Duty To Keep The Client Fully Informed

DUTY TO
KEEP THE
CLIENT
FULLY
INFORMED
1. A LAWYER SHALL KEEP THE CLIENT INFORMED OF THE STATUS
OF HIS CASE AND SHALL RESPOND WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME
TO THE CLIENT’S REQUEST FOR INFORMATION.
2. ADVISE PROMPTLY THE CLIENT OF ANY IMPORTANT

INFORMATION.
3. NOTIFY THE CLIENT OF AN ADVERSE DECISION WITHIN

THE PERIOD TO APPEAL TO ENABLE THE CLIENT TO
DECIDE WHETHER TO SEEK APPELLATE REVIEW.
Failure of the lawyer to inform the client of the scheduled
pre-trial conference where the client’s presence is required,
resulting in the client’s declaration as in default or in the
non-suiting of the client as the case maybe is gross
negligence for which the lawyer maybe liable
administratively or damages, should the client be
prejudiced thereby.
DOCTRIN
E OF
IMPUTED
KNOWLE
DGE
Imputed knowledge means the knowledge
attributed to a party because of his/her position, or
his/her relationship with or responsibility for
another party. Such knowledge is attributed for the
reason that the facts in issue were open to discovery
and it was that person's duty to apprise him/her of
such facts.
Doctrine of imputed knowledge acquired
by an attorney during the time that he is
acting within the scope of his authority is
imputed to the client.
The general rule is that the principal is
chargeable with and bound by
the knowledge of or notice to his agent,
received while the latter was acting as such.
SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SE
RVICES V. NLRC, GR NO. 161757, 2006-01-25
Facts: Petitioner, Sunace International Management Services (Sunace), deployed to
Taiwan Divina A. Montehermozo (Divina) as a domestic helper under a 12-month
contract effective February 1, 1997. The deployment was with the assistance of a
Taiwanese broker, Edmund Wang, President of Jet Crown International Co., Ltd.
After her 12-month contract expired on February 1, 1998, Divina continued working for
her Taiwanese employer, Hang Rui Xiong, for two more years, after which she returned
to the Philippines on February 4, 2000.
Shortly after her return or on February 14, 2000, Divina filed a complaint before the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against Sunace, one Adelaide Perez, the
Taiwanese broker, and the employer-foreign principal alleging that she was jailed for
three months and that she was underpaid.
Reacting to Divina's Position Paper, Sunace filed on April 25, 2000 an
"ANSWER TO COMPLAINANT'S POSITION PAPER" alleging that Divina's 2-
year extension of her contract was without its knowledge and consent,
hence, it had no liability attaching to any claim arising therefrom, and
Divina in fact executed a Waiver/Quitclaim and Release of Responsibility
and an Affidavit of Desistance.
The Labor Arbiter, rejected Sunace's claim that the extension of Divina's
contract for two more years was without its knowledge and consent.
On appeal of Sunace, the NLRC, by Resolution of April 30, 2002,

affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision.
Sunace elevated the case to the Court of Appeals but the petition was
DENIED with dictum of “As agent of its foreign principal, [Sunace] cannot
profess ignorance of such an extension as obviously, the act of its
principal extending [Divina's] employment contract necessarily bound it.”
Issue: Is Sunace solidarily liable with Divina, as to the presumption of

imputed knowledge?
Ruling: The theory of imputed knowledge ascribes the knowledge of the

agent, Sunace, to the principal, employer Xiong, not the other way
around. The knowledge of the principal-foreign employer cannot,
therefore, be imputed to its agent Sunace.
There being no substantial proof that Sunace knew of and consented to be
bound under the 2-year employment contract extension, it cannot be said to
be privy thereto. As such, it and its "owner" cannot be held solidarily liable
for any of Divina’s claims arising from the 2-year employment extension. As
the New Civil Code provides,
Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns, and heirs,
except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are
not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law.
Furthermore, as Sunace correctly points out, there was an implied
revocation of its agency relationship with its foreign principal when, after
the termination of the original employment contract, the foreign principal
directly negotiated with Divina and entered into a new and separate
employment contract in Taiwan.
Exceptions to the theory of imputed
knowledge.
“The conduct and dealings of the agent are such as
to raise a clear presumption that he will not
communicate to the principal the facts in
controversy.”

DUTY WHEN
THE COURT
INTENDS TO
PLEAD
GUILTY
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.
If the client admitted his or her guilt to the lawyer,

the obligation of the lawyer is to not mislead the court.
DUTY OF THE DEFENSE COUNSEL WHEN
ACCUSED INTENDS TO PLEAD GUILTY
 Fully acquaint himself with the records and surrounding circumstances of
the case;
Confer with the accused and obtain from him his account of what had
happened;
Advise him of his constitutional rights;
Thoroughly explain to him the import of a guilty plea and the inevitable
conviction that will follow;
See to it that the prescribed procedure to the administration of justice is
strictly followed.
PEOPLE VS. ELPIDIO PASTOR G.R. NO.140208
MARCH 12, 2002
Facts: On April 8, 1999, accused-appellant was arraigned and, with the assistance
of PAO lawyer Atty. Perpetuo Magallano, entered a plea of not guilty. During the
hearing on June 23, 1999, Atty. Adriano Damalerio of PAO manifested that after a
conference with accused-appellant, the latter had decided to change his plea from
Not Guilty to Guilty. The trial court ordered that the previous plea of not guilty be
set aside and that accused-appellant be arraigned anew.
On August 30, 1999, the court a quo rendered judgment finding accused-appellant

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of incestuous rape. It nevertheless
recommended the commutation of the sentence from death to reclusion
perpetua by reason of the remorseful attitude exhibited by accused-appellant.
In appellant's brief, accused-appellant avers that the trial court gravely
erred in not applying the guidelines for a plea of guilty to a capital offense
provided in Section 3, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Specifically, it is contended that the trial court failed to conduct a searching
inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of
the accused-appellant's plea, pursuant to the ruling laid down in the cases
of People vs. Bello and People vs. Dayot.
SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. - When the

accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea and shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt
and the precise degree of his culpability. The accused may present evidence
in his behalf."
Issue: Whether the RTC gravely erred in not applying the guidelines for
a plea of guilty to a capital offense.
Ruling: In the case at bar, the records show that the trial court
miserably failed to discharge its duty to conduct a "searching inquiry”.
1. the searching inquiry must determine whether the plea of guilt was
based on a free and informed judgment. Hence, it must focus on (1) the
voluntariness of the plea, and (2) the full comprehension of the
consequences of the plea.13 Although there is no definite and concrete
rule as to how a trial judge must conduct a "searching inquiry," we have
held that the following guidelines should be observed:
1. Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was brought into the custody of
the law; (b) whether he had the assistance of a competent counsel during the
custodial and preliminary investigations; and (c) under what conditions he was
detained and interrogated during the investigations. This is intended to rule out
the possibility that the accused has been coerced or placed under a state of
duress either by actual threats of physical harm coming from malevolent quarters
or simply because of the judge's intimidating robes.
2. Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether he had conferred

with, and completely explained to, the accused the meaning and consequences of
a plea of guilty.
3. Elicit information about the personality profile of the accused, such as his age,
socio-economic status, and educational background, which may serve as a
trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and informed plea of guilty.
4. Inform the accused the exact length of imprisonment or nature of the penalty
under the law and the certainty that he will serve such sentence. For not
infrequently, an accused pleads guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment or upon
bad advice or because of promises of the authorities or parties of a lighter penalty
should he admit guilt or express remorse. It is the duty of the judge to ensure that
the accused does not labor under these mistaken impressions because a plea of
guilty carries with it not only the admission of authorship of the crime proper but
also of the aggravating circumstances attending it, that increase punishment.
5. Inquire if the accused knows the crime with which he is charged and fully explain
to him the elements of the crime which is the basis of his indictment. Failure of the
court to do so would constitute a violation of his fundamental right to be informed
of the precise nature of the accusation against him and a denial of his right to due
process.
5. Inquire if the accused knows the crime with which he is charged and fully
explain to him the elements of the crime which is the basis of his
indictment. Failure of the court to do so would constitute a violation of his
fundamental right to be informed of the precise nature of the accusation
against him and a denial of his right to due process.
6. All questions posed to the accused should be in a language known and

understood by the latter.
7. The trial judge must satisfy himself that the accused, in pleading guilty,
is truly guilty. The accused must be required to narrate the tragedy or
reenact the crime or furnish its missing details.
In the case at bar, the records will show that the trial court miserably
failed to discharge its duty to conduct a "searching inquiry,"
Q: Do you know that by pleading guilty you may be sentenced to a

death penalty?
A: I do not know what will be the outcome of my pleading
guilty, Your Honor.

Given the vagueness of accused-appellant's answer, the trial court went
no further to find out whether or not he fully comprehended the
consequences of his plea. In addition, accused-appellant was not
categorically advised that his plea of guilt would not under any
circumstance affect or reduce his sentence.
2. The second requirement prescribes that the trial court must order
the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant and the
precise degree of his culpability beyond reasonable doubt. It must be
stressed that under the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, a conviction
in capital offenses cannot rest alone on a plea of guilt. The prosecution
evidence must be sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction
independently of the plea of guilty.
3. Under the third requirement, the court must ask the accused if he
desires to present evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if he
desires. In the present case, there is nothing in the records to show
that accused-appellant was informed, either by his counsel or by the
court, of his right to present evidence, if he so desires.
CLIENT
WITH ZEAL
AND
WITHIN
THE
BOUNDS OF
LAW
CANON 19: A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT
WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW
Rule 19.01 – A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threatening
to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.
Rule 19.02 – A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the course of
the representation, perpetuated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call
upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate the
relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court.
Rule 19.03 – A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the
case.

Duty To Keep The Client Fully Informed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Duty To Keep The Client Fully Informed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Duty To Keep The Client Fully Informed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DUTY TO

2. ADVISE PROMPTLY THE CLIENT OF ANY IMPORTANT

3. NOTIFY THE CLIENT OF AN ADVERSE DECISION WITHIN

On appeal of Sunace, the NLRC, by Resolution of April 30, 2002,

Issue: Is Sunace solidarily liable with Divina, as to the presumption of

Ruling: The theory of imputed knowledge ascribes the knowledge of the

If the client admitted his or her guilt to the lawyer,

On August 30, 1999, the court a quo rendered judgment finding accused-appellant

SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. - When the

2. Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether he had conferred

6. All questions posed to the accused should be in a language known and

Q: Do you know that by pleading guilty you may be sentenced to a

You might also like