5e is, however, admonished to exercise greater care in ascertaining howmuch under our law he could recover by way of attorney's fees. The contract entered into between him and his clientas to his being entitled to fifteen per cent of the award granted her in a workmen's compensation suit is declared to beof no force and effect, the penalty imposed being that of admonition merely only because he had made no effort to

collect on the same and had even advanced expenses for a poor client.

8. L!6/" v-. Remo"*/e


6/9

5eld!espondent


7/9

corporate, &hich intervenes bet&een client and la&)er. A la&)ers responsibilities and ualifications areindividual. 6e should avoid all relations &hich direct the performance of his duties b) or in the interest ofsuch intermediar). A la&)ers relation to his client should be personal, and the responsibilit) should bedirect to the client. . . .I

re"or o0 Re)*o/- A00!r- v- E-"!'-)!o B!o"74 Phil 579 Legal Ethics Malpractice

F!"-;+n


8/9

EAErmita, /anila nr. GS Embass)C+N+C, +NC. Tel. 9!-#9399!-#9!99-90!* 9!-#;#

+t is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above reproduced are champertous, unethical,demeanin' of the la& profession, and destructive of the confidence of the communit) in the inte'rit) of themembers of the bar and that, as a member of the le'al profession, he is ashamed and offended b) the saidadvertisements, hence the reliefs sou'ht in his petition as herein before uoted.

+n its ans&er to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisements at its instance,but claims that it is not en'a'ed in the practice of la& but in the renderin' of 5le'al support services5throu'h parale'als &ith the use of modern computers and electronic machines. (espondent further ar'uesthat assumin' that the services advertised are le'al services, the act of advertisin' these services shouldbe allo&ed supposedl) in the li'ht of the case of Steen vs. State Bar of Ari=ona,reportedl) decided b) the Gnited States Supreme Court on


9/9

&hich must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. ood and efficient service to a client as&ell as to the communit) has a &a) of publici=in' itself and catchin' public attention. That publicit) is anormal b)-product of effective service &hich is ri'ht and proper. A 'ood and reputable la&)er needs noartificial stimulus to 'enerate it and to ma'nif) his success. 6e easil) sees the difference bet&een a normalb)-product of able service and the un&holesome result of propa'anda.

A./. No. -3;3

pale case digest t lawyer_s duties to legal profession

Documents