Legalprof Syllabus.docx

Legal Profession New Era University 2016-2017 “The honorable peculiarities of Filipino English” by Lisandro Claudio http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/200340/opinion/blogs/thehonorable-peculiarities-of-filipino-english http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/ftips/type.pdf http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/ax_these_terms_from_you r_legal_writing Research: Etymology of “attorney”; “to attorn” Difference between the ff.: (Attorney, Barrister, Solicitor) Origin of the word “abogado” Origin of the phrase “take up the cudgels” Game of Thrones Season 01 Episode 06; Season 04 Ep. 06 & 08 The Legal Profession In the matter of the Integration of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, January 9, 1973 Cayetano v. Monsod, GR 100113, September 3, 1991 (Note: See also dissenting opinion of Justice Padilla) Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Bar Matter (BM) No. 553, June 17, 1993 Rules of Court (ROC), Rule 138, Section 1 In re: Almacen, 31 SCRA 562, (1970) In re: Cunanan 94 Phil 534 (1954) BAR MATTER (BM) NO. 702 May 12, 1994 Alawi v. Alauya, A.M. SDC-97-2-P, February 24, 1997 Cui v. Cui, 120 Phil. 729 Research: When may a non-lawyer practice law Requirements for admission to practice Citizenship 1987 Constitution, Art. XII, Sec. 14 ROC, Rule 138, Sec. 2 RA 9225 In Re Arthur Castillo Reyes (1993) B.M. 1678, Dacanay (2007) B.M. 2112, In re: Muneses (2012) Residency Rule 138, Sec. 2 Age Rule 138, Sec. 2 Good moral character Narag v. Narag, 291 SCRA 451, June 29, 1998 Olbes v. Deciembre, 457 SCRA 341 In re: Argosino, A.M. No. 712 July 13, 1995; B.M. No. 712 March 19, 1997 Education ROC, Rule 138, Sec. 6 Republic Act No. 7662 Legal Education Act Rule 138, Sec. 5 – 16 In re: Telesforo Diao, A.C. No. 244 March 29 (1963) In re: Application of Adriano M. Hernandez, Sept. 6, 1993 Bar Matter 1153 Oath Rule 138, Sec. 17 In re: Argosino, supra Olbes v. Deciembre, supra Qualifications for practice Rule 138, Sec. 1 Exceptions: Rule 138, Sec. 34 Rule 115, Sec 1 (c) Prohibition from practice Art VI, Sec. 14; Art.VIII, Sec. 15; Art.IX-A, Sec. 2; Art. IX, Sec. 8 (2) (1987 Constitution) RA 7160, Sec. 90-91 Rule 148, Sec. 35 People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-19450 May 27, 1965 RA 910, Sec 1 Duties of a lawyer Rule 138, Sec. 20 Research: What are the “four-fold duties” of a lawyer, counsel de oficio, counsel de parte See also: B.M. No. 1132, Nov. 12, 2000; B.M. No. 1922, June 3, 2008 Code of Professional Responsibility Canon 1 Research: Barratry, Ambulance Chasing Barrios v. Martinez, A.C. No. 4585. November 12, 2004 Ui v. Bonifacio, A.C. No. 3319. June 8, 2000 Figueroa v. Barranco, SBC Case No. 519. July 31, 1997 Cordova v. Cordova, 179 SCRA 680 (1989) Guevarra v. Eala, 529 SCRA 1 (2007) Soriano v. Dizon, A.C. No. 6792, January 25, 2006 Calub v. Suller, A.C. No. 1474, January 28, 2000 Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 416 SCRA 465 Saburnido v. Madrono, 366 SCRA 1 (2001) Castaneda v. Ago, 65 SCRA 505 (1975)

Canon 2 In the Matter of: Svitlana E. Sangary http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/ca/SangarySvitlana.pdf http://documents.latimes.com/judges-recommendation-lawyer-svitlanasangary/ Ledesma v. Climaco, 57 SCRA 473 (1974) See ROC Rule 141, Sec. 18; Rule 3, Sec. 21 History of suits in forma pauperis Algura v. The City of Naga (G.R. No.150135, October 30, 2006) Canon 3 Khan v. Simbillo, 409 SCRA 299 (2003) In re Tagorda, 53 Phil 37 (1929) Ulep v. Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378 (1993) Assignment: Submit a photocopy of a page from a law list Dacanay v. Baker and McKenzie, 136 SCRA 349 (1985) See: http://www.bakermckenzie.com/Philippines/ Samonte v. Gatdula, 303 SCRA 756 (1999) Cruz v. Salva, 105 Phil 1151 (1959) Canon 4 Re: Request Of National Committee On Legal Aid To Exempt Legal Aid Clients From Paying Filing, Docket And Other Fees, August 28, 2009 Canon 5 B.M. 850, October 2, 2001 (MCLE) See also: Who are exempt B.M. No. 1922, June 3, 2008 Canon 6 Vitriolo v. Dasig, 400 SCRA 172 (2003) People v. Pineda, 20 SCRA 748 (1967) Collantes vs Romeren 200 SCRA 584 (1991) Huyssen vs Gutierrez 485 SCRA 244 (2006) Misamin v. San Juan, 72 SCRA 491 (1976) See also: RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Sec. 3(d); RA 6713 7(b) PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, 455 SCRA 526 (2005) Canon 7 RA 6397 In re 1989 Elections of the IBP, 178 SCRA 398 (1989) Santos v. Llamas, 322 SCRA 529 (2000) Letter of Atty. CecilioArevalo, 458 SCRA 209 (2005) Foodsphere v. Mauricio, A.C. No. 7199 (22 July 2009) Young v. Batuegas, 403 SCRA 123 [2003]). In re Parazo, 82 Phil. 230 [1948]) Zaguirre v. Castillo, 398 SCRA 659 [2003]: Tapucar v. Tapucar, 293 SCRA 331 [1998]: Canon 8 Camacho v. Pagulayan et al (A.C. No. 4807, March 22, 2000) Reyes vs. Chiong, Jr., 405 SCRA 212 (2003) Laput v. Remotigue A.M. No. 219 (1962) Canon 9 Aguirre v. Rana 403 SCRA 342 (2003) Alawi v. Alauya, supra Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc, supra People v. Villanueva, supra Rule 138, Sec. 1, Rules of Court Aguirre v. Rana, supra OCA v. Ladaga, 350 SCRA 326 Rule 138, Sec. 34, Rules of Court in relation to People v. Sin Ben, 98 Phil. 138 (1955) Guballa v. Caguioa, 78 SCRA 302 Eco v. Rodriguez, 107 Phil. 612 (1960) Robinson v. Villafuerte, 18 Phil 121 (1911) Amalgamated Laborers Assn. v. CIR. 22 SCRA 1266 (1968) Tan TekBeng v. David. 128 SCRA 389 (1983) Halili v. CIR. 136 SCRA 113 (1965)) Five J Taxi v. NLRC, 235 SCRA 556 Canon 10 Cobb Perez v. Lantin, 24 SCRA 291 (1968) Young v. Batuegas, supra COMELEC v. Noynay, 292 SCRA 254 (1992) Rule 138, Sec. 20 (d) in relation to Garcia v. Francisco 220 SCRA 512 (1993) Gomez v. Presiding Judge 249 SCRA 432 Canon 11 In re Sotto 82 Phil 595 (1949) De Gracia v. Warden of Makati, G.R. No. L-42032, January 9, 1976 Buenaseda v. Flavier, 226 SCRA 645 (1993) In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 Sangalang v. IAC, 177 SCRA 87 Go v. Abrogar, 485 SCRA 457 1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 6. Visit http://oca.judiciary.gov.ph/ Maceda v. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464 (1993) Ang v Castro, 136 SCRA 453 (May 15, 1985) Canon 12 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec 6 Rule 138, Sec 20(g) Villasis v. Court of Appeals, 60 SCRA 120 Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 RULES OF COURT, RULE 7, SEC. 5: Achacoso v. Court of Appeals, 51 SCRA 424, 1973 Manila Pest Control v. WCC, 25 SCRA 700 (1968) Art. 184, Revised Penal Code

US v. Ballena, 18 Phil. 382 Rule 132, Sec. 3 PD1829-Penalizing Obstruction of Justice PNB v. UyTengPiao, 57 Phil 337 (1932) Canon 13 Austria v. Masaquel, 20 SCRA 1247(1967) Nestle Phil. v. Sanchez 154 SCRA 542 (1987) In re de Vera 385 SCRA 285 (2003) Cruz v. Salva, 105 Phil 1151 (1951) RE: Request Radio – TV Coverage, A.M. No. 01-4-03-S.C. June 29, 2001 Magsalang v. People, G.R. No. 90083 October 4, 1990 Canon 14 Rule 138, Sec. 20 (i) Rule 138, Sec. 20 (h) Rule 138, Sec. 31 P.D. 543 (1974) RA 6033 RA 6034 RA 6035 RA 9999 BM 2012, Feb. 10, 2009 Ledesma v. Climaco, 57 SCRA 473 (1974) Blanza v. Arcangel, 21 SCRA 1 (1967) Algura v. The City of Naga, supra Also read Rule 2.02 Canon 15 Revised Penal Code, Art. 209. Rule 130, Section 24 (b) of the RRC) People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 115439-41. July 16, 1997 Regala v. Sandiganbayan, 262 SCRA 122 (1996) Dee v. CA 176 SCRA 651(1989) Nakpil v. Valdez, 286 SCRA 758 (1998) Canon 16 Research: Privileged communication Ordonio v. Eduarte, 207 SCRA 229 (1992) Rubias v. Batiller, G.R. No. L- 35702 May 29, 1973 Art. 1491, NCC Tuazon v. Tuazon, 88 Phil. 42 Daroy v. Legaspi, A.M. No. 936 July 25, 1975 Rule 138, Sec. 37 Businos v. Ricafort, 283 SCRA 40 (1997) Vda de Caina v. Victoriano, G.R. No. L-12905, February 26, 1959 Research: Difference between Retaining and Charging lien Barnachea v. Quicho, 399 SCRA 1 (2003) Canon 17 Cantiller v. Potenciano, 180 SCRA 246 (1989) Santiago v. Fojas, 248 SCRA 68 (1995) Stemmerik v. Mas AC No. 8010 (2009) Canon 18 Islas v.Platon, 47 Phil. 162 Legarda v. CA, G. R. No. 94457, March 18, 1991 Uy v Tansinin [AC No. 8252 (July 21, 2009) Garcia V. Bala [A.C. No. 5039(2005)]. Negligence of counsel Mapuav.Mendoza, 45 Phil. 424(1993) Filinvest Land v.CA, 182 SCRA 664(1990) Joven-De Jesus v. PNB, 12 SCRA 447 People v. Cawili, 34 SCRA 728(1970) Gaerlan v. Bernal, G.R. No.L-4049, Jan. 28, 1952 Agravante v. Patriarca, 183 SCRA 113(1990)) Ventura v.Santos, 59 Phil. 123(1993) Alcoriza v. Lumakang, Adm. Case No. 249, November 21, 1978) Capulong v. Alino, 22 SCRA 491(1968) Instances where the client is not bound by counsel’s negligence: Republic v. Arro, 150 SCRA630(1987) Legarda v. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 418(1991) PHHC v. Tiongco, 12 SCRA 471(1964) Escudero v. Dulay, 158 SCRA 69, 78(1988) Republic vs. Arro, et al., Supra Blanza v. Arcangel, A.C. No. 492 September 5, 1967 Canon 19 Rule 138, Sec. 20(d) Rural Bank of Calape Inc. vs. Florido, A.C. No. 5736 June 18, 2010 Pena vs. Aparicio, A.C. No. 7298 Rule 138, Sec. 23 Millare vs. Montero, A.C. No. 3283 July 13, 1995 Canon 20 Rule 138, Sec. 23 Corpuz v. CA, G.R. No. L-40424, June 30, 1980 Albano v. Coloma, 21 SCRA 411 (1967) Traders Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent v. NLRC, G.R. No. 120592, March 14, 1997 Rule 138, Sec, 24 Definition of amicus curiae, counsel de parte, counsel de oficio Rule 138, Sec. 32 Nocom vs. Camerino, et al., G.R. No. 182984 (February 10, 2009) Canon 21 Rule 138, 20(e). Rule 130, sec. 21(b). Art. 209 Revised Penal Code. Genato v. Silapan 453 Phil. 910 (2003) Hilado v. David 83 Phil 569 (1949)

Canon 22 Montano vs. IBP 358 SCRA 1 (2001) Obando vs. Figueras, 322 SCRA 148 (2000) Liabilities of lawyers Kinds of contempt, supra Power to discipline errant lawyers See ROC Rule 138, S. 27 139-B, S. 16 Quingwa v. Puno, Admin. Case No. 398, Feb. 28, 1967 Amaya v. Tecson, 450 SCRA 510 Aquino v. Mangaoang, 425 SCRA 572 In Re: Ruste, 70 Phil 243 Reinstatement, basis - 1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5). Cui v. Cui, 11 SCRA 755 In re: Adriatico, 17 Phil 324 Prudential Bank v. Benjamin Grecia, 192 SCRA 381 Yap Tan v. Sabandal, 170 SCRA 207 In re: Rusiana, 56 SCRA 240 In re: Rovero, 101 SCRA 803 The Judiciary Code of Judicial Conduct Bangalore Principles http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round4/Bang alore_principles_EN.pdf Qualifications Sec. 7 (1), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution BP 129 Canon 1 OCA vs. Floro, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460 March 31, 2006 People v. Veneracion, 249 SCRA 244 Go v. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 165 Tahil v. Eisma, 64 SCRA 378 Padilla v. Zantua, 237 SCRA 670 Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. A.M. No. 08-811-CA Tan v. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-04- 1563, September 8, 2004 Dimatulac et al v. Villon, 297 SCRA 679 Canon 2 Romero v. Valle, A.M. No. R-192-RTJ January 9, 1987 Castillo v. Calanog, A.M. No. RTJ-90-447 December 16, 1994 Macalintal v. Teh, 280 SCRA 623 Canon 3 Parayno v. Meneses, 231 SCRA 807 Rule 137, ROC Lorenzo v. Marquez, Adm. Matter No. MTJ-87-123 June 27, 1988 Canon 4 Arban v. Borja, A.M. No R-281-RTJ August 26, 1986 Saburnido v. Madrono, Sept. 26, 2001 Sison v. Caoibes, Jr. A.M. No. RTJ-03-1771, May 27 2004 Ompoc vs. Judge Torres, A.M. No. MTJ-86-11, 17 Sept. 1989 Canon 5 In Re Judge Rojas, A.M. No. 98-6-185-RTC. October 30, 1998 In Re: Aguas, G.R. No. 12, August 8, 1901 Canon 6 Longboan v. Polig, A.M. No. 704-RTJ June 14, 1990 Abad v. Bleza A.M. No. 227-RTJ October 13, 1986 Maquiran v. Grageda, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1888. February 11, 2005 De la Cruz v. Pascua, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1461. June 26, 2001 Liabilities of Judges Basis, 1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Section 11 Raquiza vs. Castaneda, 82 SCRA 235 Galangi v. Macli-ing, Adm. Matter No. 75-DJ, Jan. 17, 1978 Lapena v. Collado, 76 SCRA 82 Secretary of Justice v. Marcos, 76 SCRA 301 In re: Impeachment of Horilleno, 43 Phil. 212 In re: Climaco, 55 SCRA 107 Grounds for Discipline Montemayor v. Collado, 107 SCRA 258 Barja v. Beracio, 74 SCRA 355 Haw Tay v. Singayao, 154 SCRA 107 Lecaroz v. Garcia, A.M. No. 2271-MJ September 18, 1981 Balagot v. Opinion, 195 SCRA 429 Araza v. Reyes, 64 SCRA 347 In re: Paulin, 101 SCRA 605 Soriano v. Mabbayad, 67 SCRA 385 Monsanto v. Palarca, 126 SCRA 45 Anguluan v. Taguba, 93 SCRA 179 Espayos v. Lee, 89 SCRA 478

A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC See notarial rules as amended

http://www.lawphil.net/courts/supreme/am/am_02_8_13_sc_2008.html

Research: Difference between “acknowledgement” and “jurat” See also: RA 9406 Lapena vs. Marcos Adm. Matter No. 1969-MJ Abadilla vs. Tabiliran, Jr., Adm. Matter MTC-92-716