Pale doctrines San Beda

[SACLAYAN, KATHLEEN KAYE V. | 3B] 3B ]

I.

INTROD INT RODUCTI UCTION ON TO LEGA LEGAL L ETHI ETHICS CS 1. Dir Directo ectorr of Relig Religiou ious s Aairs Aairs vs. Bayot Bayot advertisement of (law services) is a agrant violation of the ethics of  —  The advertisement the law rofession. !ection "#$ Rule 1"% rovides$ among other things$ that &the ractice of soliciting cases at law for the urose of gain$ either ersonally or thru aid agents or 'roers$ constitute malractice.

". *e *edes desma ma vs. +li +lima maco co ,ithdraw rawal al as cou counse nsell de oo-cio cio 'y an att attor orney ney on the ground ground of his — ,ithd aointment as lection Registrar 'y the +ommission on lections is not allowed. A high degree of -delity to duty is re/uired of one designated as counsel de o-cio 'ecause law is a rofession dedicated to the ideal of  service and not a mere trade.

0. +u +uii vs. +u +uii a'ogado means means not mere ossession ossession of the academic —  The term &titulo de a'ogado degr de gree ee of Ba Bach chel elor or of *a *aws ws$$ 'u 'utt me mem' m'er ersh shi i in th the e 'a 'arr af afte terr du due e admission thereto$ /ualifying /ualifying one for the ractice of law. law. ossession of the law de degr gree ee its itself elf is not ind indis isens ensa'l a'le2 e2 com coml leti etion on of th the e r res escri cri'ed 'ed courses may 'e shown in some other way.

3. 4ille 4illegas gas vs. vs. *eg *egas asii — &Aearance as counsel is a voluntary su'mission to a court5s 6urisdiction 'y a le lega gall ad advo voca cate te or ad advi visi sing ng la lawy wyer er r rof ofes essi sion onal ally ly en enga gage ged d to reresent and lead the cause of another. rearation of an answer is included in the term &aearance as counsel.

#. nri/u nri/ue7 e7 vs. 8im 8imen ene7 e7 —  The rovincial -scal is dis/uali-ed to reresent in court the municiality if  and when orig original inal 6urisdictio 6urisdiction n of the case invol involving ving the munic municial iality ity is vested in the !ureme +ourt2 when the municiality is a arty adverse to the r rovi ovinci ncial al go gover vernme nment nt or to som some e oth other er mun munici icial ality ity in the sam same e rovince2 and when in the case involving the municiality$ he$ or his wife$ or chil child$ d$ is ecu ecuniari niarily ly invo involved lved as heir$ legatee$ legatee$ cre credito ditorr or other otherwise wise.. 9nlie a racticing lawyer who has the right to decline emloyment$ a -scal -sc al ca canno nnott re refus fuse e the er erfor forma mance nce of his fun functi ctions ons on gr groun ounds ds not rovided for 'y law without violating his oath of o:ce$ where he swore$ among others$ &that he will well and faithfully discharge to the 'est of his a'ilit a'i lity y th the e dut dutie ies s of the o: o:ce ce or ositio osition n uo uon n whi which ch he is a' a'out out to enter;

t is right and lausi'le that an attorney$ in defending the cause and rights of his client$ should do so with fervor and energy of which he is caa'le$ 'ut it is not$ and will never 'e so for him to e?ercise said right 'y resorting to intimidation or roceeding without the roriety and resect which the dignity of the courts re/uire.

%. Alaw Alawii vs. vs. Alau Alauya ya —  The title &attorney is reserved to those who$ having o'tained the necessar neces sary y deg degre ree e in the stu study dy of la law w an and d suc succes cessfu sfully lly ta taen en the Ba Barr ?aminations$ have 'een admitted to the >ntegrated Bar of the hiliine hiliines s and remain mem'ers thereof in good standing$ standing$ and it is they only who are authori7ed to ractice law in this 6urisdiction.

@. ang angan an vs. Ra Ramo mos s o'liges the attorney to solemnly solemnly swear that he &will &will do no —  The o:cial oath o'liges falsehood. *awyers who use 'efore the courts a name other than the name na me in insc scri ri'e 'ed d in th the e Rol olll of At Atto torn rney eys s res esor orte ted d to de dece cet tio ion n an and d demonstrated demonstrate d lac of candor in dealing with the courts.

. hil hilii iine ne *awyers5 *awyers5 Associat Association ion vs. Agrava Agrava — ractice of law in the hiliines includes such aearance 'efore the atent a tent :c :ce$ e$ the re reres resentat entation ion of al alicant icants$ s$ oo oosito sitors$ rs$ and other ers e rson ons$ s$ an and d th the e r ros osec ecut utio ion n of th thei eirr a al lic icat atio ions ns fo forr a ate tent nt$$ th thei eirr oositions thereto or the enforcement of their rights in atent cases. A mem'er of the 'ar$ 'ecause of his legal nowledge and training should 'e allowed to ractice 'efore the atent :ce$ without further e?amination or other /uali-catio /uali-cation. n.

1C.

9i vs. Bonifacio

re/uisites for admission admission to the ractice of law are (a) he must 'e a —  The re/uisites citi7en of the hiliines2 (') a resident thereof2 (c) at least twenty one ("1) years of age2 (d) a erson of good moral character2 (e) he must show that no charges against him involving moral turitude$ are -led or ending in court2 (f) ossess the re/uired educational /uali-cations2 and (g) ass the 'ar e?ami e?aminat natio ions. ns. oss ossess ession ion of good good mo moral ral charac character ter must must 'e conti continuo nuous us as a re/ui re/uire remen mentt to the en6oym en6oyment ent of the the rivil rivilege ege of law ractice.

11. Deles vs vs. Ar Aragona — *awyers should 'e allowed great latitude of ertinent comment in the furtherance of the causes they uhold$ and for the felicity of their clients$ they may 'e ardoned some infelicities of language.

"

[SACLAYAN, KATHLEEN KAYE V. | 3B] —  The o'6ect of a dis'arment roceeding is not so much to unish the individual attorney himself$ as to safeguard the administration of 6ustice 'y rotecting the court and the u'lic from the misconduct of o:cers of  the court$ and to remove from the rofession of law ersons whose disregard for their oath of o:ce have roved them un-t to continue discharging the trust reosed in them as mem'ers of the 'ar.

1". Blan7a vs. Arcangel — A lawyer has a more dynamic and ositive role in the community than merely comlying with the minimal technicalities of the statute. =is conduct must 'e ar e?cellence$ esecially so when he volunteers his rofessional services.

10.

Eoreta vs. !imliciano

—  The ractice of law is not a right 'ut a rivilege 'estowed 'y the !tate on those who show that they ossess$ and continue to ossess$ the /uali-cations re/uired 'y law for the conferment of such rivilege. An attorney may 'e dis'arred$ or susended for any violation of his oath or of  his duties as attorney and counsellor$ which include statutory grounds enumerated in section "%$ Rule 10@ of the Rules of +ourt$ all of these 'eing 'road enough to cover ractically any misconduct of a lawyer in his rofessional or rivate caacity.

13. AF1 Ginancial !ervices$ >nc. vs. 4alerio —  The deli'erate failure to ay 6ust de'ts and the issuance of worthless checs constitute gross misconduct$ for which a lawyer may 'e sanctioned with susension from the ractice of law. — A lawyer5s failure to answer the comlaint against him and his failure to aear at the investigation are evidence of his outing resistance to lawful orders of the court and illustrate his desiciency for his oath of o:ce in violation of section 0$ Rule 10@ of the Rules of +ourt.

1#. "CC0 Bar ?aminations Bar Hatter Io. 1""" — enalties$ such as dis'arment$ are imosed not to unish 'ut to correct oenders. >n cases where the !ureme +ourt had deigned to lift or commute the sureme enalty of dis'arment imosed on the lawyer$ it had taen into account the remorse of the dis'arred lawyer and the conduct of his u'lic life during his years outside of the 'ar.

II.

ADMISSION TO PRACTICE 1. >n re *anuevo —  The 6udicial function of the !ureme +ourt in admitting candidates to the legal rofession involves e?ercise of discretion. ractice of law is not an

0

[SACLAYAN, KATHLEEN KAYE V. | 3B] a'solute right granted to everyone who demands it 'ut a rivilege e?tended or withheld in the e?ercise of sound discretion.

". Girst *eanto +eramics$ >nc. vs. +ourt of Aeals — !u'stantive law is that art of the law creates$ de-nes and regulates rights$ or which regulates and duties which give rise to a cause of action$ as oosed to ad6ective or remedial law$ which rescri'es the method of  enforcing rights or o'tains a redress for their invasion.

0. >n re +unanan —  The admission$ susension$ dis'arment and reinstatement of attorneysFatF law in the ractice of the rofession and their suervision have 'een indisuta'ly a 6udicial function and resonsi'ility. +ongress may reeal$ alter and sulement the rules romulgated 'y the !ureme +ourt$ 'ut the authority and resonsi'ility over the admission$ susension$ dis'arment and reinstatement of attorneysFatFlaw and their suervision remain vested in the !ureme +ourt.

3. Juroda vs. Kalandoni —  There is nothing in ?ecutive rder Io. t is common in military tri'unals that counsel for the arties are usually military ersonnel who are neither attorneys nor even ossesses legal training.

#. mico Hining L >ndustrial +or. vs. 4alle6os — ,hen a mem'er of the Bar is elevated to the Bench of the +ourt of Girst >nstance as a 6udge thereof$ his right to ractice law as an attorney is susended and continued to 'e susended as long as he occuied the  6udicial osition. This rohi'ition is 'ased on sound reasons of u'lic olicy$ for there is no /uestion that the rights$ duties$ rivileges and functions of the o:ce of an attorneyFatFlaw are so inherently incomati'le with the high o:cial functions$ duties$ owers$ discretions and rivileges of a 6udge of the +ourt of Girst >nstance.

n re dillon — rgani7ed 'y or under the direction of the !tate via its valid e?ercise of  olice ower$ an >ntegrated Bar is an o:cial national 'ody of which all lawyers are re/uired to 'e mem'ers. They are$ therefore$ su'6ect to all the rules rescri'ed for the governance of the Bar$ including the re/uirement of ayment of a reasona'le annual fee for the eective discharge of the uroses of the Bar$ and adherence to a +ode of rofessional thics or rofessional Resonsi'ility$ the 'reach of which constitutes su:cient reason for investigation 'y the Bar and$ uon roer cause aearing$ a recommendation for disciline or dis'arment of the oending mem'er.

11. Te6an vs. +usi$ Kr. —  The law accords to the +ourt of Aeals and the +ourt of Girst >nstance the ower to investigate and susend mem'ers of the 'ar. The court may act uon its own motion and thus 'e the initiator of the roceedings$ 'ecause o'viously$ the court may investigate into the conduct of its own o:cers.

1". Alcala vs. 4era — Gailure of a lawyer to inform his clients of the decision rendered in a case handled 'y him maes him lia'le for negligence. =owever$ when there is no -nding of deceit$ malice or deli'erate intent to cause damage to his clients$ and no material or ecuniary damage resulted to his clients$ dis'arment is not warranted although lawyer is negligent.

#

[SACLAYAN, KATHLEEN KAYE V. | 3B]

10. +antim'uhan vs. +ru7 — !ection 03$ Rule 10@ of the Rules of +ourt rovides that in the municial court$ a arty may conduct his litigation in erson with the aid of an agent aointed 'y him for the urose. The ermission of the -scal is not necessary for one to enter his aearance as rivate rosecutor al'eit under the suervision and control of the trial -scal.

13. =ydro Resources +ontractors +or. vs. aglilauan — A lawyer$ lie any other rofessional$ may very well 'e an emloyee of the government or a rivate cororation$ while at the same time$ also contract with a law -rm to act as outside counsel on a retainer 'asis. The two classes of lawyers often wor together$ 'ut one grou is made u of  emloyees while the other is not.

1#. Ramos vs. Rada —  The duties of a court messenger are generally ministerial which do not re/uire that his entire day of twenty four ("3) hours 'e at the disosal of  the government. Thus$ lac of rior ermission from his suerior is a mere technical violation and he should 'e meted no more than the minimum imosa'le enalty$ which is rerimand.

1n re 8utierre7 —  The rule that ardon oerates to wie out the conviction and is a 'ar to any roceeding for dis'arment of the attorney after the ardon has 'een granted alies only where the ardon is a'solute$ 'ut not where the ardon granted is conditional and merely remitted the une?ecuted ortion of the enalty. >n such a case$ the attorney must 'e 6udged uon the fact of his conviction for the crime he has committed.

0. ronce vs. +ourt of Aeals — 9nder the +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility$ a lawyer is rohi'ited from counselling or a'etting &activities aimed at de-ance of the law or at lessening con-dence in the legal system. ntering a roerty without the consent of its occuants and in contravention of the e?isting writ of  reliminary in6unction and maing utterances showing disresect for the law and the +ourt$ are un'ecoming of a mem'er of the 'ar.

3. De Msasi vs. Iational *a'or Relations +ommission —  The useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation 'ut to avoid it whenever ossi'le 'y advising settlement or withholding suit. =e should 'e a mediator for concord and a conciliator for comromise$ rather than a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation.

#. a6ares vs. A'ad !antos

%

[SACLAYAN, KATHLEEN KAYE V. | 3B] —  The cooeration of litigants and their attorneys is needed so that needless clogging of the court docets with unmeritorious cases may 'e avoided.  There must 'e faithful adherence to Rule %$ section # of the Rules of +ourt which rovides that &the signature of an attorney constitutes a certi-cate 'y him that he has read the leading and that to the 'est of his nowledge$ information and 'elief$ there is good ground to suort it2 and that it is not interosed for delay and e?ressly admonishes that &for a wilful violation of this rule an attorney may 'e su'6ected to discilinary action.

nstance to conduct a reliminary investigation$ does not dis/ualify it from trying the case it had found ro'a'le cause and after the -scal$ as directed 'y the +ourt$ had -led the corresonding information. The rule assumes that the 6udge$ who conducted the reliminary investigation$ could imartially try the case on the merits.

13. Hisamin vs. !an Kuan —  The serious conse/uences of dis'arment or susension should follow only where there is a clear reonderance of evidence against the resondent.  The resumtion is that the attorney is innocent of the charges referred and has erformed his duty as an o:cer of the court in accordance with his oath.

1#. residential +ommission on 8ood 8overnance vs. !andigan'ayan and Hendo7a — A lawyer should not accet emloyment as an advocate in any matter uon the merits of which he has acted in a 6udicial caacity. — A lawyer$ having once held u'lic o:ce or having 'een in the u'lic emloy should not$ after his retirement$ accet emloyment in connection with any matter he has investigated or assed uon while in such o:ce or emloy.



[SACLAYAN, KATHLEEN KAYE V. | 3B]

IV.

LAWYER’S DUTIES PROFESSION

TO

THE

LEGAL

1. Rivera vs. Angeles —  The !ureme +ourt reeatedly stressed the imortance of integrity and good moral character as art of a lawyer5s e/uiment in the ractice of his rofession. —  The +ourt is not o'livious of the right of a lawyer to 'e aid for the legal services he has e?tended to his client 'ut such right should not 'e e?ercised whimsically 'y aroriating to himself the money intended for his clients such that there should never 'e an instance where the victor in litigation loses everything he won to the fees of his own lawyer.

. Ducat$ Kr. vs. 4illalon$ Kr. — +anon % of the +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility mandates that &a lawyer shall at all times uhold the integrity and dignity of the legal rofession. Thus$ every lawyer should act and comort himself in such a manner that would romote u'lic con-dence in the integrity of the legal rofession.

3.  Tan vs. !a'andal — A erson not yet admitted to the 'ar cannot call himself &attorney. !. >n re ara7o —  The term &interest of the !tate involves not only the interests of students and graduates of the law schools and colleges$ and of the entire legal rofession of the country as well as the good name and reutation of the mem'ers of the +ommittee of Bar ?aminers$ including the emloyees of  the !ureme +ourt having charge of and connections with said e?aminations$ 'ut also the highest Tri'unal of the land itself which reresents one of the three coordinate and indeendent 'ranches or deartments of the hiliine 8overnment.

". angan vs. Ramos — A lawyer should aid in guarding the Bar against the admission to the rofession of candidates un-t or un/uali-ed 'ecause de-cient in either moral character or education. —  The standards of legal rofession are not satis-ed 'y conduct which merely ena'les one to escae the enalties of the criminal law.

n re 8utierre7

1C

[SACLAYAN, KATHLEEN KAYE V. | 3B] —  The rule that ardon oerates to wie out the conviction and is a 'ar to any roceeding for dis'arment of the attorney after the ardon has 'een granted alies only where the ardon is a'solute$ 'ut not where the ardon granted is conditional and merely remitted the une?ecuted ortion of the enalty. >n such a case$ the attorney must 'e 6udged uon the fact of his conviction for the crime he has committed.

%. Iarido vs. *insangan —  The sectacle resented 'y two mem'ers of the 'ar engaged in 'icering and recrimination is far from edifying$ although it is understanda'le$ if not  6usti-a'le$ that at times 7eal in the defense of one5s client may 'e carried to the oint of undue sceticism and dou't as to the motives of oosing counsel. !uch action detracts from the dignity of the legal rofession and will not receive any symathy from the +ourt.

@. *aut vs. Remotigue — ,here a lawyer was dismissed 'y his client 'ecause the latter no longer trusted him$ the aearance of the second lawyer is not unrofessional$ unethical or imroer.

. +amacho vs. angulayan — A lawyer should not in any way communicate uon the su'6ect of  controversy with a arty reresented 'y counsel$ much less should he undertae to negotiate or comromise the matter with him$ 'ut should only deal with his counsel. >t is incum'ent uon the lawyer most articularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a arty not reresented 'y counsel and he should not undertae to advise him as to law.

1C. Ro'inson vs. 4illafuerte — A nonFlawyer cannot /uestion witnesses in court notwithstanding the resence of or suervision 'y a mem'er of the 'ar.

11. Tan Te Beng vs. David — Halractice is the ractice of soliciting cases at law for the urose of  gain$ either ersonally or through aid agents or 'roers and ordinarily refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed 'y a lawyer. — Io division of fees for legal services is roer$ e?cet with another lawyer$ 'ased uon a division of service or resonsi'ility.

1".

Director of Religious Aairs vs. Bayot

—  The advertisement of (law services) is a agrant violation of the ethics of  the law rofession. !ection "#$ Rule 1"% rovides$ among other things$ that &the ractice of soliciting cases at law for the urose of gain$ either ersonally or thru aid agents or 'roers$ constitute malractice. 10. 9le vs. *egal +linic$ >nc.

11

[SACLAYAN, KATHLEEN KAYE V. | 3B] — A lawyer cannot$ without violating the ethics of his rofession$ advertise his talents or sills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. The roscrition against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal 'usiness rests on the fundamental ostulate that the ractice of  law is a rofession.

13. >n re !yci — A artnershi for the ractice of law is not a legal entity 'ut a mere relationshi or association for a articular urose2 it is not a artnershi formed for the urose of carrying on trade or 'usiness or of holding roerty. Thus$ the use of a nom de lume$ assumed or trade name in law ractice is imroer.

V.

LAWYER’S DUTIES TO THE COURTS 1. +ity !heri of >ligan +ity vs. Gortunado — !ection 1t is neither candid nor fair for a lawyer to nowingly mae false allegations in a 6udicial leading or to mis/uote the contents of a document$ the testimony of a witness$ the argument of oosing counsel or the contents of a decision.

0. +have7 vs. 4iola — +ourts are entitled to e?ect only comlete candor and honesty from the lawyers aearing and leading 'efore them while lawyers$ on the other hand$ have the fundamental duty to satisfy that e?ectation. >t is essential that lawyers 'ear in mind at all times that their -rst duty is not to their clients 'ut rather to the courts$ that they are a'ove all o:cers of court sworn to assist the courts in rendering 6ustice to all and sundry$ and only secondarily are they advocates of the e?clusive interests of their clients.

3. +han Jian vs. Angsin — A lawyer owes truth and candor to the courts. #. +asals vs. +usi 1"

[SACLAYAN, KATHLEEN KAYE V. | 3B] — A lawyer has the solemn duty as counsel to emloy in the conduct of a case such means only as are consistent with truth and honor$ and never see to mislead the courts. —  The +ourt has$ in several instances$ susended lawyers from the ractice of law for failure to -le aellant5s 'riefs in criminal cases desite reeated e?tensions of time o'tained 'y them$ with the reminder that the trust imosed on counsel in accordance with the canons of legal ethics 'ut with the soundest traditions of the rofession would re/uire -delity on their art.

t is the duty of a counsel to advise his client$ ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and vagaries of the law$ on the merit or lac thereof of his case. — A counsel5s assertiveness in esousing with candor and honesty his client5s cause must is encouraged and commended2 what the +ourt countenances is a lawyer5s insistence desite the atent futility of his client5s osition.

1#. Austria vs. Hasa/uel — ,hile it may 'e conceded that in re/uesting the dis/uali-cation of a 6udge 'y reason of his relation with a arty or counsel there is some imlication of the ro'a'ility of his 'eing artial to one side$ the re/uest cannot constitute contemt of court if done honestly and in a resectful manner. —  The ower to unish for contemt$ 'eing drastic and e?traordinary in its nature$ should not 'e resorted to unless necessary in the interest of   6ustice2 that is$ it should 'e e?ercised on the reservative and not on the vindictive rincile.

1t is unethical for a lawyer to a'use or wrongfully use the 6udicial rocess$ lie the -ling dilatory motions$ reetitious litigation and frivolous aeals for the sole urose of frustrating and delaying the e?ecution of a 6udgment.

3. +hoa vs. +hiongson — A mem'er of the 'ar is 'ound (1) 'y his oath$ not to$ wittingly or willingly$ romote or sue any groundless$ false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same2 (") 'y section "C(c)$ Rule 10@ of the Rules of +ourt$ to counsel or maintain such action or roceedings only as aear to him to 'e 6ust2 and (0) to uhold the +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility. >t is incum'ent uon him to give a candid and honest oinion on the merits and ro'a'le results of his client5s case.

#. +osmos Goundry !ho ,orers 9nion vs. *o Bu — A lawyer should not act lie an errand 'oy at the 'ec and call of his client$ ready and eager to do his every 'idding.

t is incum'ent uon the lawyer most articularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a arty not reresented 'y counsel and he should not undertae to advise him as to the law.

10. Deluao vs. +asteel — An order given in oen court is resumed received 'y the arties on the very date and time of romulgation$ and amounts to a legal noti-cation for all legal uroses. The ostonement of hearings does not deend uon the agreement of the arties$ 'ut uon the court5s discretion.

13.

=eirs of lias *orilla vs. +ourt of Aeals 1@

[SACLAYAN, KATHLEEN KAYE V. | 3B] —  The failure of counsel to serve notice on the court and the adverse arties regarding his client5s death 'inds his clients. Kurisrudence teems with ronouncements that a client is 'ound 'y the conduct$ negligence$ and mistaes of his counsel.

1#. Avelino vs. alaNa — *awyers guilty of negligence in the erformance of his duties as a mem'er of the 'ar may 'e susended from the ractice of law.

1t must 'e erformed with all the 7eal and vigor at his command to rotect and safeguard the accused5s fundamental rights.

"C. Toacio Iueno vs. !antos — ,hen a lawyer consents to the doing of a falsehood and deceives the court 'y having an accused lead guilty to an oense which he had not committed$ he is in clear violation of the lawyer5s oath that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court.

1

[SACLAYAN, KATHLEEN KAYE V. | 3B] VIII.

LAWYER’S FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS 1. Angeles vs. 9y$ Kr. — +anon 1< of the +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility rovides that &a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and roerties of his client that may come into his ossession. Gurthermore$ Rule 1'aNe7 — IonFremittance 'y a u'lic rosecutor for over one year of funds entrusted to him constitutes conduct in gross violation of Rule 1.C1 of the +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility which rovides that &a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful$ dishonest$ immoral$ or deceitful conduct. *awyers are 'ound to romtly account for money or roerty received 'y them on 'ehalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes rofessional misconduct.

. Daroy vs. legasi — A lawyer$ under his oath$ ledges himself not to delay any man for money or malice and is 'ound to conduct himself with all good -delity to his clients. =e is o'ligated to reort romtly the money of his clients that has come into his ossession and should not commingle it with his rivate roerty or use it for his ersonal uroses without his client5s consent.

1C. !otto vs. !amson — Article 13# of the ld +ivil +ode rovides that lawyers and solicitors cannot tae 'y urchase$ even at a u'lic or 6udicial auction$ either in erson or through mediation of another$ any roerty rights involved in any litigation in which they may tae art 'y virtue of their rofession and o:ce. The urose of this rovision is to curtail any undue inuence of the lawyer uon his client on account of their con-dential association.

11. 4da. De *aig vs. +ourt of Aeals — A lawyer may 'e held civilly lia'le for failure to o'serve honesty and good faith in the erformance of their duties as u'lic o:cer and as a mem'er of the 'ar (Article 1 of the Iew +ivil +ode)$ or for wilfully or negligently causing damage to another (Article "C of the Iew +ivil +ode)$ or for wilfully causing loss or in6ury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals$ good customs andOor u'lic olicy (Article "1 of the Iew +ivil +ode).

1". 8o Beltran vs. Gernande7 — Article 13# of the ld +ivil +ode rovides that lawyers and solicitors cannot tae 'y urchase$ even at a u'lic or 6udicial auction$ either in erson or through mediation of another$ any roerty rights involved in any litigation in which they may tae art 'y virtue of their rofession and o:ce. The urose of this rovision is to curtail any undue inuence of the lawyer uon his client on account of their con-dential association.

"1

[SACLAYAN, KATHLEEN KAYE V. | 3B]

""