REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR AND CONTINUOUS PRACTICE OF

LAW

Who may practice law?

Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or thereafter admitted
as such in accordance with the provisions of this Rule, and who is in good and regular
standing, is entitled to practice law (Section 1, Rule 138).

Meaning of “Practice of Law”

 Implies customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer for
compensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration of his services.
 Holding one’s self out as a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that
purpose, such as identifying oneself as attorney, appearing in court in
representation of a client, or associating oneself as a partner of a law office for
the general practice of law (Atty. Noe-Lacsaman v. Atty. Busmente, A.C. No.
7269 [2011]).

 Any activity, in and out of court, that requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform
those acts which are characteristics of the profession; to practice law is to give notice
or render any kind of service, and such service requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill (Query of Atty. Silverio-Buffe, A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC
[2009]).

 The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court.
 It embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and
special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf
of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveyancing.
 In general, it includes all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in
matters connected with the law (Aguirre v. Rana, BM 1036, June 10, 2003).

 A lawyer-detainee cannot practice law.

 As a matter of law, when a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is
deemed placed under the custody of the law. He is placed in actual restraint of
liberty in jail so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of the
offense. He must be detained in jail during the pendency of the case against him,
unless he is authorized by the court to be released on bail or on recognizance.
 All prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence cannot
practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation, or hold office,
elective or appointive, while in detention. This is a necessary consequence of
arrest and detention (PP v. Hon. Maceda and Javellana G.R. No. 89591-96,
January 24, 2000).

Requirements for Admission to the Bar

Section 13. Disciplinary measures. — No candidate shall endeavor to influence any

member of the committee, and during examination the candidates shall not communicate
with each other nor shall they give or receive any assistance. The candidate who violates
this provisions, or any other provision of this rule, shall be barred from the examination,
and the same to count as a failure against him, and further disciplinary action, including
permanent disqualification, may be taken in the discretion of the court.

Section 14. Passing average. — In order that a candidate may be deemed to have
passed his examinations successfully, he must have obtained a general average of 75 per
cent in all subjects, without falling below 50 per cent in any subjects. In determining the
average, the subjects in the examination shall be given the following relative weights: Civil
Law, 15 per cent; Labor and Social Legislation, 10 per cent; Mercantile Law, 15 per cent;
Criminal Law; 10 per cent: Political and International Law, 15 per cent; Taxation, 10 per
cent; Remedial Law, 20 per cent; Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises, 5 per cent.

Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be:

 1) citizen of the Philippines;
2) at least twenty-one years of age;
3) of good moral character;
4) A resident of the Philippines; and
5) must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral
character; and
6) and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or
are pending in any court in the Philippines (Section 2, Rule 138).

 Upright character: is something more than an absence of bad character. It means

that he [an applicant for admission] must have conducted himself as a man of upright
character ordinarily would, should, or does.
 Such character expresses itself not in negatives nor in following the line of least
resistance, but quite often in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right, and
the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong.
 Past misconduct is not irrelevant. The Court must determine what past bad acts
reveal about an applicant's current character.
 Effect of prior conviction: Although a prior conviction is not conclusive of a lack
of present good moral character, ... it adds to his burden of establishing present
good character by requiring convincing proof of his full and complete
rehabilitation. When an applicant convicted of a serious crime applies to practice
law a conditional, two-part inquiry is conducted.
 First consider whether the applicant has satisfied the burden of proving
complete rehabilitation from the character deficits that led to the commission
of the crime. If not, our inquiry ends and we will deny the application.
 If the applicant proves complete rehabilitation, then decide whether the
applicant has otherwise demonstrated present good moral character.
 To show rehabilitation, [one] must show that he has accepted responsibility for
his criminal conduct. Moreover, the applicant must also identify the weakness
that caused him to engage in criminal misconduct and then demonstrate that he
has overcome that weakness.
 Rehabilitation is a necessary, but not sufficient, ingredient of good moral
character of bar applicant who had been convicted of a serious felony;
applicant must establish his current good moral character, independent of
and in addition to, evidence of rehabilitation (In re: James Joseph Hamm
123 P.3d 652 [2005]).

 Grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act
or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. It is a willful,
flagrant, or shameless act which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of
respectable members of the community
 Breach of promise to marry does not constitute gross immorality:
Engaging in premarital sexual relations with complainant and promises to marry
suggests a doubtful moral character on the part of the applicant but the same
does not constitute grossly immoral conduct.  
 To justify suspension or disbarment the act complained of must not only be
immoral, but grossly immoral (Figueroa v. Barranco, Jr. SBC Case No.
519 1997).

Pre-law requirements: No applicant for admission to the bar examination shall be

admitted unless he presents a certificate that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education
that, before he began the study of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an
authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the
completion of a four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a
bachelor's degree in arts or sciences with any of the following subjects as major or field of
concentration: political science, logic, english, spanish, history and economics.

 Sample Cases
 By utilizing the school records of his cousin and name-sake, Juan M. Publico
when, in actual fact, petitioner had not completed Grade VI of his elementary
schooling, much less, First and Second Year High School.
 For all the foregoing, we find and so hold that respondent falsified his school
records, by making it appear that he had finished or completed Grade VI
elementary and First and Second Year high school, when in truth and in fact he
had not, thereby violating the provisions of Sections 5 and 6, Rule 127 of the
Rules of Court, which require completion by a bar examinee or candidate of the
prescribed courses in elementary, high, pre-law and law school, prior to his
admission to the practice of law (In re: Juan Publico, Petition for
Reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys February 20, 1981).

 Respondent exhibited his dishonesty and utter lack of moral fitness to be a

member of the Bar when he assumed the name, identity, and school records of
his own brother and dragged the latter into controversies which eventually
caused him to fear for his safety and to resign from PSC where he had been
working for years. Good moral character is essential in those who would be
lawyers. This is imperative in the nature of the office of a lawyer, the trust
relation which exists between him and his client, as well as between him and the
court.

Finally, respondent made a mockery of the legal profession by pretending to have

the necessary qualifications to be a lawyer. He also tarnished the image of
lawyers with his alleged unscrupulous activities, which resulted in the filing of
several criminal cases against him. Certainly, respondent and his acts do not have
a place in the legal profession where one of the primary duties of its members is
to uphold its integrity and dignity (Patrick A. Caronan v. Richard A. Caronan
a.k.a. “Atty. Patrick A. Caronan”, July 12, 2016, A.C. No. 11316).

Requirements after flunking the bar 3 times

Sec. 16, Rule 138. Failing candidates to take review course. - Candidates who have
failed the bar examinations for three times shall be disqualified from taking another
examination unless they show to the satisfaction of the court that they have enrolled in
and passed regular fourth year review classes as well as attended a pre-bar review course
in a recognized law school.

The professors of the individual review subjects attended by the candidates under
this rule shall certify under oath that the candidates have regularly attended classes and
passed the subjects under the same conditions as ordinary students and the ratings
obtained by them in the particular subject.

 Enrollment and completion of pre-bar review course is an additional

requirement under Rule 138 of the Rules of Court for those who failed the bar
examinations for three (3) or more times (In re: Purisima, B.M. Nos. 979 and 986
[2002]).

Requisites for the Right to Practice Law (Rule 138)

Section 17. Admission and oath of successful applicants. — An applicant who has
passed the required examination, or has been otherwise found to be entitled to admission
to the bar, shall take and subscribe before the Supreme Court the corresponding oath of
office.

Section 19. Attorney's roll. — The clerk of the Supreme Court shall kept a roll of all
attorneys admitted to practice, which roll shall be signed by the person admitted when he
receives his certificate.

 A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar
examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one
 who has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced
law without a license (Aguirre v. Rana, BM 1036, June 10, 2003).

 Two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer had to be performed, namely:

 Taking the lawyer's oath to be administered by the Supreme Court; and

 Signing in the Roll of Attorneys. (Re: Elmo Abad, A. M. No. 139 [1983]).
 Effect of Failure to sign in the Roll of Attorneys: Petitioner did not sign in
the Roll of Attorneys for 32 years. What he had signed at the entrance of the
PICC was probably just an attendance record.

As Medado is not yet a full-fledged lawyer, we cannot suspend him from the
practice of law. However, we see it fit to impose upon him a penalty akin to
suspension by allowing him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one ( 1) year after
receipt of this Resolution. For his transgression of the prohibition against the
unauthorized practice of law, we likewise see it fit to fine him in the amount of
P32,000 (Petition to sign in the Roll of Attorneys, Medado, B.M. No. 2540
[2013]).

 Before whom must oath be taken: Inasmuch as the oath as lawyer is a

prerequisite to the practice of law and may be taken only, before the Supreme
Court, by those authorized by the latter to engage in such practice (PP v. De
Luna, et. al. G.R. Nos. L-10236-48. January 31, 1958).

 Name in the Roll of Attorneys must be used in pleadings: This Court has
already severely reprimanded respondent from using a name other than
authorized name in the "Roll of Attorneys" and was warned that a repetition of
the same overt act may warrant his suspension of disbarment from office in the
future (Pangan v. Atty. Dionisio Ramos, A.M. No. 1053, August 31, 1981).

 Payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the IBP, of which no

one is exempt.
 The compulsory nature of payment of dues subsists for as long as one’s
membership in the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type
of practice, the member is engaged in.
 IBP membership fee is not a form of tax: A membership fee in the Bar
association is an exaction for regulation, while tax purpose of a tax is a revenue.
 If the judiciary has inherent power to regulate the Bar, it follows that as an
incident to regulation, it may impose a membership fee for that purpose.
 It would not be possible to put on an integrated Bar program without means
to defray the expenses. The doctrine of implied powers necessarily carries
with it the power to impose such exaction. (Letter of Atty. Cecilio Y.
Arevalo Jr. B.M. 1370 May 9, 2005).
 Effect of non-payment of IBP dues: Default in the payment of annual dues for
six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and
default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the
name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys. A lawyer
misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues is
guilty of violating the following provisions of the CPR:
 Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
 CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession, and support the activities of the integrated bar.
 CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
 Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice
(Santos, Jr. v. Atty. Llamas A.C No. 4749 [2000]).

What is a lawyer’s proof of authority to practice of law?

Section 18. Certificate. — The supreme Court shall thereupon admit the applicant as
a member of the bar for all the courts of the Philippines, and shall direct an order to be
entered to that effect upon its records, and that a certificate of such record be given to
him by the clerk of court, which certificate shall be his authority to practice.

Continuing requirements to practice law

The second requisite for the practice of law ― membership in good standing ― is a
continuing requirement. This means continued membership and, concomitantly, payment
of annual membership dues in the IBP; payment of the annual professional tax;
compliance with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement; faithful
observance of the rules and ethics of the legal profession and being continually subject to
judicial disciplinary control. (Petition for leave to resume practice of law, Dacanay
B.M. No. 1678 December 17, 2007).

Unauthorized Practice of Law

CANON 9 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized

practice of law.

 At the heart of Canon 9 is the lawyer's duty to prevent the unauthorized

practice of law.
 A reading of Canon 9 appears to merely prohibit lawyers from assisting in the
unauthorized practice of law.
 The unauthorized practice of law by the lawyer himself is subsumed under
this provision, because at the heart of Canon 9 is the lawyer's duty to
prevent the unauthorized practice of law (Petition to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys, Medado, B.M. No. 2540 [2013]).

 Unauthorized practice of law as indirect contempt: The unauthorized practice of

law by assuming to be an attorney and acting as such without authority constitutes
indirect contempt which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.
 The liability for the unauthorized practice of law under Section 3(e), Rule 71 of
the Rules of Court is in the nature of criminal contempt and the acts are punished
because they are an affront to the dignity and authority of the court, and obstruct
the orderly administration of justice.
 In determining liability for criminal contempt, well-settled is the rule that
intent is a necessary element, and no one can be punished unless the
evidence makes it clear that he intended to commit it (Normatan &
Pagayokan v. Balajadia, G.R. No. 169517 2006).

 Poverty of litigant is not a justification to engage in illegal practice of law:

The defense of respondent that "his participation for defendants' cause was gratuitous
as they could not engage the services of counsel by reason of poverty and the
absence of one in the locality" cannot, even if true, carry the day for him (Zeta v.
Malinao, A.M. No. P-220, December 20, 1978).

 Examples: In the cases where a party is found liable for the unauthorized practice of
law, the party was guilty of some overt act like:
1) signing court pleadings on behalf of his client;
2) appearing before court hearings as an attorney;
3) manifesting before the court that he will practice law despite being previously
denied admission to the bar; or
4) deliberately attempting to practice law; and
5) holding out himself as an attorney through circulars with full knowledge that he is
not licensed to do so.

 A “Counselor” is not an “Attorney”: The title of "attorney" is reserved to those

who, having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and successfully taken
the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
 remain members thereof in good standing; and it is they only who are authorized to
practice law in this jurisdiction (Alawi v. Alauya, A.M. SDC-97-2-P. February 24,
1997).

Can an “indefinite suspension” from the practice of law prohibit a lawyer from
filing a citizen or taxpayer suit?

Petitioner Alan F. Paguia (petitioner), as citizen and taxpayer, filed this original action for
the writ of certiorari to invalidate President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s nomination of
respondent former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (respondent Davide) as Permanent
Representative to the United Nations (UN) for violation of Section 23 of Republic Act No.
7157 (RA 7157), the Philippine Foreign Service Act of 1991.

In their separate Comments, respondent Davide, the Office of the President, and the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs (respondents) raise threshold issues against the petition. First,
they question petitioner’s standing to bring this suit because of his indefinite suspension
from the practice of law.

An incapacity to bring legal actions peculiar to petitioner also obtains. Petitioner’s

suspension from the practice of law bars him from performing “any activity, in or out of
court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience.” Certainly, preparing a petition raising carefully crafted arguments on equal
protection grounds and employing highly legalistic rules of statutory construction to parse
Section 23 of RA 7157 falls within the proscribed conduct (Paguia v. Office of the
President, G.R. No. 176278 [2010]).

May a lawyer who has lost his Filipino citizenship still practice law in the
Philippines?

The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be
limited to Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed by law. Since Filipino citizenship is a
requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates membership in the Philippine
bar and, consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice of law. In other words, the
loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to practice law in the
Philippines. The practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigners (Petition for leave to
resume practice of law, Dacanay B.M. No. 1678 December 17, 2007).

 Effect of reacquisition of Filipino citizenship: A Filipino lawyer who becomes a

citizen of another country and later re-acquires his Philippine citizenship under RA
9225, remains to be a member of the Philippine Bar (Petition to reacquire the
privilege to practice law in the Philippines, Muneses, B.M. 2112 [2012]).

 Requirements before one can resume practice of law after reacquiring

Filipino citizenship: he must first secure from this Court the authority to do so,
conditioned on:
a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP;
b) the payment of professional tax;
c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal
education; this is specially significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s
knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal developments; and
d) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only remind him of his duties and
responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his
pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
 PURPOSE: To remind the lawyer of his duties and responsibilities as such
and as an officer of the Court, and also to renew his pledge to maintain
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines (Petition for leave to resume
practice of law, Dacanay B.M. No. 1678 December 17, 2007).

Duties of Attorneys (Sec. 20, Rule 138)

 a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the
Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines;
b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial
officers;
c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be
just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the
law;
d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such
means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the
judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;
e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve
the secrets of his client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his
client's business except from him or with his knowledge and approval;
f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the
honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the
cause with which he is charged;
g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or
proceeding, or delay any man's cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;
h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed;
i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means,
regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every
defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or
liberty, but by due process of law.

Presumption to Appear

Section 21, Rule 138: Authority of attorney to appear. – An attorney is presumed to

be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears, and no written power
of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client, but the presiding
judge may, on motion of either party and on reasonable grounds therefor being shown,
require any attorney who assumes the right to appear in a case to produce or prove the
authority under which he appears, and to disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the
name of the person who employed him, and may thereupon make such order as justice
requires. An attorney wilfully appearing in court for a person without being employed,
unless by leave of the court, may be punished for contempt as an officer of the court who
has misbehaved in his official transactions.

 The presumption in favor of the counsel’s authority to appear in behalf of a client is a

strong one. A lawyer is not even required to present a written authorization from the
client. In fact, the absence of a formal notice of entry of appearance will not invalidate
the acts performed by the counsel in his client’s name.

 However, the court, on its own initiative or on motion of the other party may
require a lawyer to adduce authorization from the client.

 An unauthorized appearance of an attorney may be ratified by the client either

expressly or impliedly.

 Ratification retroacts to the date of the lawyer’s first appearance and

validates the action taken by him (LBP v. Pamintuan Development Co.,
GR 167886, 25 October 2005).

LAW STUDENT RULE (Rule 138-A)

 RULE 138-A RULE 138, Section 34

SECTION 1. Conditions for Student Practice. — A law By whom litigation

student who has successfully completed his 3rd year of conducted. - In the court of a
the regular four-year prescribed law curriculum and is justice of the peace a party
enrolled in a recognized law school's clinical legal may conduct his litigation in
education program approved by the Supreme Court, may person, with the aid of an
appear without compensation in any civil, criminal or agent or friend appointed by
administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board him for that purpose, or with
or officer, to present any indigent clients accepted by the the aid of an attorney.
legal clinic of the law school.
In any other court, a
Sec. 2. Appearance. — The appearance of the law party may conduct his
student authorized by this rule, shall be under the direct litigation personally or by aid
supervision and control of a member of the Integrated of an attorney, and his
Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school. appearance must be either
Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or personal or by a duly
other papers to be filed, must be signed by the authorized member of the
supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic. bar.

The phrase "direct supervision and control" requires

no less than the physical presence of the supervising
lawyer during the hearing.

Sec. 3. Privileged communications. — The Rules

safeguarding privileged communications between attorney
and client shall apply to similar communications made to
or received by the law student, acting for the legal clinic.

Sec. 4. Standards of conduct and supervision. — The

law student shall comply with the standards of
professional conduct governing members of the Bar.
Failure of an attorney to provide adequate supervision of
student practice may be a ground for disciplinary action.

 Rule 138 section 34 does not apply in cases before the RTC. In municipal courts, the
litigant may be assisted by a friend, agent, or an attorney. However, in cases before
the regional trial court, the litigant must be aided by a duly authorized member of the
bar. For the protection of the parties and in the interest of justice, the requirement for
appearances in regional trial courts and higher courts is more stringent (Bulacan v.
Torcino, G.R. No. L-44388 January 30, 1985).
 The term "Municipal Trial Courts" as used in these Rules shall include:
1) Metropolitan Trial Courts,
2) Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,
3) Municipal Trial Courts, and
4) Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (Cruz v. Mina GR no. 154207, April 27,
2007).

 There is conflict as to the application of Section 34 of Rule 138 and Rule 138-A.
 Sec. 34, Rule 138: the appearance of a non-lawyer, as an agent or friend of a
party litigant, is expressly allowed;
 Rule 138-A: provides for conditions when a law student, not as an agent or a
friend of a party litigant, may appear before the courts (Cruz v. Mina GR no.
154207, April 27, 2007).

 Section 34(2), Rule 138 means that in a litigation, parties may personally do
everything during its progress -- from its commencement to its termination. When
they, however, act as their own attorneys, they are restricted to the same rules of
evidence and procedure as those qualified to practice law; otherwise, ignorance would
be unjustifiably rewarded. Individuals have long been permitted to manage, prosecute
 and defend their own actions; and when they do so, they are not considered to be in
the practice of law.
 One does not practice law by acting for himself any more than he practices
medicine by rendering first aid to himself (Maderada v. Judge Mediodea, A.M.
No. MTJ-02-1459, October 14, 2003).
Bar Matter No. 730, 13 June 1997

For the guidance of the bench and bar, we hold that a law student appearing before the
Regional Trial Court under Rule 138-A should at all times be accompanied by a supervising
lawyer.

 Threefold rationale for the Student Practice Rule

1. to ensure that there will be no miscarriage of justice as a result of incompetence

or inexperience of law students, who, not having as yet passed the test of professional
competence, are presumably not fully equipped to act a counsels on their own;

2. to provide a mechanism by which the accredited law school clinic may be able to
protect itself from any potential vicarious liability arising from some culpable action by
their law students; and

3. to ensure consistency with the fundamental principle that no person is allowed to

practice a particular profession without possessing the qualifications, particularly a
license, as required by law.

 The matter of allowing a law student to appear before the court unaccompanied by a
supervising lawyer cannot be left to the discretion of the presiding judge. The rule
clearly states that the appearance of the law student shall be under the direct control
and supervision of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited
by law schools. The rule must be strictly construed because public policy demands
that legal work should be entrusted only to those who possess tested qualifications,
are sworn to observe the rules and ethics of the legal profession and subject to
judicial disciplinary control.

The rule, however, is different if the law student appears before an inferior court, where
the issues and procedure are relatively simple. In inferior courts, a law student may
appear in his personal capacity without the supervision of a lawyer.

Thus, a law student may appear before an inferior court as an agent or friend of a party
without the supervision of a member of the bar.

CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE

UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of
any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the bar in good standing.

Signing of Pleadings

 Section 3, Rule 7: Signature and address. — Every pleading must be signed by the
party or counsel representing him, stating in either case his address which should not
be a post office box.

 The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the
pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is good
ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay.

 An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the court may, in its
discretion, allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the same
 was due to mere inadvertence and not intended for delay. Counsel who
deliberately files an unsigned pleading shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary
action.

Can a third year law student appear as private prosecutor in a criminal case and
within the jurisdiction of the inferior court? YES.
Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts by a non-lawyer is
allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law student. As succinctly clarified in Bar
Matter No. 730, by virtue of Section 34, Rule 138, a law student may appear, as an agent
or a friend of a party litigant, without the supervision of a lawyer before inferior courts.

The permission of the fiscal is not necessary for one to enter his appearance as private
prosecutor. In the first place, the law does not impose this condition. What the fiscal can
do, if he wants to handle the case personally is to disallow the private prosecutor's
participation, whether he be a lawyer or not, in the trial of the case. On the other hand, if
the fiscal desires the active participation of the private prosecutor, he can just manifest to
the court that the private prosecutor, with its approval, will conduct the prosecution of the
case under his supervision and control (Cantimbuhan v. Hon. Cruz, Jr., G.R. No. L-
51813-14, November 29, 1983).

 Sections 4 and 15, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court

SEC. 4. Who must prosecute criminal actions. — All criminal actions either commenced by
complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the
fiscal. xxx

SEC. 15. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action. — Unless the offended party
has waived the civil action or expressly reserved the right to institute it separately from
the criminal action, and subject to the provisions of section 4 hereof, he may intervene,
personally or by attorney, in the prosecution of the offense.

SOLICITATION OF LEGAL SERVICES

"The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, . . . is
the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to
trust. This cannot be forced but must be the outcome of character and conduct”(In re:
Tagorda, 53 Phil. 37 (1929)).

Sec. 27, Rule 138. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds.
- A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office,
grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to
practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to
do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

Canons 2, 3 and 8 of CPR 

CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN

EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE,
INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.

Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed.
 Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not
refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary
to safeguard the latter's rights.

Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to
solicit legal business.

Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily prescribed
unless the circumstances so warrant.

CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY
TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT
OF FACTS.

Rule 3.01 - 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.

Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall
be used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided
that the firm indicates in all its communications that said partner is deceased.

Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm and
his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice
law currently.

Rule 3.04 - A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the
mass media in anticipation of, or in return for publicity to attract legal business.

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS

AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID
HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.

Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or
favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or
neglectful counsel.

 The following elements distinguish the legal profession from a business:

1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which

one may attain the highest eminence without making much money;
2. A relation as an “officer of the court” to the administration of justice involving
thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability;
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and
unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and
encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients (Atty. Khan
Jr. v. Atty. Simbillo, A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003).

 Forms of Solicitation of Legal Services which Constitute Malpractice:

 Soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents
or brokers;
  Solicitation or obtaining of professional employment by any means of
communication (Geffen v. Moss, 53 Cal.App.3d 215, 125 Cal.Rptr. 687
[1975]).

 Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 which reads “A lawyer shall not,
for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any
man’s cause”.

 The Rule proscribes ambulance chasing as a measure to protect the community

from barratry and champerty.

 Ambulance chasing: the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by

an attorney, personally or through an agent in order to gain employment
(Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009).

 Champerty: an agreement between the party suing in a lawsuit (plaintiff)

and another person, usually an attorney, who agrees to finance and carry
the lawsuit in return for a percentage of the recovery (money won and paid.)
In Common Law this was illegal on the theory that it encouraged lawsuits.

 Contingent fee contracts are permitted in this jurisdiction because they

redound to the benefit of the poor client and the lawyer "especially in cases
where the client has meritorious cause of action, but no means with which to pay
for legal services unless he can, with the sanction of law, make a contract for a
contingent fee to be paid out of the proceeds of litigation. Oftentimes, the
contingent fee arrangement is the only means by which the poor clients can have
their rights vindicated and upheld."

 As long as the lawyer does not exert undue influence on his client, that no
fraud is committed or imposition applied, or that the compensation is clearly
not excessive as to amount to extortion, a contract for contingent fee is valid
and enforceable (Fabillo v. IAC G.R. No. L-68838 March 11, 1991).

 An acceptance fee is not a contingent fee, but is an absolute fee

arrangement which entitles a lawyer to get paid for his efforts regardless of
the outcome of the litigation (Yu v. Bondal, A.C. No. 5534, January 17,
2005).

 Acceptance fee refers to the charge imposed by the lawyer for merely accepting
the case. This is because once the lawyer agrees to represent a client, he is
precluded from handling cases of the opposing party based on the prohibition on
conflict of interest. Thus, he incurs an opportunity cost by merely accepting the
case of the client which is therefore indemnified by the payment of acceptance
fee.

 Since the acceptance fee only seeks to compensate the lawyer for the lost
opportunity, it is not measured by the nature and extent of the legal services
rendered (Dalupan v. Gacott, A.C. No. 5067, June 29, 2015).

 Solicitation or ambulance chasing, so-called, either directly or indirectly through the

services of runners or others, is conduct which is reprehensible and inimicable to the
traditions and best interests of the legal profession. Not only does it provoke derision
and disrespect in the eyes of the public, but it is an overreaching of the other
members of the profession who adhere to the standards fixed by canons of ethics and
the dictates of good conscience. To permit such conduct to continue undeterred could
only result in unsavory competitions and consequences materially detrimental to the
dignity and honor of the legal profession as a whole (In re Krasner 204 N.E.2d 10
(1965)).
 Solicitation of prospective litigants by nonprofit organizations that engage in litigation
as "a form of political expression" and "political association" constitutes expressive
and associational conduct entitled to First Amendment protection, as to which
government may regulate only "with narrow specificity.”
 The "collective activity undertaken to obtain meaningful access to the courts is a
fundamental right within the protection of the First Amendment" (In re Primus,
436 U.S. 412 (1978)).

 A lawyer's solicitation of business through direct, in-person communication with the

prospective clients has long been viewed as inconsistent with the profession's ideal of
the attorney-client relationship and as posing a significant potential for harm to the
prospective client.
 The State does not lose its power to regulate commercial activity deemed harmful
to the public simply because speech is a component of that activity.
 In addition to its general interest in protecting consumers and regulating
commercial transactions, the State bears a special responsibility for maintaining
standards among members of the licensed professions, especially members of the
Bar. Protection of the public from those aspects of solicitation that involve fraud,
undue influence, intimidation, overreaching, and other forms of "vexatious
conduct" is a legitimate and important state interest.
 The absence of explicit proof or findings of harm or injury to the person
solicited is immaterial (Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U.S. 447
(1978)).

 Inclusion of a government lawyer in a business card: While he may not be

actually and directly employed with the firm, the fact that his name appears on the
calling card as a partner in the Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig & Celera Law
Offices give the impression that he is connected therein and may constitute an act of
solicitation and private practice which is declared unlawful under Republic Act No.
6713 (Samonte v. Atty. Gatdula A.M. No. P-99-1292 [1999]).

 To Volunteer [legal] advice is malpractice: It is unprofessional for a lawyer to

volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of blood,
relationship or trust make it his duty to do so. Stirring up strife and litigation is
not only unprofessional, but it is indictable at common law (In re: Tagorda, 53 Phil.
37 (1929)).

 Solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications

or interview not warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional.
 It is equally unprofessional to procure business by indirection through touters of
any kind, whether allied real estate firms or trust companies advertising to secure
the drawing of deeds or wills or offering retainers in exchange for executorships
or trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer.
 Indirect advertisement for business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper
comments concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest
involved, the importance of the lawyer's position, and all other like self-laudation,
defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are intolerable (In
Re Tagorda, 53 Phil 37, 1929).

How to announce Legal Services

The solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation
to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in
a modest and decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar.

 Lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by publication in reputable law
lists or use of simple professional cards (Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, A.C. No.
6672, September 4, 2009).
 Acceptable law list: The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily
for that purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper, magazine,
trade journal or periodical which is published principally for other purposes. For
 that reason, a lawyer may not properly publish his brief biographical and
informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program.
Nor may a lawyer permit his name to be published in a law list the conduct,
management, or contents of which are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the
public or the bar, or to lower dignity or standing of the profession.
 Acceptable Publication: The use of simple signs stating the name or names of
the lawyers, the office and residence address and fields of practice, as well as
advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data, are permissible.
Even the use of calling cards is now acceptable.
 Telephone directory: He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone
directory but not under a designation of special branch of law (Atty. Khan Jr. v.
Atty. Simbillo, A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003).
 Uninformative fact: Somewhat more troubling is appellant's listing, in large
capital letters, that he was a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the
United States. The emphasis of this relatively uninformative fact is at least bad
taste (In re: R.M.J. 455 U.S. 191 [1982])

 Brief biographical and informative data. Such data must not be misleading and
may include only the following:
1) a statement of the lawyer’s name and the names of his professional associates;
2) addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses;
3) branches of law practiced;
4) date and place of birth and admission to the bar;
5) schools attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational
distinctions;
6) public or quasi-public offices;
7) posts of honor;
8) legal authorships;
9) legal teaching positions;
10) membership and offices in bar associations and committees thereof, in legal and
scientific societies and legal fraternities;
11) the fact of listings in other reputable law lists;
12) the names and addresses of references; and,
13) with their written consent, the names of clients regularly represented (Atty.
Khan Jr. v. Atty. Simbillo, A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003).

 Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of
publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of
effective service which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no
artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the
difference between a normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of
propaganda (Ulep vs. Legal Clinic 223 SCRA 378).

Law Firm Name

 No name not belonging to any of the partners or associates may be used in the firm
name for any purpose. In one case, we have ruled that the use of the firm name of a
foreign law firm is unethical because that firm is not authorized to practice law in this
jurisdiction. In this case, “The Law Firm of St. Thomas More and Associate Members”
is not a law firm in this jurisdiction or even in any other jurisdiction. A “St. Thomas
More and Associates” or STMA is in fact the socio-political ministry or the couples for
Christ, a Christian family-renewal community.

To appellate to the name of the lawyers “The Law Firm of St. Thomas More and
Associate Members” indeed appears misleading. It implies that St. Thomas More is a
Law Firm when in fact it is not it would also convey to the public the impression that
the lawyers are members of the law firm which does not exist. To the public, it would
seem that the purpose or intention of adding “The Law Firm of St. Thomas More and
Associates Members” is to bask in the name of a Saint, although that may not really,
be the purpose or intention of the lawyers. The appellation only tends to confuse the
public and in a way demean both the saints and the legal profession whose members
must depend on their own name and record and merit and not on the name/glory of
 other persons living or dead (PP v. Gonzalez, Jr., G.R. No. 139542 June 10,
2003).

 Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec.
1, Rule 138, Rules of Court). As admitted by the respondents in their memorandum,
Baker & McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois
with members and associates in 30 cities around the world. Respondents, aside from
being members of the Philippine bar, practicing under the firm name of Guerrero &
Torres, are members or associates of Baker & Mckenzie.

As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents' use of the firm name Baker &
McKenzie constitutes a representation that being associated with the firm they
could "render legal services of the highest quality to multinational business enterprises
and others engaged in foreign trade and investment“. This is unethical because Baker
& McKenzie is not authorized to practice law here (Dacanay v. Baker & McKenzie,
et. al. Adm. Case No. 2131 [1985]).

 In the year 1904 he made an arrangement with the defendant Ney, a practicing
attorney, to carry on business together, sending out a circular signed "Ney & Bosque,"
stating that they had established an office for the general practice of law in all the
courts of the Islands and that Bosque would devote himself especially to consultation
and office work relating to Spanish law. The paper was headed "Law Office - Ney &
Bosque. Juan G. Bosque, juris consulto español - C.W. Ney, abogado americano."

Since that time the defendant Bosque has not personally appeared in the courts, and
with one exception, occuring through an inadvertance, papers from the office were
signed not with the firm name alone nor with any designation of the firm as attorneys,
but with the words "Ney & Bosque - C.W. Ney, abogado.“

The firm circular in setting forth the establishment of an office for the general practice
of law in all the courts of the Islands, amounted to an assertion of his right and
purpose, not effectively qualified by the addition that he would devote himself to
consultation and office work relating to Spanish law (U.S. vs. Ney and Bosque, 8
Phil. 146 (1907)).

 Rule 3.01 - 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.

 Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name
shall be used.

Lending Money to Client

If the lawyer lends money to the client in connection with the client’s case, the lawyer in
effect acquires an interest in the subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its
outcome. Either of these circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery
rather than that of his client, or to accept a settlement which may take care of his interest
in the verdict to the prejudice of the client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to
the client’s cause (Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009).

Use of titles “Justice” and “Judge”

The use of titles such as “Justice” is reserved to incumbent and retired members of the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan and may not be used by any
other official of the Republic, including those given the rank of “Justice”. By analogy, the
title “Judge” should be reserved only to judges, incumbent and retired, and not to those
who were dishonorably discharged from the service.
The right to retain and use said title applies only to the aforementioned members of the
bench and no other, and certainly not to those who were removed or dismissed from the
judiciary, such as respondent.

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COMPENSATION FOR LEGAL SERVICES

CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES.

Rule 20.01 - A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his fees:
a) the time spent and the extent of the service rendered or required;
b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
c) the importance of the subject matter;
d) the skill demanded;
e) the probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the
proffered case;
f) the customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP
chapter to which he belongs;
g) the amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client
from the service;
h) the contingency or certainty of compensation;
i) the character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and
j) the professional standing of the lawyer.

Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in case of referral, with the consent of the client, be
entitled to a division of fees in proportion to the work performed and responsibility
assumed.

Rule 20.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and consent of the client,
accept any fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or forwarding allowance or
other compensation whatsoever related to his professional employment from anyone
other than the client.

Rule 20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his
compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or
fraud.

Bases for just compensation: With his capital consisting of his brains and with his skill
acquired at tremendous cost not only in money but in expenditure of time and energy, he
is entitled to the protection of any judicial tribunal against any attempt on the part of his
client to escape payment of his just compensation (Masmud v. NLRC, G.R. No. 183385,
February 13, 2009).

“Fee” v. “Lien”

 A lawyer must show that he is or will become entitled to a fee before he is entitled to
a lien (The Industry Network System, Inc. v. Armstrong World Industries,
Inc. 54 F.3d 150 (1995)).
 Acceptance fee: not a contingent fee, but is an absolute fee arrangement which
entitles a lawyer to get paid for his efforts regardless of the outcome of the
litigation (Yu v. Bondal, A.C. No. 5534, January 17, 2005).
 Suits to collect fees should be avoided and should be filed only when
circumstances force lawyers to resort to it (Pineda v. Atty. De Jesus, et. al.
G.R. No. 155224 August 23, 2006).

 Professional fee is subject to court’s regulatory power: Upon taking his

attorney’s oath as an officer of the court, a lawyer submits himself to the authority of
the courts to regulate his right to charge professional fees.
 Purpose:
 To guarantee that the fees a lawyer charges and receives remain reasonable
and commensurate with the services rendered; and
  To maintain the dignity and integrity of the legal profession to which he
belongs (Rayos v. Atty. Hernandez, G.R. No. 169079, February 12,
2007).

Rule 138
Sec. 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees. - An attorney shall be entitled
to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his
services, with a view:
1) to the importance of the subject matter of the controversy,
2) the extent of the services rendered, and
3) the professional standing of the attorney.

No court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper
compensation, but may disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on its own
professional knowledge. A written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid
therefor unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.

SEC. 25. Unlawful retention of client’s funds; contempt — When an attorney unjustly
retains in his hands money of his client after it has been demanded he may be punished
for contempt as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in his official transactions; but
proceedings under this section shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution.

Rule on Division of Legal Fees

Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with
persons not licensed to practice law, except:

a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the
latter's death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to
persons specified in the agreement; or

b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased

lawyer; or

c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan even
if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit sharing agreement.

 "1. On all commission or attorney’s fees that we shall receive from our clients by
virtue of the collection that we shall be able to effect on their accounts, we shall divide
fifty-fifty. Likewise you are entitled to commission, 50/50 from domestic, inheritance
and commercial from our said clients or in any criminal cases where they are
involved.”

We hold that the said agreement is void because it was tantamount to malpractice
which is "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers" (Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court).
Malpractice ordinarily refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed by a
lawyer. Section 27 gives a special and technical meaning to the term "malpractice"
(Act No. 2828, amending sec. 21 of Act No. 190) (Tan Tek Beng v. David, A.C. No.
1261. December 29, 1983).

CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF

HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS PROFESSION.

Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for
or from the client.

Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his
own and those of others kept by him.
 Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or
upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much
thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving
notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on
all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules
of Court.
Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client's
interest are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice.
Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he
has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.

 Rule 16.04 is intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence
over the client (Junio v. Atty. Grupo, A.C. No. 5020, December 18, 2001).

May an attorney who was engaged on a contingent fee basis may, in order to
collect his fees, prosecute an appeal despite his client's refusal to appeal the
decision of the trial court?

NO. Therefore a lawyer is not entitled to his fee if the payment of the same is contingent
and dependent upon the success of the suit (Leviste v. CA, G.R. No. L-29184 [1989]).

The client has also an undoubted right to compromise a suit without the intervention of his
lawyer.

Though there is a valid agreement for the payment to the attorney of a large proportion of
the sum recovered in case of success this does not give the attorney such an interest in
the cause of action that it prevents plaintiff from compromising the suit (Rustia v. The
Judge of First Instance of Batangas, G.R. No. L-19695 November 17, 1922).
 LIMITATION: A client has always the right to settle his cause of action and stop
litigation at any stage of the proceeding, subject, however, to the right of the attorney
to receive compensation for services rendered (Aro v. The Hon. Nañawa, G.R. No.
L-24163 [1969]).

Quantum Meruit
The principle of quantum meruit (as much as he deserves) may be a basis for
determining the reasonable amount of attorney’s fees.

 Quantum meruit is a device to prevent undue enrichment based on the equitable

postulate that it is unjust for a person to retain benefit without paying for it. It is
applicable even if there was a formal written contract for attorney’s fees as long as
the agreed fee was found by the court to be unconscionable (Atty. Orocio v.
Angulan et. al., G.R. No. 179892-93, January 30, 2009).

 Factors for application: In fixing a reasonable compensation for the services

rendered by a lawyer on the basis of quantum meruit, factors such as the time spent,
and extent of services rendered; novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
importance of the subject matter; skill demanded; probability of losing other
employment as a result of acceptance of the proferred case; customary charges for
similar services; amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the
client; certainty of compensation; character of employment; and professional standing
of the lawyer, may be considered (Atty. Orocio v. Angulan et. al., G.R. No.
179892-93, January 30, 2009).

 When quantum meruit authorized

1) there is no express contract for payment of attorney's fees agreed upon between
the lawyer and the client;
2) when although there is a formal contract for attorney's fees, the fees stipulated
are found unconscionable or unreasonable by the court; and
3) when the contract for attorney's fee's is void due to purely formal defects of
execution;
4) when the counsel, for justifiable cause, was not able to finish the case to its
conclusion;
5) when lawyer and client disregard the contract for attorney's fees (Rilloza, et. al.
v. Eastern Telecommunications Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 104600 [1999]).