4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly shall be taken away or be withheld from his or her clients, save by the rules of law [19] pursuant to Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Ethics: Canon 15. How far a lawyer may go in supporting a client's cause Nothing operates more certainly to create or to foster popular prejudice against lawyers as a class, and to deprive the profession of that full measure of public esteem and confidence which belongs to the proper discharge of its duties than does the false claim. often set up by the unscrupulous for the defense of questionable transactions, that it is the duty of the lawyer to do whatever may enable him to succeed in winning his client's cause. It is improper for a lawyer to assert in argument his personal belief in his client's innocence or in the justice of his cause. The lawyer owes "entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability," to the end that nothing be taken or be withheld from him, save by the rules of law, legally applied. No fear of judicial disfavor or public popularity should restrain him from the full discharge of his duty. In the judicial forum the client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land, and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. But it is steadfastly to be borne in mind that the great trust of the lawyer is to be performed within and not without the bounds of the law. The office of attorney does not permit, much less does it demand of him for any client, violation of law or any manner of fraud or chicanery. He must obey his own conscience and not that of his client. (Emphasis supplied) Had respondent been so minded to notify complainant of his desire not to file a motion for reconsideration, or at least of this Court's adverse ruling, complainant could have engaged the services of another lawyer to protect his interest in the case. We, thus, underscore respondent's duty to inform his client of the status of the case and the options the latter had under the circumstances and give him sufficient time to make a choice. To dispense with the filing of the motion for reconsideration altogether as he deemed fit, is not the "utmost diligence" required of a lawyer in rendering services to a client. When respondent withheld information on the denial of complainant's petition before the Court, at least two (2) opportunities got lost, (1) complainant's opportunity to persuade the Court regarding the merits of his claim on reconsideration, and (2) the Court's opportunity to take a second hard look on the merits of the claim and rectify reversible error, if any. In Toquib v. Tomol, Jr.,[20] the Court suspended Atty. Valeriano Tomol, Jr. for violating Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics when he failed to inform his client of the adverse decision he duly received. Copy of the decision dated May 25, 1961 was served upon Atty. Tomol through his representative on June 7, 1961. He did not as much as notify his client of the adverse ruling and allowed it to lapse into finality. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66208 7/10