THE LAWYER AS CLIENT-PROTECTOR:HOW FAR DOES ONE GO TO PROTECT AND ADVANCE A CLIENT’S INTERESTS?

SUGGESTED OUTLINE Please look through the cases and see what’s applicable

- Resci--

WAYS ON HOW A LAWYER MAY ADVANCE THE CLIENT’S INTERESTS

1. Lawyer’s fund for client protection (done in the US)2. Conduct of investigation and obtention of documents and tangible things, otherwise discoverable to advance

the case of the client –enable the lawyer to render competent legal services 3. Preparation of documents in anticipation of litigation4. Partnering and strategic trading alliances between in house and outside counsel; or partnering with other

lawfirms or hiring other lawyers 5. Going up the ladder or internal whistle blowing—lawyer of the corporation knew that one corporation officer

was acting beyond his duties 6. Lawyer can RESIGN or WITHDRAW representation if he feels he is no longer competent to stand as legal

counsel 7. Power to enter into Negotiation, settlement or compromise 8. A lawyer may seek the appointment of a guardian or take other protective action with respect to a client only

when the lawyer reasonably believes that the client cannot adequately act in the client's own interest.9. Protection of Client's Interest. Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent

reasonably practicable to protect a client's interest, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. The lawyer may retain papers and other property relating to or belonging to the client to the extent permitted by law.

10. Extent of Lawyer's Duties. The duties stated in subdivision (a) continue beyond the conclusion of the proceeding and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected

11. Protection of the reputation of truthful clients as well as witnesses12. Ethical perspectives on encouraging PLEA BARGAINING for clients13. LAWYER’S EFFORTS ON PROTECTING CYBERSECURITY (protecting the database of client information

in the law firm—done in the US) 14. LAWYER CAN EXHIBIT HIS ZEAL BY KEEPING ABREAST OF DEVLEOPMENTS IN THE LEGAL

SYSTEM. Updated on opinions, memorandum, circulars and other issuances covering new matters, if not the amendments, repeals, etc.

15. Familiarization with other disciplines that may impact on legal practice, i.e. ACCOUNTING and ECONOMICS.

1. ATTENDING SEMINARS AND LECTURES2. READING BOOKS, JOURNALS, NEWSLETTERS—about law in theory and in practice.

Suggested reading: “sharing accounting’s burden: business lawyers, in Enron’s Dark Shadows” the business lawyer.

Related CANONS and CASES:

3. Canon 5— A lawyer shall update himself on legal developments in law schools and in actual practice (Canon 5, Code of Professional Responsiblity). lawyers must be updated in the latest laws and jurisprudence

a. SPOUSES WILLIAMS V. ENRIQUEZ—implicit in a lawyer’s mandate is to protect a client’s interest to the best of his/her ability and with utmost diligence, the duty to keep abreast of the law and legal developments and participate in continuing legal education programs.

b. Revised Rules of Court, Rule 138-Ac. Juan Dulalia, Jr. vs. Pablo C. Cruz, A.C. No. 6854, April 27, 2007d. Uy vs. Capulong, Adm. Matter No. RTJ-91-766, April 7, 1993e. De Roy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80718, January 29, 1988f. Bautista vs. Rebueno, G.R. No. L-46117, February 22, 1978g. PAFLU vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, G.R. No. L-43760, August 21, 1976

4. CANON 8

a. Bar question: (1989, 1997, 2001). You are the counsel of K in his action for specific performance against DEV, inc., a subdivision developer which is represented by Atty. L. you client believes that the president of DEV, inc. would be willing to consider an amicable settlement and your client urges you to discuss the matter with DEV, Inc., without the presence of Atty. L whom he considered to be an impediment to an early compromise. Would it be alright for you to negotiate the terms of the compromise as so suggested above by Your client? NO. rule 8.02 Canon 8.

5. RULE 12. 01 a. Revised Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 3b. Cuaresma vs. Daquis, G.R. No. L-35113, March 25, 1975c. Villasis vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-34369, September 30, 1974d. Javellana vs. Lutero, G.R. No. L-23956, July 21, 1967

6. A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause. (Rule 12.02) a. Masinsin vs. Albano, G.R. No. 86421, May 31, 1994b. Garcia vs. Francisco, Adm. Case No. 3923, March 30, 1993c. New Pangasinan Review Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 85939, April 19, 1991d. Earth Mineral Exploration vs. Macaraig, G.R. No. 78569, February 11, 1991e. Benguet Electric Coop. vs. NEA, G.R. No. 93924, January 23, 1991f. Tan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97238, July 15, 1991g. Kalilid Wood Industries vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 79723, May 31, 1991h. Alonto vs. Memoracion, G.R. No. 83614, May 17, 1990i. Heirs of Guballa vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-78223 & L-79403, December 19, 1988j. Collado vs. Hernando, G.R. No. L-43866, May 30, 1988k. Minister of Nat. Resources vs. Heirs of Orval Hughes, G.R. No. L-62664, November 12, 1987l. Buan vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 75349, October 13, 1986m. Cabagui vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-38377, October 15, 1975n. Vda. de Bacaling vs. Laguna, G.R. No. L-26694, December 18, 1973o. Macias vs. Uy Kim, G.R. No. L-31174, May 30, 1972

7. Rule 12.07 and 12.08 a. SANTIAGO V. RAFANAN—May a lawyer testify on substantial matters relative to the cause of the

party which he is actively representing in a case without violating the code of professional responsibility?

8. A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with judges. (Rule 13.01)

a. Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 3b. Nestle Phil. Inc. vs. Sanchez, G.R. Nos. 75209 & 78791, September 30, 1987c. Austria vs. Masaquel, G.R. No. L-22536, August 31, 1967d. Del Castillo vs. Javelona, G.R. No. L-16742, September 29, 1962

9. Rule 15.05: a lawyer when advising his client shall give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client’s case, neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the case.

a. Castañeda vs. Ago, G.R. No. L-28546, July 30, 1975b. Arangco vs. Baloso, G.R. No. L-28617, January 31, 1973

10. Rule 15.06: a lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.

11. Rule 18.01: a lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.

a. Azor vs. Beltran, G.R. Adm. Case No. 1054, March 25, 1975b. Javellana vs. Lutero, G.R. No. L-23956, July 21, 1967c. Ventura vs. Santos, December 16, 1933d. Yangco vs. Millan, G.R. No. 36039, December 21, 1932e. Ona vs. Platon, G.R. No. 23183, December 29, 1924

12. Rule 18.02. a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. a. Vicente delos Santos, et al. vs. Fred Elizalde, et al., G.R. Nos. 141810 & 141812, February 2, 2007

b. Legarda vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94457, March 18, 1991c. De Roy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80718, January 29, 1988d. Bautista vs. Rebueno, G.R No. L-46117, February 22, 1978e. Phil. Assn. of Free Labor Unions vs. BLR, G.R. No. L-42115, January 27, 1976f. Javellana vs. Lutero, G.R. No. L-23956, July 21, 1967

13. Rule 18.03: a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

a. LEGARDA V. CA—the moment a client’s cause is taken, the lawyer covenants that he will exert all efforts for its prosecution until its final conclusion.

b. ANDERSON V. CARDENO—lawyer allowed ‘friends ‘ of the client to make representations and allowed these persons to take over the filing of the MR.

14. Rule 18.04: a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable period of time to the client’s request for information.

a. BLANZA V. ARCANGEL (1967) b. Carlito P. Carandang vs. Gilbert S. Obmina, A.C. No. 7813, April 21, 2009c. Peter D. Garrucho vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143791, January 14, 2005d. Tolentino vs. Mangapit, Adm. Case No. 2251, September 29, 1983e. Alcala vs. De Vera, Adm. Case No. 620, March 21, 1974f. Oparel vs. Abaria, Adm. Case No. 959, July 30, 1971g. Avelino vs. Palaña, Adm. Case No. 405, May 31, 1971h. Katindig vs. Brillantes, Adm. Case No. 442, October 30, 1964i. Ventura vs. Santos, December 16, 1933

15. RULE 19.01: A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.

a. RBCI Bohol vs. James Benedict Florido, A.C. No. 5736, June 18, 2010b. Revised Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 20c. George C. Briones vs. Jacinto D. Jimenez, A.C. No. 6691, April 27, 2007d. People v. Ignacio, G.R. Nos. 106644-45, June 7, 1994e. Lacsamana vs. Dela Peña, Adm. Case No. 457-MJ, May 15, 1974f. EBC vs. Liwanag, G.R. No. L-28335, March 30, 1970g. Capitol Motors Corp. vs. Yabut, G.R. No. L-28140, March 19, 1970h. Sy-quia vs. Marsman, G.R. No. L-23426, March 1, 1968i. Galofa vs. Nee Bon Sing, G.R. No. L-22018, January 17, 1968j. Use of BLACKMAIL—PENA V. ATTY. APARICIO k. Use of dilatory tactics—continuous filing of postponements based on non-meritorious grounds;

resort to forum shopping; intentionally sending pleadings to wrong addressi. EDRIAL V. QUILAT-QUILAT—violation of rule 12.03 and 12.04; case of grant of several

postponements, repeated delays, etc. ii. OLIVARES V. VILLALON—lawyer purposely filed 2 complaints against the same person;

HELD: a lawyer’s fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and justice

iii. ALFONSO V. RELAMIDA—Filing of multiple or repetitious petitions;iv. LIBERATO CASALS V. HON. VICENTE CUSI—Use of means that would mislead the

court by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. While lawyers owe their clients the dut fo complete fidelity and utmost diligence, they are likewise hld to strict accountability in so far as candor and honesty towards the court is concerned.

l. Use of negative pregnant in the pleadings m. Filing of inhibitions against the judge/prosecutor n. CASES

i. SY-QUIA V. MARSMAN---use of a defense lawyer’s tactic of trapping and confusing clients

ii. PLUS BUILDERS V. REVILLA—overzealousness and misguided desire to protect the interests of his clients who were poor and uneducated;

16. Rule 19.02: a lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the course of the representation, perpetuated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court.

i. Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 16ii. Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 21

iii. Dalisay vs. Mauricio, Jr., A.C. No. 5655, January 23, 2006

17. Rule 19.03: a lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case. a. CRESPO V. AMURAO b. MOBIL OIL V. CFI RIZAL—power of the lawyer to enter into a stipulation of facts, compromise

agreement or confession of judgment c. RURAL BANK VS. ATTY. FLORIDO—lawyer and his clients forcibly took over the premises of te

bankd. Cosmos Foundry Shop Workers Union vs. Lo Bu, G.R. No. L-40136, March 25, 1975e. Belandres vs. Lopez Sugar Central Mill, G.R. No. L-6869, May 27, 1955