INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPINES CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

CHAPTER I. THE LAW AND SOCIETY

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND
AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or
at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any mans cause.
Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it
will admit of a fair settlement.
CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND
CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND
EFFECTIVE-NESS 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 latters 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
concurrently.
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 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM
BY INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH
STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW
STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING INFORMATION REGARDING THE LAW AND
JURISPRUDENCE.
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN THE
DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS.

Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict
but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses
capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is
cause for disciplinary action.
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to
promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public
duties.
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said
service.
CHAPTER II. LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION
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.

Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or
suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.
Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the bar of any
person known by him to be unqualified in respect to character, education, or other
relevant attribute.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND
CANDOR TOWARD 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.
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.
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
latters 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 profitable sharing arrangement.
CHAPTER III. THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS
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 in
Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of
paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or
authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or
amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE
COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY
OTHERS.

Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.

Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.

Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record
or have no materiality to the case.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities
only.
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO
ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared
himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the order
of its preferences. He should also be ready with the original documents for comparison
with the copies.
Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.
Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an
explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a
judgement or misuse Court processes.
Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a break or recess in
the trial, while the witness is still under examination.
Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to
impersonate another.
Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly
inconvenience him.
Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except:
a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument,
and the like, or
b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of
justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to
another counsel.
CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM
ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF
INFLUENCING THE COURT

Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek
opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges.
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a
pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another branch or agency
of the government in the normal course of judicial proceedings.
CHAPTER IV. THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT
CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THE NEEDY.

Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the
latters race, sex, creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the
guilt of said person.
Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient cause, an
appointment as counsel de oficio or as amicus curiae, or a request from the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapters for rendition of free legal aid.
Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent client
unless:
a) he is in no position to carry out the work effectively or competently;
b) he labors under a conflict of interest between him and the prospective client or
between a present client and the prospective client;
Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his professional
fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his relations with paying
clients.
CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS
DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.

Rule 15.01 - A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as
practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client or his own
interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.
Rule 15.02 - A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication in respect
of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Rule 15.04 - A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as mediator,
conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
Rule 15.05 - A lawyer when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest opinion
on the merits and probable results of the clients case, neither overstating nor
understating the prospects of the case.
Rule 15.06 - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public
official, tribunal or legislative body.
Rule 15.07 - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and
principles of fairness.
Rule 15.08 - A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation concurrently
with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or
in another capacity.
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS
CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

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
judgements 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 clients interests
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.
CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE
MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Rule 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should
know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the
consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent
on the matter.
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection there with shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to clients request for information.
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 threaten 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, perpetrated 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 on handling the
case.

I. NATURE OF LEGAL PROFESSION

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

Barrientos first knew Daarlo in 1969. She was a college student, single.
Atty. Daarol went to her house because he was a friend of her sister,
hence they also became friends. She knew Daarol to be a single and as a
General Manager of ZANECO (electic cooperative).

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 services 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 form
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 cases of referral, with the consent of the client, be entitled
to a division of fees in proportion to 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 of
fraud.
CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT
EVEN AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS TERMINATED

Rule 21.01 - A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client except:
a) When authorized by the client after acquianting him of the consequences of the
disclosure;
b) When required by law;
c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or associates
or by judicial action.
Rule 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information
acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use he same to his own advantage
or that of a third person, unless the client with full knowledge of the circumstances
consents thereto.
Rule 21.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the written consent of his client, give information
from his files to an outside agency seeking such information for auditing, statistical,
bookkeeping, accounting, data processing, or any similar purpose.
Rule 21.04 - A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to partners or
associates thereof unless prohibited by the client.
Rule 21.05 - A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be required to prevent those
whose services are utilized by him, from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of
the client.
Rule 21.06 - A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation about a clients affairs even
with members of his family.
Rule 21.07 - A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been consulted about a particular
case except to avoid possible conflict of interest.
CANON 22 - A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND
UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRTUMSTANCES.

Rule 22.01 -A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases:
a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with
the matter he is handling;
b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and
rules;
c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the
client;
d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry
out the employment effectively;
e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply
with the retainer agreement;
f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and
g) Other similar cases.
Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien,
immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall
cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all
information necessary for the proper handling of the matter.

I___________ of ___________ do solemnly swear that I will

maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
I will support its Constitution and obey laws as well as the legal
orders of the duly constituted authorities therein;
I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any court;
I will not wittingly nor willingly promote or sue any groundless,
false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same;
I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct
myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my
clients;
and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligations without
any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

VICTORIA BARRIENTOS V. TRANSFIGURACION DAAROL

FACTS: This is a disbarment case filed by Barrientos against Atty Daarol, on
grounds of deceit and grossly immoral conduct.

On June 1973, Daarol went to Barrientos house and asked her to be one
of the usherettes in the Masons convention so the latter said he should
ask for the permission of her parents. They consented and so she served
as an usherette, Daarol picking her up and taking her home every day.
In July 1973, Daarol came to petitioners house and invited her for a joy
ride, with the permission of her mother (who was Daarols former
classmate). They went to the beach and Daarol proposed his love for
Barrientos and told her that if she would accept him, he would marry her
within 6 months from her acceptance. After a few days of courting, she
accepted the offer of love. Visitations continued and they agreed to get
married in Dec 1973.
In Aug 1973, he took Barrientos to a party and when they left, he took her
for a joy ride to an airport in Sicayab where there were no houses around.
There, he pressured her into having sexual intercourse reiterating that he
loved her, and that he would marry her and that December was very near
anyway they would marry soon. She gave in after much hesitation because
she loved him. She cried after the deed.
This event happened frequently thereafter during August to October 1973,
where she consented because she loved him. Eventually, she became
pregnant and informed Daarol. He however suggested that she have the
baby aborted. She refused. He told her that she didnt have to worry
because they were getting married soon anyway.
In late October 1973, Daarol came to see Barrientos and her mother and
told them that he could not marry her because he was already married. He
reassured them though that he has been separated from his wife for 16
years and that he would work for the annulment of his marriage and
subsequently marry her. So Barrientos waited and delivered the baby but
eventually wasnt able to contact Daarol anymore (he went MIA).
ISSUE: W/N Daarol should be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct.
HELD/RATIO:
YES. The fact of his previous marriage was disclosed by respondent only
after the complainant became pregnant. Even then, respondent
misrepresented himself as being eligible to re-marry for having been
estranged from his wife for 16 years and dangled a marriage proposal on
the assurance that he would work for the annulment of his first marriage.
It was a deception after all as it turned out that respondent never
bothered to annul said marriage.
Respondent resorted to deceit in the satisfaction of his sexual desires at
the expense of the gullible complainant. He is perverted. He says that: "I
see nothing wrong with this relationship despite my being married."
Worse, he even suggested abortion.
Finally, respondent even had the temerity to allege that he is a Moslem
convert and as such, could enter into multiple marriages and has inquired
into the possibility of marrying complainant. As records indicate, however,
his claim of having embraced the Islam religion is not supported by any
evidence save that of his self-serving testimony.
By his acts of deceit and immoral tendencies to appease his sexual desires,
respondent Daarol has amply demonstrated his moral delinquency.
Hence, his removal for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar on the
grounds of deceit and grossly immoral conduct is in order.
ALAWI V. ALAUYA
FACTS: Sophia Alawi was a sales representative of E.B. Villarosa & Partners
Co., Ltd. of Davao City, a real estate and housing company. Ashari M.
Alauya is the incumbent executive clerk of court of the 4th Judicial Shari'a
District in Marawi City, They were classmates, and used to be friends.
Through Alawi's agency, a contract was executed for the purchase on
installments by Alauya of one of the housing units of Villarosa. In
connection, a housing loan was also granted to Alauya by the National
Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC).
Not long afterwards, Alauya addressed a letter to the President of
Villarosa & Co. advising of the termination of his contract with the

company. He claimed that his consent was vitiated because Alawi had
resorted to gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse
of confidence. He laso wrote similar letters to the Vice President of
Villarosa and the Vice President of NHMFC.
On learning of Alauya's letters, Alawi filed an administrative complaint
against him. One of her grounds was Alauyas usurpation of the title of
"attorney," which only regular members of the Philippine Bar may
properly use.
Alauya justified his use of the title, "attorney," by the assertion that it is
"lexically synonymous" with "Counsellors-at-law." a title to which Shari'a
lawyers have a rightful claim, adding that he prefers the title of "attorney"
because "counsellor" is often mistaken for "councilor," "konsehal" or the
Maranao term "consial," connoting a local legislator beholden to the
mayor. Withal, he does not consider himself a lawyer.
ISSUE: Whether or not Alauya, a member of the Sharia bar, can use the
title of Attorney
HELD: He cant. The title is only reserved to those who pass the regular
Philippine bar.
As regards Alauya's use of the title of "Attorney," this Court has already
had occasion to declare that persons who pass the Shari'a Bar are not fullfledged members of the Philippine Bar, hence may only practice law
before Shari'a courts. While one who has been admitted to the Shari'a Bar,
and one who has been admitted to the Philippine Bar, may both be
considered "counsellors," in the sense that they give counsel or advice in a
professional capacity, only the latter is 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.

II. PRACTICE OF LAW

OCA v. LADAGA
FACTS: Atty. Misael Ladaga, Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial
Court of Makati, appeared as counsel for and in behalf of his cousin,
Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga, an accused in Criminal Case No. 84-885 for
Falsification of Public Documents before the METC of Quezon City. It is
also denied that the appearance of said respondent in said case was
without the previous permission of the Court.
During the occasions that the respondent appeared as such counsel
before the METC of Quezon City, he was on official leave of absence.
Moreover, his Presiding Judge, Judge Napoleon Inoturan was aware of the
case he was handling. Respondent appeared as pro bono counsel for his
cousin-client Narcisa Ladaga. Respondent did not receive a single centavo
from her. Helpless as she was and respondent being the only lawyer in the
family, he agreed to represent her out of his compassion and high regard
for her.
This is the first time that respondent ever handled a case for a member of
his family who is like a big sister to him. He appeared for free and for the
purpose of settling the case amicably. Furthermore, his Presiding Judge
was aware of his appearance as counsel for his cousin. On top of this,
during all the years that he has been in government service, he has
maintained his integrity and independence.
He failed to obtain a prior permission from the head of the Department.
The presiding judge of the court to which respondent is assigned is not the
head of the Department contemplated by law.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Ladaga, upon such several appearances, was engages
into private practice? NO
HELD: Respondent is charged under Sec. 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees which prohibits
civil servants from engaging in the private practice of their profession. A
similar prohibition is found under Sec. 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court which disallows certain attorneys from engaging in the private
practice of their profession.
THERE WAS NO PRIVATE PRACTICE:
In
People
vs.
Villanueva:
Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or
customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it
is frequent habitual exercise (State vs. Cotner, 127, p. 1, 87 Kan. 864, 42

LRA, N.S. 768). Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute has
been interpreted as customarily or habitually holding ones self out to the
public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services (State vs.
Bryan, 4 S. E. 522, 98 N. C. 644, 647). The appearance as counsel on one
occasion, is not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private
practice of law.
Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the isolated instances when
respondent appeared as pro bono counsel of his cousin in Criminal Case
No. 84885 does not constitute the private practice of the law profession
contemplated by law.
DECISION: Reprimanded.
CAYETANO V. MONSOD
FACTS: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by then President
Aquino for the position of COMELEC Chairman in 1991. This nomination
was opposed by petitioner Cayetano on the ground that Monsod does not
possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice
of law for at least 10 years. Apparently, the Constitution requires that the
COMELEC Chairperson be a member of the Philippine Bar who has been
engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years. Despite Cayetanos
opposition, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination.
Thus, Cayetano filed an instant petition for certiorari and prohibition,
basically challenging the confirmation by the CA of Monsods nomination.
ISSUE: Is Monsod qualified to be COMELEC Chairperson?
HELD: YES.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. Practice
of law under modem conditions consists in no small part of work
performed outside of any court and having no immediate relation to
proceedings in court. It embraces conveyancing, the giving of legal advice
on a large variety of subjects, and the preparation and execution of legal
instruments covering an extensive field of business and trust relations and
other affairs. Although these transactions may have no direct connection
with court proceedings, they are always subject to become involved in
litigation. They require in many aspects a high degree of legal skill, a wide
experience with men and affairs, and great capacity for adaptation to
difficult and complex situations. These customary functions of an attorney
or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the administration of
justice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the question
set forth in the order, can be drawn between that part of the work of the
lawyer which involves appearance in court and that part which involves
advice and drafting of instruments in his office. It is of importance to the
welfare of the public that these manifold customary functions be
performed by persons possessed of adequate learning and skill, of sound
moral character, and acting at all times under the heavy trust obligations
to clients which rests upon all attorneys.
The SC, in order to arrive at its decision, presented a brief history of
Monsods employment. After passing the bar exam, Atty. Monsod worked
in the law office of his father. From 1963 to 1970, he worked for the World
Bank Group, where he was assigned as operations officer in Costa Rica. His
job involved getting acquainted with the laws of member-countries
negotiating loans and coordinating legal, economic and project work of
the bank. In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and worked with the
Meralco Group, served as chief executive of an investment bank and a
business conglomerate. By 1986, he rendered his services to various
companies as a legal and economic consultant and he also worked as a
Chief Executive Officer. He was also the Secretary-General and National
Chairman of NAMFREL in 1986-1987. His position in NAMFREL required his
knowledge in election law. Also, he sat as a member of the Davide
Commission in 1990.
Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term Practice of
law. particularly the modern concept of law practice, and taking into
consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of the
Constitution, Atty. Monsod's past work experiences as a lawyereconomist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a
lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and
the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement that
he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
MAURICIO C. ULEP V. THE LEGAL CLINIC INC.
FACTS: This is a petition praying for an order to the respondent to cease
and desist from issuing certain advertisements pertaining to the exercise
of the law profession other than those allowed by law.

The said advertisement of the Legal Clinic invites potential clients to

inquire about secret marriage and divorce in Guam and annulment, and
the like. It also says that they are giving free books on Guam Divorce.
Ulep claims that such advertisements are unethical and destructive of the
confidence of the community in the integrity of lawyers. He, being a
member of the bar, is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements.
On the other hand, the respondent, while admitting of the fact of the
publication of the advertisements, claims that it is not engaged in the
practice of law but is merely rendering legal support services through
paralegals. It also contends that such advertisements should be allowed
based on certain US cases decided.
ISSUE: W/N the Legal Clinic Inc is engaged in the practice of law, and W/N
the same can properly be the subject of the advertisements complained
of.
HELD: Yes, it constitutes practice of law. No, the ads should be enjoined.
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience.
To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are
characteristic of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give advice
or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge or skill.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It
includes legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments
and contract by which legal rights are secured, although such matter may
or may not be pending in a court. When a person participates in a trial and
advertises himself as a lawyer, he is in the practice of law. One who
confers with clients, advises them as to their legal rights and then takes
the business to an attorney and asks the latter to look after the case in
court, is also practicing law. Giving advice for compensation regarding the
legal status and rights of another and the conduct with respect thereto
constitutes a practice of law. The practice of law, therefore, covers a wide
range of activities in and out of court. And applying the criteria,
respondent Legal Clinic Inc. is, as advertised, engaged in the practice of
law.
What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal
information to laymen and lawyers. With its attorneys and so called
paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to the client the intricacies of
the law and advise him or her on the proper course of action to be taken
as may be provided for by said law. That is what its advertisements
represent and for which services it will consequently charge and be paid.
That activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential definition of "practice
of law.
The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement
of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his
profession advertise his talents or skill as in a manner similar to a
merchant advertising his goods. The only exceptions are when he appears
in a reputable law list and use of an ordinary, simple professional card.
The advertisements do not fall under these exceptions. To allow the
publication of advertisements of the kind used by respondent would only
serve to aggravate what is already a deteriorating public opinion of the
legal profession whose integrity has consistently been under attack.
Hence, it should be enjoined.

III. ADMISSION TO PRACTICE

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES
FACTS: Republic Act. No. 6397 entitled An Act Providing for the
Integration of the Philippine Bar and Appropriating Funds Therefore was
passed in September 1971, ordaining Within two years from the approval
of this Act, the Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the
integration of the Philippine Bar. The Supreme Court formed a
Commission on Bar Integration and in December 1972, the Commission
earnestly recommended the integration of the bar. The Court accepted all
comments on the proposed integration.
ISSUES:
1. Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine bar?
2. Would the integration of the bar be constitutional?
3. Should the Court ordain the integration of the bar at this time?
HELD: In ruling on the issues raised, the Court first adopted the definition
given by the Commission to integration in this wise: Integration of the
Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer

population of the Philippines. This requires membership and financial

support (in reasonable amount) of every attorney as conditions sine qua
non to the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of
Attorneys of the Supreme Court. The term Bar refers to the collectivity
of all persons whose names appear in the Roll of Attorneys. An Integrated
Bar (or unified Bar) perforce must include all lawyers.
Complete unification is not possible unless it is decreed by an entity with
power to do so; the State. Bar integration therefore, signifies the setting
up by government authority of a national organization of the legal
profession based on the recognition of the lawyer as an officer of the
court.
Designed to improve the positions of the Bar as an instrumentality of
justice and the rule of law, integration fosters cohesion among lawyers,
and ensures, through their own organized action and participation, the
promotion of the objectives of the legal profession, pursuant to the
principle of maximum Bar autonomy with minimum supervision and
regulation by the Supreme Court.
On the first issue, the Court held that it may integrate the Bar in the
exercise of its power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice,
and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law.
Indeed, the power to integrate is an inherent part of the Courts
constitutional authority over the Bar.
The second issue hinges on the following constitutional rights: freedom of
association and of speech, as well as the nature of the dues exacted from
the lawyer, i.e., whether or not the Court thus levies a tax. The Court held:
1.

Integration is not violative of freedom of association because it

does not compel a lawyer to become a member of any group of
which he is not already a member. All that it does is to provide
an official national organization for the well-defined but
unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is
already a member. The lawyer too is not compelled to attend
meetings, participate of activities, etc. The only compulsion is
the payment of annual dues. Assuming, however, that it does
compel a lawyer to be a member of an integrated bar, the court
held that such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the
police power of the state

2.

Integration is also not violative of the freedom of speech just

because dues paid b the lawyer may be used for projects or
programs, which the lawyer opposes. To rule otherwise would
make every government exaction a free speech issue.
Furthermore, the lawyer is free to voice out his objections to
positions taken by the integrated bar.

3.

The dues exacted from lawyers is not in the nature of a levy but
is purely for purposes of regulation.
As to the third issue, the Court believes in the timeliness of the
integration. Survey showed an overwhelming majority of lawyers who
favored integration.
IN RE: CUNANAN
It is the primary and inherent prerogative of the Supreme Court to render
the ultimate decision on who may be admitted and may continue in the
practice of law according to existing rules.
FACTS: Unsuccessful candidates who obtained averages of a few
percentages lower than those admitted to the Bar agitated in Congress
for, and secured in 1951 the passage of Senate Bill No. 12 which, among
others, reduced the passing general average in bar examinations to 70 per
cent effective since 1946. The President requested the views of this court
on the bill. Complying with that request, seven members of the court
subscribed to and submitted written comments adverse thereto, and
shortly thereafter the President vetoed it. Congress did not override the
veto. Instead, it approved Senate Bill No. 371, embodying substantially the
provisions of the vetoed bill. Although the members of this court
reiterated their unfavourable views on the matter, the President allowed
the bill to become a law on June 21, 1953 without his signature. Republic
Act Number 972, commonly known as the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953
admitted to the bar those candidates (they took they Bar examinations
during the war so reading materials were scarce) who had obtained an
average of 72 per cent by raising it to 75 percent.
After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates
filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions, while
other motions for the revision of their examination papers were still
pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for

admission. There are also others who have sought simply the
reconsideration of their grades without, however, invoking the law in
question.Issues:1.
ISSUE: W/N RA No. 972 is constitutional and valid.
HELD: No. The law decrees the admission to the Bar of these candidates,
depriving this Tribunal of the opportunity to determine if they are at
present already prepared to become members of the Bar.
It obliges the Tribunal to perform something contrary to reason
and in an arbitrary manner.
This is a manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the
Supreme Court. A judgment revoking the resolution of this Court on the
petitions of these 810 candidates, without having examined their
respective examination papers, and although it is admitted that this
Tribunal may reconsider said resolution at any time for justifiable reasons,
only this Court and no other may revise and alter them. In attempting to
do it directly Republic Act No. 972 violated the Constitution.
By the disputed law, Congress has exceeded its legislative power to
repeal, alter and supplement the rules on admission to the Bar. It is the
primary and inherent prerogative of the Supreme Court to render the
ultimate decision on who may be admitted and may continue in the
practice of law according to existing rules.

IV. CHARACTERISTICS
GUEVARRA v. EALA
FACTS: On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline against Atty.
Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala for grossly immoral conduct and
unmitigated violation of the lawyers oath. In the Complaint, Guevarra first
met the respondent in January 2000 when his then fiance Irene Moje
introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to Marianne
Tantoco
with
whom
he
had
three
children.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant noticed that
from January to March 2001, Irene had been receiving from respondent
Cellphone calls, as well as messages some which read I love you, I miss
you, or Meet you at Megamall. He also noticed that Irene habitually
went home very late at night or early in the morning of the following day,
and sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked her
whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parents house in
Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work.
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and Respondent
together on two occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them
following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house. On April 22, 2001
complainant went uninvited to Irenes birthday celebration at which he
saw her and the respondent celebrating with her family and friends. Out
of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately.
Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off
all her personal belongings. Complainant later found a handwritten letter
dated October 7, 2007, the day of his wedding to Irene, Complainant soon
saw respondents car and that of Irene constantly parked at No. 71-B11
Street, New Manila where as he was later learn sometime in April 2001,
Irene was already residing. He also learned still later that when his friends
saw Irene on about January 18, 2002 together with respondent during a
concert, she was pregnant.
ISSUE: Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the reason for
the disbarment of Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala.
HELD: Lawyers oath stated that a lawyer should support the Constitution
and obey the laws, Meaning he shall not make use of deceit, malpractice,
or other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or be convicted in
any crime involving moral turpitude. In the case at bar Atty. Eala was
accused of Concubinage, under ART. 334 of the Revised Penal Code, Any
husband who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal dwelling, or, shall have
sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is
not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished
by prision correccional in its minimum and medium period. Section 2 of
ART. XV states that Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the state. Respondents
grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the constitution and the laws, that
he as a lawyer has sworn to uphold. Hence the court declared Atty. Jose
Emmanul M. Eala DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his

oath of office, and violation of canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ARRIETA v. LLOSA
FACTS: A disbarment case was filed against Atty. Llosa by Pike P. Arrieta
for allegedly notarizing a Deed of Absolute sale, wherein, vendors noted
werealready dead prior to its execution. In answer, respondent admitted
having notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale. But before affixing his notarial
seal, he first ascertained the authenticity of the signatures, verified the
identities of the signatories, and determined the voluntariness of its
execution.
However, in a later date, the respondent sought to dismiss the disbarment
case admitting to the fact the instant case is only a product of
misunderstanding and misinterpretation of some facts and is now
convinced that everything is in order. The designated Investigating
Commissioner of the IBP recommended the dismissal of the instant case.
The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted the above recommendation
and resolved to dismiss the instant case after finding no compelling reason
to continue with the disbarment proceedings.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Joel A. Llosa be disbarred or suspended from
practice of law.
HELD: YES. Respondent ordered SUSPENDED for six months from practice
of law with a warning that another infraction will be dealt with more
severely. Citing Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 also known as the Notarial
law, the Supreme Court explained the importance of adherence to said
law as part of the responsibility of a duly deputized authority to conduct
such notarial process. Due diligence is to be observed, this being part of a
lawyers professional responsibility and procedural lapse is not an excuse
to cater to the convenience of clients. Any violation is tantamount to
misconduct. Such misconduct is a ground for disbarment as stated by the
Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the
Supreme Court stressed the primary responsibility of lawyers as stated in
Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility that a lawyer shall
uphold the Constitution, obeythe laws of the land and promote respect for
law and legal processes. A lawyer must also refrain from engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Any violation of his
oath or of his duties as an attorney and counsellor, which include
statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, all of these being broad enough to coverpractically any misconduct
of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity may be disbarred or
suspended.
BURBE v. MAGULTA
FACTS: Petitioner engaged the services of the respondent to help him
recover a claim of money against a creditor. Respondent prepared
demand letters for the petitioner, which were not successful and so the
former intimated that a case should already be filed. As a result, petitioner
paid the lawyer his fees and included also amounts for the filing of the
case.
A couple of months passed but the petitioner has not yet received any
feedback as to the status of his case. Petitioner made several follow-ups in
the lawyers office but to no avail. The lawyer, to prove that the case has
already been filed even invited petitioner to come with him to the Justice
Hall to verify the status of the case. Petitioner was made to wait for hours
in the prosecutors office while the lawyer allegedly went to the Clerk of
Court to inquire about the case. The lawyer went back to the petitioner
with the news that the Clerk of Court was absent that day.
Suspicious of the acts of the lawyer, petitioner personally went to the
office of the clerk of court to see for himself the status of his case.
Petitioner found out that no such case has been filed.
Petitioner confronted Atty. Magulta where he continued to lie to with the
excuse that the delay was being caused by the court personnel, and only
when shown the certification did he admit that he has not at all filed the
complaint because he had spent the money for the filing fee for his own
purpose; and to appease petitioners feelings, he offered to reimburse him
by issuing two (2) checks, postdated June 1 and June 5, 1999, in the
amounts
of
P12,000.00
and
P8,000.00,respectively.
ISSUE: Whether

or

not

the

lawyer

should

be

disbarred.

HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commission on
Bar Discipline of the IBP as follows: It is evident that the P25,000
deposited by complainant with the Respicio Law Office was for the filing
fees of the Regwill complaint. With complainants deposit of the filing fees
for the Regwill complaint, a corresponding obligation on the part of

respondent was created and that was to file the Regwill complaint within
the time frame contemplated by his client. The failure of respondent to
fulfill this obligation due to his misuse of the filing fees deposited by
complainant, and his attempts to cover up this misuse of funds of the
client, which caused complainant additional damage and prejudice,
constitutes highly dishonest conduct on his part, unbecoming a member
of the law profession. The subsequent reimbursement by the respondent
of part of the money deposited by complainant for filing fees, does not
exculpate the respondent for his misappropriation of said funds.

(1) serving on 2 separate occasions as counsel for contending parties

(2) knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary
evidence
(3) initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees
(4) having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
Commissioner found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and 21 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended the penalty of
suspension for 6 months.

V. PRACTICE OF LAW

IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and

recommendation of Commissioner Reyes but increased the penalty of
suspension from 6 months to 1 year.

A. Upholding the Constitution and the Law

ISSUE: W/N respondent should be suspended.

MONTECILLO and DEL MAR V. GICA ET. AL

FACTS: Jorge Montecillo was accused by Francisco Gica of slander. Atty.
Quirico del Mar represented Montecillo and he successfully defended
Monteceillo in the lower court. Del Mar was even able to win their
counterclaim thus the lower court ordered Gica to pay Montecillo the
adjudged moral damages.

HELD: Respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia GUILTY of misconduct and

violation of Canons 21, 10 and 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
SUSPENDED for 3 years.
YES.

Gica appealed the award of damages to the Court of Appeals where the
latter court reversed the same. Atty. Del Mar then filed a motion for
reconsideration where he made a veiled threat against the Court of
Appeals judges intimating that he thinks the CA justices knowingly
rendered an unjust decision and judgment has been rendered through
negligence and that the CA allowed itself to be deceived.
The CA denied the MFR and it admonished Atty. Del Mar from using such
tone with the court. Del Mar then filed a second MFR where he again
made threats. The CA then ordered del Mar to show cause as to why he
should not be punished for contempt.
Thereafter, del Mar sent the three CA justices a copy of a letter which he
sent to the President of the Philippines asking the said justices to consider
the CA judgment. But the CA did not reverse its judgment. Del Mar then
filed a civil case against the three justices of the CA before a Cebu lower
court but the civil case was eventually dismissed by reason of a
compromise agreement where del Mar agreed to pay damages to the
justices. Eventually, the CA suspended Atty. Del Mar from practice.
The issue reached the Supreme Court. Del Mar asked the SC to reverse his
suspension as well as the CA decision as to the Montecillo case. The SC
denied both and this earned the ire of del Mar as he demanded from the
Clerk of the Supreme Court as to who were the judges who voted against
him.
The Supreme Court then directed del Mar to submit an explanation as to
why he should not be disciplined. Del Mar in his explanation instead tried
to justify his actions even stating that had he not been convinced that
human efforts in *pursuing the case+ will be fruitless he would have
continued with the civil case against the CA justices. In his explanation, del
Mar also intimated that even the Supreme Court is part among the
corrupt, the grafters and those allegedly committing injustice.
Del Mar even filed a civil case against some Supreme Court justices but the
judge who handled the case dismissed the same.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Del Mar should be suspended.
HELD: Yes. Atty. Del Mar, by his contemptuous acts is in violation of his
duties to the courts. As an officer of the court, it is his sworn and moral
duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily the high esteem and
regard towards the court so essential to the proper administration of
justice.
It is manifest that del Mar has scant respect for the two highest Courts of
the land when on the flimsy ground of alleged error in deciding a case, he
proceeded to challenge the integrity of both Courts by claiming that they
knowingly rendered unjust judgment. In short, his allegation is that they
acted with intent and malice, if not with gross ignorance of the law, in
disposing of the case of his client.
Del Mar was then suspended indefinitely.
SAMALA V. ATTY. VALENCIA
FACTS:
Complainant Clarita J. Samala filed against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia for
Disbarment on the following grounds:

In Civil Case No. 98-6804 filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court entitled
"Editha S. Valdez and Joseph J. Alba, Jr. v. Salve Bustamante and her
husband" for ejectment, respondent represented Valdez against
Bustamante, 1 of the tenants in the property subject of the controversy.
Presiding Judge warned respondent to refrain from repeating the act of
being counsel of record of both parties in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. A lawyer
may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel
for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former
client. This stern rule is founded on the principles of public policy and
good taste. One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the
acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the
lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that
duty.
Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility "a lawyer shall
preserve the confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorneyclient relation is terminated."
Respondent's representation of : Valdez and Alba against Bustamante and
her husband Valdez against Alba is a clear case of conflict of interests
which merits a corresponding sanction from this Court.
Respondent may have withdrawn his representation in Civil Case No. 95105-MK upon being warned by the court, but the same will not exculpate
him from the charge of representing conflicting interests in his
representation in Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK.
Respondent is reminded to be more cautious in accepting professional
employments, to refrain from all appearances and acts of impropriety
including circumstances indicating conflict of interests, and to behave at
all times with circumspection and dedication befitting a member of the
Bar, especially observing candor, fairness and loyalty in all transactions
with his clients.
Respondent cannot feign ignorance of the fact that the title he submitted
was already cancelled in lieu of a new title issued in the name of Alba in
1995 yet, as proof of the latter's ownership.
What is decisive in this case is respondent's intent in trying to mislead the
court by presenting TCT No. 273020 despite the fact that said title was
already cancelled and a new one, TCT No. 275500, was already issued in
the name of Alba.
The act of respondent of filing the aforecited cases to protect the interest
of his client, on one hand, and his own interest, on the other, cannot be
made the basis of an administrative charge unless it can be clearly shown
that the same was being done to abuse judicial processes to commit
injustice.
Respondent is liable for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
Respondent admitted that he sired three children by Teresita Lagmay who
are all over 20 years of age, while his first wife was still alive. He also
admitted that he has eight children by his first wife, the youngest of whom
is over 20 years of age, and after his wife died in 1997, he married Lagmay
in 1998.

In this case, the admissions made by respondent are more than enough to
hold him liable on the charge of immorality. He even justified his
transgression by saying that he does not have any relationship with
Lagmay and despite the fact that he sired 3 children by the latter, he does
not consider them as his second family.
Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. It may be difficult to specify the degree of moral delinquency
that may qualify an act as immoral, yet, for purposes of disciplining a
lawyer, immoral conduct has been defined as that "conduct which is
willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to
the opinion of respectable members of the community.

LEE V. TAMBAGO
FACTS:
Complainant, Manuel L. Lee, charged respondent, Atty. Regino B.
Tambago, with violation of Notarial Law and the Ethics of the legal
profession for notarizing a will that is alleged to be spurious in nature in
containing forged signatures of his father, the decedent, Vicente Lee Sr.
and two other witnesses, which were also questioned for the annotated
Residence Certificates that are known to be a copy of their respective
voter's affidavit. In addition to such, the contested will was executed and
acknowledged before respondent on June 30, 1965 but bears aResidence
Certificate by the Testator dated January 5, 1962, which was never
submitted for filing to the Archives Division of the Records Management
and Archives Office of the National Commission for Culture and
Arts(NCAA).
Respondent, on the other hand, claimed that all allegations are falsely
given because he allegedly exercised his duties as Notary Public with due
care and with due regards to the provision of existing law and had
complied with elementary formalities in the performance of his duties and
that the complaint was filed simply to harass him based on the result of a
criminal case against him in the Ombudsman that did not prosper.
However, he did not deny the contention of non-filing a copy to the
Archives Division of NCAA. In resolution, the court referred the case to the
IBP and the decision of which was affirmed with modification against the
respondent and in favor of the complainant.
ISSUE:
Did Atty. Regino B. Tambago commit a violation in Notarial Law and the
Ethics of Legal Professionfor notarizing a spurious last will and testament?
HELD:
Yes. As per Supreme Court, Atty. Regino B. Tambago is guilty of
professional misconduct as he violated the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court, Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, Article 806 of the Civil Code and provision of the Notarial
Law. Thus, Atty. Tambago is suspended from the practice of law for one
year and his Notarial commission revoked. In addition, because he has not
lived up to the trustworthiness expected of him as a notary public and as
an officer of the court, he is perpetually disqualified from reappointments
as a Notary Public.
ORONCE V. CA
Gross Misconduct
FACTS:
During a dispute over land, Flaminiano illegally took possession of the
property in litigation using abusive methods. She was aided by her
husband, a lawyer. The illegal entry took place while the case was pending
in the CA& while a writ of preliminary injunction was in force.
Held: Atty. Flaminianos acts of entering the property without the consent
of its occupants & in contravention of the existing writ or preliminary
injunction & making utterances showing disrespect for the law & this
Court, are unbecoming of a member of the Bar.
Although he says that they peacefully took over the property, such
peaceful take-over cannot justify defiance of the writ of preliminary
injunction that he knew was still in force. Through his acts, he has flouted
his duties as a member of the legal profession. Under the Code of
Professional Responsibility, he is prohibited from counselling or abetting
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the
legal system.