"The relationship between the lawyer and the client is rooted in trust."
Every litigant is entitled to a counsel of his or her choice. The litigant may retain the services of a lawyer based on the latter’s known competence and expertise in a field of law. The lawyer’s professional fees may also be a factor for the litigant to decide to hire the lawyer.
Once created, the relationship between the lawyer and the client is rooted in trust. Without the consent of the client, the lawyer cannot be examined regarding any communication of the client to him or advice given by him in view of or in the course of the professional employment (Section 24 (b), Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendment to the Revised Rules on Evidence).
The right of an accused to counsel is guaranteed by the Constitution. This right is granted to minimize the imbalance in the adversarial system where the accused is pitted against the awesome prosecutory machinery of the state (Criminal Procedure, Tranquil Salvador III citing People v. Serzo, Jr., G.R. No. 118435, page 256).
I was approached to handle a case less than a decade ago when a relative told me: “You are young and can be damaged if you decide to represent this client who is being prosecuted by the government.” Despite the discouraging words, I still decided to handle the case. This is the reality faced by the accused and his counsel in cases against the government, it is like swimming against the tide.
There can be no fair hearing, in a criminal case, unless the accused is given the opportunity to be heard by counsel. The right to due process enshrined in the Constitution is intertwined with the right to counsel. Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the science of the law (Criminal Procedure, Tranquil Salvador III citing People v. Holgado, 85 Phil. 852, page 256).
He may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his innocence. And this can happen more easily to persons who are ignorant or uneducated (Criminal Procedure, Tranquil Salvador III citing People v. Holgado, page 257). He may retain a counsel of his choice but if he cannot afford one the court may appoint a counsel de officio.
The right to counsel [in a criminal case] covers the entire period beginning from custodial investigation until rendition of the judgment (Criminal Procedure, Tranquil Salvador III citing People v. Jose, G.R. No. L-28232, 06 February 1971, page 258). Any person in the custody of a law enforcement or peace officer shall have the right to remain silent and to have competent counsel of his own choice (Section 12 (1), Article III of the Constitution).
If the person under investigation cannot afford the services of a counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of the counsel (Section 12 (1), Article III of the Constitution). The right to counsel extends to the waiver of Article 125 (Delay in the delivery of detained persons to judicial authority) of the Revised Penal Code when a suspect on inquest applies for preliminary investigation (Section 6, Rule 112, Rules of Criminal Procedure).
A person arrested may be visited in jail or any other place of custody by an attorney at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of the night (Section 14, Rule 113, Rules of Criminal Procedure). The accused shall be entitled to be present and defend himself in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings in court (Section 1(c), Rule 115, Rules of Criminal Procedure).
Before arraignment, the court shall inform the accused of his right to counsel and shall be asked if he desires one. Considering the gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the questions that may arise against the accused, the court may appoint a counsel de officio. The court may also appoint a counsel de officio to defend the accused at the arraignment stage only (Sections 6, 7, and 8, Rule 116, Rules of Criminal Procedure).
If the accused decides to appeal even before the transmittal of the records, the clerk of court will have to certify that he has ascertained whether the accused desires a counsel de officio to be appointed by the appellate court (Section 13, Rule 122, Rules of Criminal Procedure). In the Court of Appeals, if it appears that the accused is confined in prison, without a counsel de parte, or signed the notice of appeal by himself, a counsel de officio will be appointed by the court for him (Section 2, Rule 124, Rules of Criminal Procedure).
The counsel de officio must be a member of the bar in good standing who, by reason of his experience and ability, can competently defend the accused (Section 7, Rule 116, Rules of Criminal Procedure). The legal work of the counsel de officio is performed for the public good with or without assessment of attorney’s fees (Section 32, Rule 138, Rules of Court). If it is without compensation it is known as pro bono work.
The need to provide legal services extend to civil, administrative and quasi-judicial cases. The Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) is tasked to render, free of charge, legal representation, assistance, and counselling to indigent persons in criminal, civil, labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases (Section 2, Republic Act 9406). The PAO is an attached agency of the Department of Justice.
To be considered as an indigent and entitled to the free legal services of the PAO, an individual residing in Metro Manila must have a family income not exceeding P14,000.00 a month. For an individual residing in other cities, he must have a family income not exceeding P13,000.00, while those residing in all other places must have a family income not exceeding P12,000.00 a month (Section 23, Rule VI, Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act 9406).
For the case to be considered meritorious by the PAO, it must show after the evaluation of the law and evidence that the legal services will aid in the furtherance of justice. However, criminal actions shall always be deemed meritorious because the accused enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence (Section 25, Rule VI, Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act 9406).
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) National Committee on Legal Aid and the legal aid committees of the local chapters also provide free legal services. The IBP shall evaluate the requests for legal aid by the combined application of the means and merit tests and the consideration of other relevant factors (A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC, August 28, 2009).
The means test shall be based on the following criteria: (i) the applicant and that of his immediate family must have a gross monthly income that does not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage, and (ii) he does not own real property with a fair market value as stated in the current tax declaration of more than three hundred thousand pesos (A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC, August 28, 2009).
The lawyer cannot be prevented from handling a case, whether for a fee or pro bono if the lawyer is convinced of the legal pursuits of his prospective client. The lawyer cannot be faulted for accepting a professional engagement of a known criminal, perceived corrupt public officer, or suspected terrorist, among others.
While handling the case of these individuals may have an impact on the lawyer’s reputation, he cannot be threatened, coerced or cajoled to drop his client just because the public believes that his client is guilty. To allow this to happen is to deprive the accused of legal representation in court that may have an effect on his constitutional presumption of innocence.
To decline a request for legal representation is the personal decision of the lawyer. However, the moment the attorney-client relationship is perfected it may only be terminated by either of the parties. No third party can interfere with the professional relationship unless the lawyer commits a crime or colludes with the client to commit it.
The lawyer is not bound to anyone but the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath that he “will do no falsehood, nor to consent to doing any in court … will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients.“ As long as he works within these parameters, he has the freedom to accept any client.