Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
Lood
Dat e: No vem ber 9 , 20 16
Legal Ethics
Branch of moral law which treats of the duties that
at attorney owes:
1. to the PUBLIC (Canons 1-6);
2. to the BAR (Canons 7-9);
3. to the COURT (Canons 10-13); and
4. to his CLIENT (Canons 14-22)
as embodied in the Constitution, Rules of Court, the
CPR, the CPE, jurisprudence, and special law
Referred to as the Four-Fold Duties of a Lawyer
Importance of Legal Ethics
Counsel De Oficio a counsel, appointed or
It is a required bar subject in order to emphasize its
importance in ensuring the continued existence
of the law profession
The highest moral and ethical standards in the law
profession should be maintained so that the
people will continue to repose their trust in
lawyers and in the role that they play in the
efficient and speedy administration of justice
Significance of Legal Ethics
mentioned in court records as the official attorney
Guards against the abuses and ills of the
profession, such as dishonesty, deceit,
negligence, immorality and other forms of
malpractice
Raises the standard of the legal profession
Encourages and enhances the respect for the law
Assures an effective and efficient administration of
justice
Assists in the keeping and maintenance of law and
order
Provides basis for the weeding out of the unfit and
the misfit
Definition of Terms
Bar & Bench
Bar Refers to the whole body of attorneys
and counselors, collectively the members of
the legal profession
Bench denotes the whole body of judges
Bar Admission act by which one is licensed to
practice before courts of a particular state or
jurisdiction after satisfying certain requirements
such as bar examinations, period of residency or
admission on grounds of reciprocity after period
of years as member of bar of another jurisdiction
Trial Lawyer one who personally handles cases
in court, administrative agencies of boards which
mean engaging in actual trial work, either for the
prosecution or for the defense of cases of clients
Practicing Lawyer one engaged in the practice
of law who by license are officers of the court and
who are empowered to appear, prosecute and
defend a clients cause.
Pro Se an appearance by a lawyer in his own
behalf
Client one who engages the services of a
lawyer for legal advice or for purposes of
prosecuting or defending a suit in behalf and
usually for a fee.
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty.
Attorney-at-Law that class of persons who are
licensed officers of the courts, empowered to
appear prosecute and defend and upon whom
peculiar duties, responsibilities, and liabilities are
developed by law as a consequence
Attorney-in-Fact an agent whose authority is
strictly limited by the instrument appointing him,
though he may do things not mentioned in his
appointment necessary to the performance of the
duties specifically required of him by the power of
attorney appointing him, such authority being
necessarily implied. He is not necessarily a
lawyer
assigned by the court, from among members of
the Bar in good standing who, by reason of their
experience and ability, may adequately defend
the accused
Attorney Ad Hoc a person named and
appointed by the court to defend an absentee
defendant in the suit in which the appointment is
made
Attorney of Record one who has filed a notice
of appearance and who hence is formally
of the party. Person whom the client has named
as his agent upon whom service of papers may
be made
Of Counsel refers to a retired member of the
judiciary or firm who gives advise to the firm
Lead Counsel The counsel on their side of a
litigated action who is charged with the principal
management and direction of a partys case.
House Counsel Lawyer who acts as attorney for
business though carried as an employee of that
business and not as an independent lawyer.
Amicus Curiae A friend of the court, not a
party to the action; is an experienced and
impartial attorney invited by the court to appear
and help in the disposition of the issues
submitted to it. It implies friendly intervention of
counsel to call the attention of the court to some
matters of law or facts which might otherwise
escape its notice and in regard to which it might
go wrong
Amicus Curiae Par Excellence bar
associations who appear in court as amici curiae
or friends of the court. Acts merely as a
consultant to guide the court in a doubtful
question or issue pending before it.
Advocate The general and popular name for a
lawyer who pleads on behalf of someone else.
Solicitor A government lawyer attached with the
Office of the Solicitor General.
Assumpsit Literally means he has
undertaken. It is an action for the recovery of
damages by reason of the breach or non
performance of a simple contract, either express
or implied, or whether made orally or in writing.
Bar Association an association of members of
the legal profession.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines a bar
association; an association created by law;
membership is mandatory; an official national
body composed of all persons whose names now
Page 1
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
appear or may hereafter be included in the Roll of
Attorneys of the Supreme Court. (Sec. 1, Rule
139-A of the Rules of Court)
Commission on Bar Discipline also refers to
the voluntary groupings or association of lawyers;
lawyers who create groups
Regulation of Practice of Law
1.
Supreme Court (Article VIII, Sec. 5 (5), 1987 Constitution)
Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the Integrated
Bar, and legal assistance to the under privileged.
Nature of the Power
Judicial in Nature
Judicial Discretion
Practice of Law
Means any activity, in or out of court, which
requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training, and experience. To engage
in the practice of law is to perform acts which are
usually performed by members of the legal
profession. Generally, to practice law is to render
any kind of service which requires the use of legal
knowledge or skill. (Cayetano vs. Monsod G.R. No.
100113, 3 September 1991)
Rule 138, Rules of Court, Section 2.
Requirements for all applicants for admission to
the bar Every applicant for admission as a
member of the bar must be a citizen of the
Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of
good moral character, and resident of the
Philippines; and must produce before the
Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good
moral character, and that no charges against him,
involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are
pending in any court in the Philippines.
Qualifications for Admission to Practice of Law
Practice of Law by Public Officials
1. Citizen of the Philippines
2. Resident of the Philippines
3. At least 21 years old
4. A person of good moral character
5. No charges against him, involving moral
turpitude, filed or are pending in court
6. Possess the required educational qualifications
7. Pass the bar examinations
8. Take the lawyers oath
9. Sign the roll of attorneys
Filipino Graduates of Foreign Schools to take the
Philippine Bar
Filipino Citizens who are graduates of foreign law
schools are allowed to take the bar examinations
provided they show the following:
1. Completion of all courses leading to the
degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent
degree;
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
2. Recognition or accreditation of the law school
by the proper authority;
3. Completion of all the fourth year subjects in a
law school duly recognized by the
Philippine Government (SC Bar Matter 1153:
Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito Mendoza, 2010)
Continuing Requirements for the Practice of Law
Good and regular standing
2. Membership in the IBP
3. Payment of IBP dues
4. Payment of professional tax
5. Compliance with the MCLE
6. Possession of good moral character
Purposes of Good Moral Character Requirements
1. to protect the public;
2. to protect the public image of lawyers;
3. to protect prospective clients;
4. to protect errant lawyers from themselves;
Persons entitled to Practice Law
Persons admitted as members of the bar and who
are in good and regular standing (Sec. 1, Rule
138, ROC)
Practice Limited to Natural Persons
A lawyer is burdened with peculiar duties and
responsibilities which must be performed
personally.
A corporation cannot perform the conditions
required for membership in the bar, such as
possession of good moral character.
D at e : No ve m b e r 1 0, 2 01 6
Prohibitions and Limitations on the Practice of Law
Appearance of Non-Lawyers in Court/Tribunal
Non-Lasters in Court Tribunals
General Rule: Only those who are licensed to
practice law can appear and handle cases in
short.
EXCEPTIONS:
A party litiigant
Before the MTC and any other house
Law Student Practice Rule
Before the NLRC
Before a Cadastral Court
Before the DARAB
Any official or person appointed or designated
in accordance with the law to appear for the
government or any of its officials.
Page 2
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
Pro Se Practice
Appearance in proporia persona appearance
in court by a non-lawyer for himself without the
assistance of a member of the bar
Pro se practice which means a party may conduct
his own litigation by prosecuting or defending in
court his own case is a allowed in the Philippines
Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court implicitly
recognizes the right of an individual to represent
himself Every pleading must be signed by the
party or counsel representing him
While pro se practice is allowed, it may not be
advisable to do so. Court proceedings are full of
technical pitfalls that may entrap a person
unschooled in substantive and procedural law. It
is said that a little learning is a dangerous thing;
and that he who acts as his own lawyer has a fool
for a client.
Appearance of a non-lawyer agent or friend of a party
litigant
A non-lawyer agent or friend of a party litigant may,
in an MTC, MCTC, be appointed by a party
litigant to conduct his litigation. The rule is
applicable not only in civil cases but also in
criminal cases where the party litigant may
appoint an agent or friend as private prosecutor
under the supervision and control of the trial
public prosecutor
The privilege to be represented by a non-lawyer
friend or agent does not extend to representation
before the RTC and higher courts court
procedures are often technical and may prove
like snares to the ignorant or unwary; for the
protection of the parties and in the interest of
justice
Law Student Practice Rule (Rule 138-A)
Requirements:
1. Has successfully completed his 3rd year of the
regular four-year prescribed curriculum
2. Enrolled in a recognized law schools clinical
legal education program approved by the
Supreme Court
Conditions:
The appearance of the law student shall be
under the direct supervision and control of a
member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines duly accredited by the law school;
Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs,
memoranda or other papers to be filed, must
be signed by the supervising attorney for and
in behalf of the legal clinic
The phrase direct supervision and control
requires no less than the physical presence of the
supervising lawyer during the hearing.
BAR MATTER NO. 737, Jun 13, 1997
1. Senators and Members of the House of
1. to ensure that there will be no miscarriage of
justice as a result of incompetence or
inexperience of law students, who, not having as
yet passed the test of professional competence,
are presumably not fully equipped to act as
counsels on their own;
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
2. to provide a mechanism by which the accredited
law school clinic may be able to protect itself
from any potential vicarious liability arising from
some culpable action by their law students; and
3. to ensure consistency with the fundamental
principal that no person is allowed to practice a
particular profession without possessing the
qualifications, particularly a license, as required
by law
Non-Lawyers before the NLRC
Non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any
Labor Arbiter:
- they represent themselves;
- they represent their organization or members
thereof
- they are duly-accredited members of any legal
aid office recognized by the DOJ or the IBP in
cases referred to it by the latter;
- they are engaged in law-student practice
Practice of Law by Public Officials
General Rule: The appointment or election of an
attorney to a government office disqualifies him
from engaging in the private practice of law.
Republic Act No. 6713 Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards of Public Officers unless the
are authorized by the Constitution or law;
provided that such practice will not conflict or
tend to conflict with their official duties
Prohibition:
(i) absolutely prohibited;
(ii) not absolutely prohibited
Public Officials Absolutely Prohibited
1. Judges and other officials as employees of the
Supreme Court
2. Officials and employees of the OSG
3. Government prosecutors
4. President, Vice-President, members of the
cabinet, their deputies and assistants
5. Chairman and members of the Constitutional
Commission
6. Ombudsman and his deputies
7. All governors, city and municipal mayors
8. Civil service officers or employees whose duties
require them to devote their entire time at the
disposal of the government
9. Those prohibited by special law are prohibited
from engaging in the practice of their legal
profession
Public Officials Practice with Restrictions
Representatives
- may personally appear as counsel before any
court of justice as before the Electoral
Tribunals, as quasi-judicial and other
administration bodies
Page 3
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
2. Members of the Sanggunian
- may practice their professions except during
session hours: provided that the sanggunian
members who are also members of the bar
shall:
not appear as counsel before any court in any
civil case wherein a local government unit or
any office, agency, or instrumentality of the
government is the adverse party;
not appear as counsel in any criminal case
wherein an officer or employee of the national
or local government is accused of an offense
committed in relation to his office;
not collect any fee for their appearance in
administrative proceedings involving the
local government unit of which he is an
official;
not use property and personnel of the
government except when the Sanggunian
member concerned is defending the interest
of the government.
3. Retired Justice or Judge
- a retired justice or judge receiving pension from
the government, cannot act as counsel in any
civil case in which the Government, or any of
its subdivision or agencies is the adverse party
or in a criminal case wherein an officer or
employee of the Government is accused of an
offense in relation to his office
4. Civil service officers or employees whose duty
does not require their entire time to be at the
disposal of the government
- No officer or employee shall engage directly in
any private business, vocation, or profession
or be connected with any commercial, credit,
agricultural, or industrial undertaking without a
written permission from the head of the
Department
Law Professors
In the view of the broad definition in Cayetano vs
Monsod, lawyers, when they each law, are
considered engaged in the practice of law the
fact of their being law professors is inextricably
intertwined with the fact that they are lawyers .
[Re: Letter of UP Law Faculty (2011)\
Proceedings where lawyers are prohibited from
appearing
In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings.
(R.A. 7160, Sec. 415)
Small Claims Cases (Rules of Procedure of Small
Claims Cases)
Sharia Lawyers
Sharia lawyers who are LLB graduates but not
members of the Bar are not allowed to practice
before regular courts even if both parties are
Muslims.
REASON: A Sharia lawyer is only a special
member of the Philippine Bar, not a full-pledged
one. His admission os only to the practice of law
before Sharia court.
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
Basis of Legal Ethics
Original Bases of Legal Ethics
1. Canons of Professional Ethics
2. Supreme Court Decisions
3. Statutes
4. Constitution
5. Rules of Court
6. Treatises & Publications
Present Basis of Philippine Legal Ethics
- Code of Professional Responsibility
History & Background of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar
Association; adopted by the Philippine Bar
Association
Initially drafted in 1980 by the IBP Committee on
Responsibility, Discipline and Disbarment
Promulgated on 21 June 1988 by the Supreme
Court
Code of Professional Responsibility
Embodiment into one Code of the various pertinent
and subsisting rules, guidelines and standards
on the rule of conduct of lawyers sourced from
the Constitution, Rules of Court, Canons of
Professional Ethics, Statutes, special laws,
treatises and decisions which must be observed
by all members of the Bar in the exercise of their
profession whether in or out of court, as well as in
their public and private lives.
Binding on all lawyers being an issuance of the
Supreme Court pursuant to its constitutional
power.
D at e : No ve m b e r 1 7 & 24 , 20 16
Code of Professional Responsibility
The Lawyer and the Society Canons 1 6
The Lawyer and the Legal Profession Canons 7 9
The Lawyer and the Courts Canons 10 13
The Lawyer and the Client Canons 14 22
Lawyers Primary Duty to Society
Also includes the duty to obey legal orders and
process of the court
Lawyers Oath
I, ___________ of ___________ (place of birth) 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 I 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 these
voluntary obligations without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
Page 4
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307) Atty. Lood

The Lawyers Oath is a condensed Code of Ethics

g. not to encourage either the commencement or the
A solemn affirmation of the lawyers lifetime continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay
commitment to be: any man's cause for any corrupt motive or
(i) a loyal citizen; interest;
(ii) a law-abiding person; h. never to reject, for any consideration personal to
(iii)a defender of truth and justice; himself, the cause of the defenseless or
(iv)an advocate of the rule of law oppressed;
(v) an exemplar of loyalty and fidelity to the i. in the defense of a person accused of a crime, by
courts and to clients; and all fair and honorable means, regardless of his
(vi)a model to emulate both in his professional personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused,
and private life to present every defense that the law permits, to
the end that no person may be deprived of life
By swearing the lawyers oath, an attorney or liberty, but by due process of law.
becomes a guardian of truth and the rule of law,
and an indispensable instrument in the fair and 1 Cayetano vs Monsod
(G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991) (201 SCRA 210)
impartial administration of justice.
FACTS: Christian Monsod was nominated by the then President
Corazon C. Aquino as Chairman of the COMELEC. Renato
Lawyers Oath Condensed Code of Ethics Cayetano opposed the nomination alleging that Monsod does
not possess the constitutional requirement of having been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. Monsod
a. I will maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines; I maintained that he is a member of the Philippine bar and has
will support its Constitution and Canon 1; Rule 1.01; Rule 1.02; practiced the law in various sectors.
obey laws as well as the legal
orders of the duly constituted ISSUE: WON Christian Monsod possesses the constitutional
authorities there; requirement for appointment of having been engaged in the
practice of law.
b. I will do no falsehood, nor Rule 1.01; Rule 7.01; Canon 10; Rule
consent to the doing of any 10.01; Rule 10.02; Rule 12.06; Rule HELD: YES. Practice of law has been defined as any activity, in
court; 15.05; Rule 19.01 or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
c. I will not wittingly nor willingly principle, practice or procedure, and calls for legal knowledge,
Rule 1.03; Rule 1.04; Canon 10; Rule
promote or sue any groundless, 10.01; Rule 10.02; Rule 12.06; Rule training and experience. "To engage in the practice of law is to
false or unlawful suit, or give 15.05; Rule 19.01 perform those acts which are characteristics of the
aid nor consent to the same; profession. Atty. Monsod's past work experiences as a
lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur
Rule 1.01; Rule 1.03; Rule 1.04; Canon of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-
d. I will delay no man for money 12; Rule 12.01; Rule 12.02; Rule 12.03;
Rule 12.04; Rule 14.04; Canon 18; Rule legislator of both the rich and the poor - verily satisfy the
or malice; constitutional requirement that he has been engaged in the
18.02; Rule 18.03; Rule 18.04; Canon
19; Rule 20.03; Rule 20.04 practice of law for at least ten years.
Canon 2; Canon 7; Canon 8; Canon 10;
Canon 11; Rule 11.01; Rule 11.02; Rule 2 Philippine Lawyers Assoc. vs Agrava
e. I will conduct myself as a lawyer 11.03; Rule 11.04; Rule 11.05; Canon
according to the best of my (G.R. No. L-12426. February 16, 1959)
12; Canon 13; Canon 15; Rule 15.01;
knowledge and discretion with Rule 15.02; Rule 15.03; Canon 16; Rule FACTS: Respondent Director issued a circular announcing that
all good fidelity as well to the 16.01; Rule 16.02; Rule 16.03; Rule he had scheduled an examination for the purpose of
courts as to my clients; 16.04; Canon 17; Canon 18; Rule 18.02; determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys
Rule 18.03; Rule 18.04; Canon 19; Rule before the Philippines Patent Office. According to the circular,
19.01; Rule 19.02; Canon 21; Canon 22 members of the Philippine Bar, engineers and other persons
with sufficient scientific and technical training are qualified to
take the said examination. It would appear that heretofore,
Duties of an Attorney (Section 20, Rule 138, Rules of Court)
respondent Director has been holding similar examinations.
a. to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the ISSUE: WON the circular by the respondent Director Agrava
Philippines and to support the Constitution and from requiring members of the Philippine Bar to submit to an
obey the laws of the Philippines; examination or test to pass the same before being permitted to
b. to observe and maintain the respect due to the appear before the Patent Office is valid
courts of justice and judicial officers; HELD: The Court held that only the Supreme Court has the
c. to counsel or maintain such actions or exclusive and constitutional power with respect to the
admission and the practice of law in the Philippines. Naturally,
proceedings only as appear to him as just, and the appearance of lawyers before the Patent Office and the
such defenses only as he believes to be preparation and the prosecution of patent applications, etc.,
honestly debatable under the laws; constitutes practice of law which only the Supreme Court can
regulate and not the Director of Philippines Patent Office. The
d. to employ, for the purpose of maintaining the respondent Director is prohibited from requiring members of
causes confided to him, such means only as are the Philippine Bar to submit to an examination or tests and
consistent with truth and honor, and never seek pass the same before being permitted to appear and practice
before the Patent Office.
to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
artifice or false statement of fact or law;
e. to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every 3 Alawi vs Alauya
(A.M. SPC-97-2-P, February 24, 1997)
peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his FACTS: Edwin Rana is a successful bar passer who was
client, and to accept no compensation in allowed only to take oath but not to sign the roll of attorneys
connection with his client's business except pending the resolution of the complaint of the Donna Marie
Aguirre who charges him with unauthorized practice of law,
from him or with his knowledge and approval; g r ave m i s c o n d u c t , v i o l a t i o n o f l aw , a n d g r ave
f. to abstain from all offensive personality and to misrepresentation. Apparently, Rana appeared as counsel to
advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or an election candidate before the Municipal Board of Election
Canvassers (MBEC) of Masbate before he took his oath and
reputation of a party or witness, unless required signed the rolls of attorneys. In his comment, Rana alleges he
by the justice of the cause with which he is only provide specific assistance and advice not as a lawyer
charged; but as a person who knows the law. He contends that he did
not sign the pleadings as a lawyer. The Office of the Bar
Confidant finds that Rana actively participated in the

(SandeeSuan) Page 5
! of 31
!
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
proceeding and signed in the pleading as counsel for the
candidate.
ISSUE: WON the respondent is fit for admission to the bar.
HELD: The court held that Rana did engage in unauthorized
practice of law. It held that all the activities he participated
during that time involves the practice of law despite the fact
that he is not yet a member of the Bar. The right to practice
law is not a right but a privilege extended to those morally
upright and with the proper knowledge and skills. It involves
strict regulation, one of which is on the moral character of its
members. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to
become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that
two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be
performed, namely: his lawyers oath to be administered by
this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys. Because
the court finds respondent not morally fit to be admitted in the
Bar, notwithstanding the fact that he already took his oath, he
was denied admission to the bar.
4 Aguirre vs Rana
(B.M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003) (403 SCRA 342)
FACTS: Edwin Rana is a successful bar passer who was
allowed only to take oath but not to sign the roll of attorneys
pending the resolution of the complaint of the Donna Marie
Aguirre who charges him with unauthorized practice of law,
g r ave m i s c o n d u c t , v i o l a t i o n o f l aw , a n d g r ave
misrepresentation. Apparently, Rana appeared as counsel to
an election candidate before the Municipal Board of Election
Canvassers (MBEC) of Masbate before he took his oath and
signed the rolls of attorneys. In his comment, Rana alleges he
only provide specific assistance and advice not as a lawyer
but as a person who knows the law. He contends that he did
not sign the pleadings as a lawyer. The Office of the Bar
Confidant finds that Rana actively participated in the
proceeding and signed in the pleading as counsel for the
candidate.
ISSUE: WON the respondent is fit for admission to the bar.
HELD: The court held that Rana did engage in unauthorized
practice of law. It held that all the activities he participated
during that time involves the practice of law despite the fact
that he is not yet a member of the Bar. The right to practice
law is not a right but a privilege extended to those morally
upright and with the proper knowledge and skills. It involves
strict regulation, one of which is on the moral character of its
members. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to
become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that
two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be
performed, namely: his lawyers oath to be administered by
this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys. Because
the court finds respondent not morally fit to be admitted in the
Bar, notwithstanding the fact that he already took his oath, he
was denied admission to the bar.
5 In Re: Medado
(B.M. No. 2540. September 24, 2013)
FACTS: Petitioner Michael Medado, who obtained his law
degree in the year 1979, took and passed the same years bar
examinations and took the Attorneys Oath, failed to sign the
Attorneys Roll. After more than 30 years of practicing the
profession of law, he filed the instant Petition on February 2012,
praying that he be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.
Medado said that he was not able to sign the Roll of Attorneys
because he misplaced the notice given to him and he believed
that since he had already taken the oath, the signing of the Roll
ofAttorneys is not urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a
lawyer.The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) after conducting
clarificatory conference on the matter recommended to the
Supreme Court that the instant petition be denied for
petitioners gross negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack
of merit.
ISSUE: WON Medado be allowed to sign in the roll of attorneys
HELD: Medado is allowed to sign in the roll of attorneys 1 year
after receipt of this resolution. While an honest mistake of fact
could be used to excuse a person from the legal consequences
of his acts as it negates malice or evil motive, a mistake of
law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because
everyone is presumed to know the law and its consequences.
Medado may have at first operated under an honest mistake
of fact when he thought that what he had signed at the PICC
entrance before the oath-taking was already the Roll of
Attorneys. The moment he realized that what he had signed
was merely an attendance record, he could no longer claim
an honest mistake of fact as a valid justification. In spite of this
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
knowledge, he chose to continue practicing law without
taking the necessary steps to complete all the requirements
for admission to the Bar, he willfully engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law.
6 Petition of Dacanay
(B.M. NO. 1678. December 17, 2007)
FACTS: Dacanay was admitted to the Philippine bar in March
1960. He practiced law until he migrated to Canada in
December 1998 to seek medical attention for his ailments. He
subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of
Canadas free medical aid program which was later approved.
Year 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship
Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner reacquired
his Philippine citizenship. On that day, he took his oath of
allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate
General in Toronto, Canada. Thereafter, he returned to the
Philippines and now intends to resume his law practice.
ISSUE: May a lawyer who has lost his filipino citizenship still
practice law in the Philippines?
HELD: As a general rule, NO. The exception is when Filipino
citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as a citizen of
another country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA
9225. This is because all Philippine citizens who become
citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost
their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of RA 9225.
Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal
profession in the Philippines and he reacquires his Filipino
citizenship pursuant to its provisions (he) shall apply with the
proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such
practice.
7 In Re: Muneses
(B.M. No. 2112. July 24, 2012)
FACTS: Muneses filed with (petitioner) with the Office of the Bar
Confidant (OBC) praying that he be granted the privilege to
practice law in the Philippines. The petitioner alleged that he
became a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
on March 21, 1966; that he lost his privilege to practice law
when he became a citizen of the United States of America
(USA) on August 28, 1981; that on September 15, 2006, he re-
acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9225 or the "Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition
Act of 2003" by taking his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen
before the Philippine Consulate General in Washington, D.C.,
USA; that he intends to retire in the Philippines and if granted,
to resume the practice of law.
ISSUE: WON Muneses should be granted the privilege to
practice law in the Philippines
HELD: YES.The Court reiterates that Filipino citizenship is a
requirement for admission to the bar and is, in fact, a
continuing requirement for the practice of law. The loss
thereof means termination of the petitioners membership in
the bar; ipso jure the privilege to engage in the practice of law.
Under R.A. No. 9225, natural-born citizens who have lost their
Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as
citizens of a foreign country are deemed to have re-acquired
their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to
the Republic. Thus, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of
another country and later re-acquires his Philippine citizenship
under R.A. No. 9225, remains to be a member of the Philippine
Bar. However, as stated in Dacanay, the right to resume the
practice of law is not automatic. R.A. No. 9225 provides that a
person who intends to practice his profession in the Philippines
must apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to
engage in such practice
8 Javellana vs DILG
(G.R. No. 102549. August 10, 1992)
FACTS: Atty. Erwin Javellana was an elected City Council of
Bago City, Negros Occidental. City Engineer Ernesto
Divinagracia filed Administrative Case No.C-10-90 against
Javellana as he continuosly engaged in the practice of law
without securing the authority of the Regional Director, DLG.
Javellana filed a petition for certiorari saying that DLG
memorandum circulars No.s 80-38 and 90-81 as
unconstitutional and null and void because it violates Art.VIII
sec.5 of the Constitution
ISSUE: WON DKG memorandum circulars are unconstitutional
HELD: Petition is dismissed. The Local Government Code and
DLG memorandum circular No.90-81 simply prescribe rules of
Page 6
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest
between the discharges of their public duties and the private
practice of their profession.
9 Catu vs Rellosa
(A.C. No. 5738. February 19, 2008)
FACTS: Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot
and the building erected thereon located in Manila. His mother
and brother contested the possession of Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu
and Antonio Pastor of one of the units in the building. The
latter ignored demands for them to vacate the premises. Thus,
a complaint was initiated against them in the Lupong
Tagapamayapa of Barangay. Respondent, as punong
barangay, summoned the parties to conciliation meetings.
When the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement,
respondent issued a certification for the filing of the
appropriate action in court.Respondent entered his appearance
as counsel for the defendants in the (subsequent ejectment)
case. Complainant filed the instant administrative complaint,
claiming that respondent committed an act of impropriety as
a lawyer and as a public officer when he stood as counsel for
the defendants despite the fact that he presided over the
conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong
barangay.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Rellosa violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD: YES. Respondent suspended for six (6) months.
Respondent was found guilty of professional misconduct for
violating his oath as a lawyer and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A civil service
officer or employee whose responsibilities do not require his
time to be fully at the disposal of the government can engage
in the private practice of law only with the written
permission of the head of the department concerned in
accordance with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil
Service Rules. Respondent was strongly advised to look up
and take to heart the meaning of the word delicadeza.
10 Magno vs Velasco-Jacoba
(A.C. No. 6296. November 22, 2005)
FACTS: Atty. Evelyn J. Magno, President of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP), Nueva Ecija Chapter had a
disagreement with her uncle, Lorenzo Inos, over a
landscaping contract they had entered into. During the
conciliation/confrontation proceeding, Atty. Olivia Velasco-
Jacoba appeared on the strength of a Special Power of
Attorney signed by Lorenzo Inos. Atty. Magno objected to
Atty. Jacobas appeareance in the conciliation but the latter
interpose that Lorenzo Inos is entitled to be represented by a
lawyer inasmuch as complainant is herself a lawyer.
Complainant enumerated specific instances, with supporting
documentation, tending to prove that respondent had, in the
course of the conciliation proceedings before the Punong
Barangay, acted as Inos Lorenzos counsel instead of as his
attorney-in-fact. Thus, this petition for willful violation of (a)
Section 415 of the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 and (b)
Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba violated the Local
Government Code and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: Yes. Section 415 of the LGC of 1991, on the subject
Katarungang Pambarangay, provides:
Section 415. Appearance of Parties in Person. - In all
katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties
must appear in person without the assistance of the
counsel or representative, except for minors and
incompetents who may be assisted by their next of kin
who are not lawyers.
The above-quoted provision clearly requires the personal
appearance of the parties in katarungan pambarangay
conciliation proceedings, unassisted by counsel or
representative. The rationale behind the personal
appearance requirement is to enable the lupon to secure first
hand and direct information about the facts and issues, the
exception being in cases where minors or incompetents are
parties. There can be no quibbling that laymen of goodwill
can easily agree to conciliate and settle their disputes
between themselves without what sometimes is the
unsettling assistance of lawyers whose presence could
sometimes obfuscate and confuse issues. Worse still, the
participation of lawyers with their penchant to use their
analytical skills and legal knowledge tend to prolong instead
of expedite settlement of the case.
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
The Lawyer and the Society
CANON 1 - Duty to Uphold the
Constitution and the Laws
Rule 1.01 - Duty not to engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct
Rule 1.02 - Duty not to counsel illegal activities
Rule 1.03 - Duty not to encourage lawsuits, duty not to
delay any mans cause
Rule 1.04 - Duty to encourage amicable settlement
Rule 1.01 Duty not to engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct
Unlawful Conduct transgression of any
provision of law, need not be penal law
Dishonest Act act of lying or cheating
Grossly Immoral or Deceitful Conduct a
conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless,
and which shows amoral indifference to the
opinion of the good and respectable members of
the community; involves moral turpitude
Moral Turpitude an act of baseness, vileness or
depravity in the duties which one person owes to
another or to society in general which is contrary
to the usually accepted and customary rule of
right and duty which a person should follow
In the cases, Moral Turpitude includes everything
which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty,
or good morals. It involves "an act of baseness,
vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a
man owes his fellow men, or to society in general,
contrary to the accepted and customary rule of
right and duty between man and woman, or
conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or
good morals"
Examples of Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude
Estafa seduction falsification of public
bribery abduction documents
murder concubinage violation of B.P. 22
smuggling
Instance of Gross Immorality Penalty
1. Abandonment of wife and cohabiting with another woman DISBARRED
2. Bigamy perpetrated by the lawyer DISBARRED
3. A lawyer who had carnal knowledge with a woman through DISBARRED
a promise of marriage which he did not fulfill
4. Seduction of a woman who is the niece of a married woman DISBARRED
with whom the respondent lawyer ha adulterous relation
5. Lawyer arranging the marriage of his son to a woman with
whom the lawyer had illicit relations. After the marriage of DISBARRED
the woman to his son, the lawyer continued his adulterous
relations with her
6. Lawyer inveigling a woman into believing that they had
DISBARRED
been married civilly to satisfy his carnal desires
7. Lawyer taking advantage of his position as chairman of the
college of medicine and asked a lady student to go with DISBARRED
him in Manila where he had carnal knowledge her under
threat that if she refused, she would flunk in all her subjects
8. Concubinage coupled with failure to support illegitimate SUSPENDED
children INDEFINITELY
9. Maintaining adulterous relationship with a married woman SUSPENDED
INDEFINITELY
10.Delivering bribe money to a judge on requests of clients STERNLY
WARNED
Page 7
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
Instance of Gross Immorality
11.Seducing a woman through promise of marriage by a
lawyer
12.A retired judge who penned a decision 7 months after he
retired, antedating the decision and forcing his former court
staff to include it in the expediente of the case.
13.Forging a Special Power of Attorney
14.Attempting to engage in an opium deal
15.Facilitating the travel of a person to the U.S. using spurious
travel documents
Rule 1.02 Duty not to counsel illegal activities
ISSUE: WON the disbarment of Atty. de Guzman was proper.
Duty to be performed within the bounds of the law
Model in the community insofar as respect for law
is concerned
Rule 1.03 Duty not to encourage lawsuits, duty not
to delay any mans cause
The lawyer owes it to the society and to the court
the duty not ti stir up litigation
The reason for the rule: to prevent BARRATRY and
AMBULANCE CHASING
Barratry act of fomenting suits among
individuals and offering his legal service to one of
them for monetary motives or purpose
Ambulance Chasing act of chasing (figuratively
speaking) an ambulance carrying the victim of an
accident for the purpose of talking to the said
victim or relatives and offering his legal services
for the filing of a case against the person who
cause the accident
Evils Spawned by Ambulance Chasing (FSMD)
disbarment?
Fomenting of litigation with resulting burdens on
the courts and the public;
Subordination of perjury;
Mulcting of innocent persons by judgments,
upon manufactured causes of action; and
Defrauding of injured persons having proper
causes of action but ignorant of legal rights and
court procedures by means of contracts which
retain exorbitant percentages of recovery and
illegal charges for court costs and expenses and
by settlement made for quick returns of fees and
against just rights of the injured persons
Rule 1.04 - Duty to encourage amicable settlement
Whenever the controversy will admit of fair
judgement, the client should be advised to avoid
or to end the litigation. (to avoid litigation
expenses and to help courts in the declogging of
cases)
A lawyer cannot compromise case without clients
consent. (Sec. 23, Rule 138, Rules of Court)
Effect of compromise without clients authority/
consent: unenforceable, meaning be ratified by
the client if he/she so desires
11 Re: 2003 Bar Examinations
(B.M. 1222, February 4, 2004) (421 SCRA 703)
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
FACTS: The Supreme Court, after inquiry and investigation,
Penalty found out that there had been a leakage of the questions in the
2003 Mercantile Law Bar Examination. The Court, therefore,
DISBARRED
nullified the results in the examination on the said subject. The
investigation revealed that a certain Atty. Danilo de Guzman,
one of the assistant attorneys at the Balgos and Perez Law
DISBARRED Firm, was responsible for the leakage. Atty. Marcial Balgos, a
senior partner in the firm, happened to have been
SUSPENDED commissioned by Justice Jose Vitug to prepare questions in
FOR 3 YEARS mercantile law. Atty. de Guzman admitted to downloading the
questions from Atty. Balgos' computer and distributing the
SUSPENDED same to two of his fraternity brothers. From that point, the
FOR 1 YEAR leaked questions spread and an unknown number of
examinees were able to obtain copies thereof. Atty. de
DISBARRED
Guzman was thus disbarred, while Atty. Balgos was
reprimanded for his negligence and lack of due care in
safeguarding the proposed questions in mercantile law.
HELD: The disbarment was proper. Atty. de Guzman, by
transmitting and distributing the stolen test questions to some
members of the his fraternity, possibly for pecuniary profit
and to give them undue advantage over the other examinees
in mercantile law, abetted cheating and dishonesty by his
fraternity brothers in the examination, which is violative of
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 as well as Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Atty. de Guzman was guilty of
misconduct unbecoming a member of the bar. He violated the
law instead of promoting respect for it and degraded the noble
profession instead of upholding its dignity and integrity.
12 Barrientos vs Libiran-Meteoro
(A.C. No. 4585, November 12, 2004) (442 SCRA 324, 2004)
FACTS: In September 2000, the lawyer issued several Equitable
PCIBank Checks in favor of Barrientos and Mercado for the
payment of a pre-existing debt. The checks bounced due to
insufficient funds, thus, charges for violation of B.P. 22 were
filed. The lawyer asked for deferment of the criminal charges
and promised to pay her debt several times, but failed to pay
the full amount, even after a complaint for disbarment was
filed against her. Respondent intentionally does not appear in
court during the said hearings. She claims that she got sick,
her father got sick, her husband got hospitalized and that she
was seeing a doctor for she was unable to get pregnant. She
also committed herself to pay the debt but failed so many
times to fulfill the said promise.
ISSUE: Is the act of Atty. Martinez considered to be a ground for
HELD: YES. Atty. Martinez is guilty of violation of BP 22 which
imports deceit and violation of his attorneys oath and his duty
under the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires
lawyers to refrain from engaging into any unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
13 Barrios vs Martinez
(A.C. No. 4585, November 12, 2004)
FACTS: The respondent was convicted of the crime involving
BP 22. He was also involved in another estafa case pertaining
to his legal services rendered on the victim of Dona Paz
tragedy. The victim he represented filed a complaint because
of the compensation that the victim had received from
Sulpicio Lines which was later deducted by Atty. Martinez. On
Sept. 27, 2003 the IBP board of governors passed a resolution
approving the report and the recommendation of its
investigating commissioner. On Dec. 3, 2003 respondent filed a
reinvestigation
ISSUE: WON Respondent is liable administratively for been
convicted by final judgment of a crime involving moral
turpitude which is violation of BP 22
HELD: The act of a lawyer in issuing a check without sufficient
funds to cover the same constitutes such willful dishonesty
and immoral conduct as to undermine the public confidence in
law and lawyers. And while "the general rule is that a lawyer
may not be suspended or disbarred, and the court may not
ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him for misconduct
in his non-professional or private capacity, where, however,
the misconduct outside of the lawyer's professional dealings is
so gross a character as to show him morally unfit for the
office and unworthy of the privilege which his licenses and
the law confer on him, the court may be justified in
suspending or removing him from the office of attorney.
Page 8
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
14 A-1 Financial Service vs Atty. Valerio
(A.C. No. 8390, July 2, 2010)
FACTS: Atty. Valerio obtained a loan from complainant and
secured the payment of the loan obligation by issuing a
postdated check. However, upon its maturity date, the check
was dishonored due to insufficient funds. As of the filing of the
instant case, despite repeated demands to pay her obligation,
Atty. Valerio failed to pay the whole amount of her obligation.
After repeated demands by the trial court Atty. Valerio failed
to give any response. After an administrative case had been
filed by complainant against Atty. Valerio with the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), the latters mother
explained that her daughter had been diagnosed with
schizophrenia; thus, could not properly respond to the
complaint against her. IBP-CBD recommended Atty. Valerio be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2)
years, having found her guilty of gross misconduct. IBP Board
of Governors adopted and approved with modification of the
period of suspension to 1 year.
ISSUE: WON Respondent is liable administratively for violation
of BP 22 and non-payment of debt
HELD: Deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of
worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a
lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice
of law. In this case, there is no denial of the existence of the
loan obligation despite respondents failure to cooperate before
any proceedings in relation to the complaint. Prior to the filing
of the complaint against her, Atty. Valerios act of making
partial payments of the loan and interest suffices as proof that
indeed there is an obligation to pay on her part. Respondents
mother, Mrs. Valerio, likewise, acknowledged her daughters
obligation. The Court, likewise, finds unmeritorious Mrs.
Valerios justification that her daughter, Atty. Valerio, is
suffering from a health condition, i.e. schizophrenia, which has
prevented her from properly answering the complaint against
her. Indeed, we cannot take the "medical certificate" on its
face, considering Mrs. Valerios failure to prove the contents of
the certificate or present the physician who issued it
15 Cham vs Atty. Moya
(A.C. No. 7494, June 27, 2008)
FACTS: This is a case charged against the respondent due to the
failure of the latter is settling her rental dues against the
defendant for the contract of lease she had entered on the
realty and development corp. Represented by the complainant
as president. The alleged default in rental payments was done
in a deceitful manner as the respondent surreptitiously
abandoned the rented apartment bringing along the door key
and leaving an unpaid electric bills. This prompted the lessor
to send demand to the lessee for the payment of said rentals.
The respondent argued that she did not vacated the place
surreptitiously but instead give way to the owners demand of
vacating for the renovation of the building. She further
reasoned out that she was able to pay his rental dues and
even allowed to extend its rentals even in the expiration of
their contract
ISSUE: WON Respondent is liable administratively for he
committed deceit in occupying a leased apartment unit
HELD: Respondent left the apartment unit without settling her
unpaid obligations, and without the complainants knowledge
and consent. Respondents abandonment of the leased
premises to avoid her obligations for the rent and electricity
bills constitutes deceitful conduct violative of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon I and Rule 1.01
thereof. Respondents defense that she does not know where
to find the complainant or his office is specious and does not
inspire belief considering that she had been occupying the
apartment unit and paying the rents due (except for the period
complained of) for almost two years. How she could have
dealt with complainant and GRDC for two years without at all
knowing their office address and contact numbers totally
escapes this Court. This is only a desperate attempt to justify
what is clearly an unjustifiable.
16 Guarin vs Atty. Limpin
(G.R. No. L-48006, July 8, 1942)
FACTS: Guarin was hired as CEO and President of OneCard
Company, Inc., a member of the Legacy Group of Companies.
He then resigned from his post. Atty. Limpin, the Corporate
Secretary of Legacy Card, Inc. (LCI), another corporation
under the Legacy Group, filed with the SEC a GIS for LCI for
updating purposes. The GIS identified Guarin as Chairman of
the Board of Directors (BOD) and President. Mired with
allegations of anomalous business transactions and practices,
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
LCI applied for voluntary dissolution with the SEC. Guarin filed
this complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD) claiming that Atty.
Limpin violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR by knowingly
listing him as a stockholder, Chairman of the Board and
President of LCI when she knew that he had already resigned
and had never held any share nor was he elected as
chairperson of the BOD or been President of LCI. Atty. Limpin
admits that she filed the GIS with the SEC listing Guarin as a
stockholder, the Chairman of the BOD and President of LCI.
She averred that the GIS was made and submitted in good
faith and that her certification served to attest to the
information from the last BOD meeting.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Limpin has violated Canon 1 Rule 1.01 and
Rule 1.02 of the CPR
HELD: Grounds for such administrative action against a lawyer
may be found in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Among these are (1) the use of any deceit, malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in such office and (2) any violation of
the oath which he is required to take before the admission to
practice. We thus find that in filing a GIS that contained false
information, Atty. Limpin committed an infraction which did
not conform to her oath as a lawyer in accord with Canon 1
and Rule 1.01 of the CPR
17 Guevara vs Eala
(S.B.C. 519, July 31, 1997)
FACTS: Patricia Figueroa and Simeon Barranco were town-
mates and teen sweethearts. Their intimacy yielded to a child
Simeon. Subsequently, Simeon first promised he would marry
her after he passes the bar examinations. Their relationship
continued and Simeon allegedly made more than twenty or
thirty promises of marriage. Patricia learned that Simeon
married another woman. Meanwhile, Simeon successfully
passed the 1970 bar examinations. But before he could take his
oath, Patricia filed a petition to disqualify Simeon to take the
Lawyers Oath on the ground of gross immoral conduct.
ISSUE: WON the act of Simeon in engaging in premarital
relations with Patricia and making promises to marry her
constitute gross immoral conduct?
HELD: The SC ruled that the facts do not constitute gross
immoral conduct warranting a permanent exclusion of
Simeon from the legal profession. His engaging in premarital
sexual relations with complainant and promises to marry
suggests a doubtful moral character on his part but the same
does not constitute grossly immoral conduct. The Court has
held that to justify suspension or disbarment the act
complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly
immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and
false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or
disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. It is wilful,
flagrant, or shameless act, which shows a moral indifference
to the opinion of respectable members of the community.
18 Figueroa vs Barranco, Jr.
(SBC Case No. 519. July 31, 1997)
FACTS: This is an administrative complaint filed by Patricia
Figueroa way back in 1971, against respondent Simeon
Barranco Jr., a successful bar candidate in the 1970 Bar
examination, praying thereto that herein respondent be denied
admission to the legal profession. In her petition, complainant
averred that respondent and she had been sweethearts, that a
child out of wedlock was born to them and that respondent
failed to fulfill his promise to marry her after he passes the bar
examinations. Hence, complainant charged him of gross
immorality.
ISSUE: WON Respondent be denied to take the lawyers oath
for his breach of promise to marry Complainant
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that these facts do not
constitute gross immorality warranting permanent exclusion
of herein respondent from the legal profession. His engaging in
premarital sexual relations with the complainant and
promises to marry suggest a doubtful moral character on his
part but the same does not constitute gross immoral conduct.
To justify suspension or disbarment, the act complained of
must not only be immoral but grossly immoral. Additionally,
even assuming that his past indiscretions are ignoble, the
twenty-six years that respondent has been prevented from
being a lawyer constitute sufficient punishment therefor.
Henceforth, the Court hereby dismissed the instant petition
and herein respondent should be allowed to take his lawyers
oath.
Page 9
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
19 Advincula vs Macabata
(A.C. No. 7204, March 7, 2007)
FACTS: Cynthia Advincula filed a disbarment case Atty. Ernesto
Macabata on the grounds of Gross Immorality. Cynthia sought
for legal advice from Atty. Macabata regarding her collectibles
from Queensway Travel and Tours. In a couple meetings they
have, Atty. Macabata gave Cynthia a ride home. As the she
gets off the car, Atty. Macabata allegedly held her arm, kissed
her cheek and embraced her tightly and in some other time he
forcefully held her face, kissed her lips and held her breast.
Cynthia hires another lawyer for her case. They had
exchange of messages thru sms where the Atty. Macabata
apologized. Atty. Macabata admitted kissing Cynthia on the
lips however countered that there was no harassment,
intimidation or lewdness instead everything was spontaneous.
ISSUE: WON therespondent committed acts are grossly
immoral, or which constitute serious moral depravity that
would warrant disbarment or suspension from the practice of
law
HELD: The acts of kissing or beso-beso on the cheeks are mere
gestures of friendship and camaraderie, form of greetings,
casual and customary. The acts of Atty. Macabata, though, in
turning the head of the complainant towards him and kissing
her on the lips are distasteful. However, such act, even if
considered offensive and undesirable, cannot be considered
grossly immoral. The complainant miserably failed to
establish the burden of proof required of her. However, her
efforts are lauded to stand up for her honor. The complaint for
disbarment against the respondent, Atty. Ernesto Macabata,
for alleged immorality is dismissed. However, he is
reprimanded to be more prudent and cautious in dealing with
his clients.
20 Zaguirre vs Castillo
(A.C. No. 4921, March 6, 2003) (398 SCRA 659)
FACTS: Atty. Alfredo Castillo was already married with three
children when he had an affair with Carmelita Zaguirre. This
occurred sometime from 1996 to 1997, while Castillo was
reviewing for the bar and before the release of its results.
Zaguirre then got pregnant allegedly with Castillo as the
father. The latter, who was already a lawyer, notarized an
affidavit recognizing the child and promising for her support
which did not materialize after the birth of the child.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Alfredo Castillo is guilty of Gross Immoral
Conduct and should be punished with the penalty of Indefinite
Suspension.
HELD: The Court meted respondent the penalty of indefinite
suspension from the practice of law. The attempt of
respondent to renege on his notarized statement recognizing
and undertaking to support his child by Carmelita
demonstrates a certain unscrupulousness on his part which is
highly censurable, unbecoming a member of a noble
profession, tantamount to self-stultification. His repeated
sexual congress with a woman not his wife and now refuses
to recognize and support a child whom he previously
recognized and promised to support is a clear violation of the
standards of morality required of the legal profession. The rule
is settled that a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any
misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long
as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity or good demeanor.
21 Ventura vs Samson
(A.C. No. 9608, November 27, 2012)
FACTS: From the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence
and the admissions of respondent himself, we find that
respondents act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the
daughter of his former employee, constitutes gross immoral
conduct that warrants sanction. Respondent not only admitted
he had sexual intercourse with complainant but also showed
no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that he did nothing
wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her
money. Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a
woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect for the
laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of
fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he procured the act by enticing
a very young woman with money showed his utmost moral
depravity and low regard for the dignity of the human person
and the ethics of his profession. Respondent has violated the
trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant, then a
13-year-old minor, who for a time was under respondents
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
care. Whether the sexual encounter between the respondent
and complainant was or was not with the latters consent is
of no moment. Respondent clearly committed a disgraceful,
grossly immoral and highly reprehensible act. Such conduct is
a transgression of the standards of morality required of the
legal profession and should be disciplined accordingly.
ISSUE: WON Respondent is liable administratively for grossly
immoral conduct
HELD: Court held that respondents act of engaging in sex with
a young lass, the daughter of his former employee, constitutes
gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction. Respondent
not only admitted he had sexual intercourse with complainant
but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he asserted
that he did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and
he even gave her money. Indeed, his act of having carnal
knowledge of a woman other than his wife manifests his
disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his
own marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he
procured the act by enticing a very young woman with
money showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard
for the dignity of the human person and the ethics of his
profession. Respondent has violated the trust and confidence
reposed on him by complainant, then a 13-year-old minor, who
for a time was under respondents care. Whether the sexual
encounter between the respondent and complainant was or
was not with the latters consent is of no moment.
Respondent clearly committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral
and highly reprehensible act. Such conduct is a transgression
of the standards of morality required of the legal profession
and should be disciplined accordingly
22 Stemmerik vs Mas
(A.C. No. 8010, June 16, 2009)
FACTS: Stemmerik is a citizen and resident of Denmark. In one
of his trips in the Philippines, he met Atty. Mas. Since he was
marveled at the beauty of the country, he wanted to buy a
real property and consulted Atty. Mas. The latter told
Stemmerik that he could legally acquire a real property in the
Phils. and even suggested a 86K hectare land in Subic,
Zambales. Atty. Mas, as the atty.-in-fact of Stemmerik bought
the property from a certain Bonifacio de Mesa. The contract to
sell provided that De Mesa sold the property to Ailyn Gonzales
for 3.8M. Then, in another notarized deed made by Atty. Mas,
it was stated that Gonzales received the funds from
Stemmerik. In preparing all these documents, Atty. Mas
received 400K fee from Stemmerik. The latter also gave Atty.
Mas, the 3.8M purchase price to which the latter issued a
receipt. Suddenly, Atty. Mas become scarce and no longer
answer the calls of Stemmerik. When Stemmerik visited the
Phils, he engaged the service of the Fernandez Law Office and
found out the subject property is inalienable, being located in
the former U.S. military reservation. Also, he was apprised
that alienscannot own real properties in the Phils. Meanwhile,
Atty. Mas had already abandoned his office and his
whereabouts is unknown. Stemmerik filed an action for
disbarment against Atty. Mas before theCommission on Bar
Discipline but Atty. Mas never appeared
ISSUE: WON Respondent is liable administratively for serious
misconduct
HELD: Respondent, in giving advice that directly contradicted a
fundamental constitutional policy, showed disrespect for the
Constitution and gross ignorance of basic law. Worse, he
prepared spurious documents that he knew were void and
illegal. By making it appear that de Mesa undertook to sell the
property to complainant and that de Mesa thereafter sold the
property to Gonzales who made the purchase for and in behalf
of complainant, he falsified public documents and knowingly
violated the Anti-Dummy Law. Respondents misconduct did
not end there. By advising complainant that a foreigner could
legally and validly acquire real estate in the Philippines and by
assuring complainant that the property was alienable,
respondent deliberately foisted a falsehood on his client. He did
not give due regard to the trust and confidence reposed in him
by complainant. Instead, he deceived complainant and misled
him into parting with P400,000 for services that were both
illegal and unprofessional. Moreover, by pocketing and
misappropriating the P3.8 million given by complainant for the
purchase of the property, respondent committed a fraudulent
act that was criminal in nature.
Page 10
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
CANON 2 - Duty to be an efficient lawyer
Rule 2.01 Duty not to reject the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed
Rule 2.02 Duty not to refuse to render legal advise to
the defenseless or oppressed
Rule 2.03 Duty not to do or permit to be done any act
to solicit legal business
Rule 2.04 Duty not to charge rates lower than those
customarily prescribed
Rationale: It is the lawyers prime duty to see to it
t h a t j u s t i c e i s a c c o rd e d t o a l l w i t h o u t
discrimination.
Primary Characteristics which Distinguish the Legal
Profession from Business:
(a) duty of service, of which the emolument is a by
product, and in which one may attain the highest
eminence without making such money;
(b) a relation as an officer of court to the
administration of justice involving thorough
sincerity, integrity and reliability;
(c) a relation to clients in the highest degree of
fiduciary;
(d) a relation to colleagues at the bar characterized
by candor, fairness and unwillingness to resort
to current business methods of advertising and
encroachment on their practice or dealing with
their clients.
Rule 2.01 Duty not to reject the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed
act to solicit legal business
Defenseless those are not in a position to
defend themselves due to poverty, weakness,
ignorance or other similar reasons.
Oppressed those who are the victims of the
cruelty, unlawful, exaction, domination or
excessive use of authority.
By specific authority the court may appoint an
attorney to render professional aid to a destitute
appellant in a criminal case who is unable to
employ an attorney. Correspondingly a duty is
imposed upon a lawyer so assigned to render
the required service. A lawyer so appointed as
counsel for an indigent prisoner, the Canons of
Professional Ethics demands, should always
exert his best efforts in the indigents behalf.
(People v. Estebia, G.R. No. L- 26868, Feb. 27, 1969)
A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person
unable to pay his professional fees shall observe
the same standard of conduct governing his
relation with paying client.
LEGAL AID IS NOT A MATTER OF CHARITY,
BUT A PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY. It is a means
for the correction of social imbalance that may
and often do lead to injustice, for which reason it
is the public responsibility of the Bar.
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
Rule 2.02 Duty not to refuse to render legal advise
to the defenseless or oppressed
GENERAL RULE: A lawyer may refuse to accept
the cause of the defense lessor the oppressed. A
lawyer is not obliged to act as legal counsel for
any person who may wish to become his client.
EXCEPTION:
1. A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the
needy.
2. He 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.
(Canon 14, Rule 14.01)
3. If there is 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.
(Canon14, Rule 14.02)
EXCEPTION to the EXCEPTION:
A lawyer may refuse to accept representation
of an indigent client if:
1. He is not in a position to carry out the
work effectively or competently;
2. He labors under a conflict of interests
between him and the prospective
client or between a present client
and the prospective client. (Canon
14, Rule 14.03)
Rule 2.03 Duty not to do or permit to be done any
The best type of advertisement for a lawyer is a
well-deserved reputation for competence,
honestly and fidelity to private trust and public
duty.
GENERAL RULE: No advertisements allowed. The
most worthy and effective advertisement possible
is the establishment of a well-merited reputation
for professional capacity and fidelity to trust.
Lawyers may not advertise their services or
expertise nor should not resort to indirect
advertisements for professional employment,
such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper
comments, or procuring his photograph to be
published in connection with causes in which the
lawyer has been engaged or concerning the
manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the
interest involved, the importance of the lawyers
position, and all other self-laudation.
EXCEPTION (Permissible Advertisements):
1. Reputable law lists, in a manner consistent
with the standards of conduct imposed by
the canons, of brief biographical and
informative data, are allowed.
2. Ordinary simple professional Card. It may
contain only a statement of his name, the
name of the law firm which he is connected
Page 11
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
with, address, telephone number and the
special branch of law practiced.
3. A simple announcement of the opening of a
law firm or of changes in the partnership,
associates, firm name or office address,
being for the convenience of the
profession, is not objectionable.
4. Advertisements or simple announcement of
the existence of a lawyer or his law firm
posted anywhere it is proper such as his
place of business or residence except
courtrooms and government buildings.
5. Advertisements or announcement in any
legal publication, including books, journals,
and legal magazines.
RATIONALE:
6. The profession is primarily for public service;
7. Commercializes the profession
8. Involves self-praise and puffing
9. Damages public confidence
10.May increase lawsuits and result in needless
litigation
It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his
talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares.
Rule 2.04 Duty not to charge rates lower than those
customarily prescribed
change in firm name every time a partner dies.
GENERAL RULE: A lawyer cannot compromise the
case without clients consent (special authority).
EXCEPTION: When clients are relatives, co-
lawyers, or are indigents
What the rule prohibits is a competition in the
matter of charging professional fees for the
purpose of attracting clients in favor of the lawyer
who offers lower rates. The rule does not prohibit
a lawyer from charging a reduced fee or none at
all to an indigent.
Canon 3 Duty of Honest and Dignified
Pronouncement of Legal Service
Rule 3.01 Duty not to use or permit use of self-praise
or claims on qualifications or quality of legal service
Rule 3.02 Duty not to use false, misleading or
assumed name for a firm name
Rule 3.03 Duty to withdraw from firm when lawyer
accepts public office
Rule 3.04 Duty not seek publicity
RATIONALE: The practice of law is not a trade like
the sale of commodities to the general public
where the usual exaggerations in trade, when the
proper party had the opportunity to know the
facts, are not in themselves fraudulent.
Rule 3.01 Duty not to use or permit use of self-
praise or claims on qualifications or quality of
legal service
EXAMPLES of information in lawyer advertising,
that could be considered deceptive:
1. Misstatements of fact
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
2. Suggestions that the ingenuity or prior record
of a lawyer rather than the justice of the
claim are the principal factors likely to
determine the result
3. Inclusion of information irrelevant on selecting
a lawyer
4. Representations concerning the quality of
service, which cannot be measured or
verified.
Rule 3.02 Duty not to use false, misleading or
assumed name for a firm name
No name not belonging to any of the partners or
associates may be used in the firm name for any
purpose.
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. The use of a cross after the name of
the deceased partner is sufficient indication. It is
advisable though that the year of the death be
also indicated
The reason for allowing the continued use of the
name of a deceased partner is that all the
partners, by their joint efforts over a period of
time, contributed to the goodwill attached to the
firm name, and this goodwill is disturbed by a
It is unethical to use the name of a foreign firm.
Death of a partner does not extinguish attorney-
client relationship with the law firm.
Negligence of a member in the law firm is
negligence of the firm.
Rule 3.03 Duty to withdraw from firm when lawyer
accepts public office
Filipino lawyers cannot practice law under the
name of a foreign law firm, as the latter cannot
practice law in the Philippines and the use of a
foreign law firm in the country is unethical.
(Dacanay v. Baker and McKenzie, A.C. No. 2131, May
10, 1985)
RATIONALE: To prevent the law firm or partners
from making use of the name of the public official
to attract business and to avoid suspicion of
undue influence.
Rule 3.04 Duty not seek publicity
RATIONALE: To prevent some lawyers from
gaining an unfair advantage over others through
the use of gimmickry, press agentry or other
artificial means. Such as:
1. Procuring his photograph to be published in
connection with cases he is handling.
2. Making a courtroom scene to attract the
attention of newspapermen.
3. Arranging for the purpose an interview with
him by media people.
Page 12
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
Similarly, he should not resort to indirect
advertisements, such as furnishing or inspiring
newspaper comments, or procuring his
photograph to be published.
Media publicity, as a normal by-product of efficient
legal service, is not improper. What is improper is
for a lawyer to resort to propaganda to secure
media publicity for the purpose of attracting legal
business
23 Ulep vs Legal Clinic, Inc.
(A.C. No. L-553, June 17, 1993) (223 SCRA 378)
FACTS: The Legal Clinic was organized by Nogales. It is
composed mainly of paralegals. It makes ads which pertain to
the practice of the law profession such as:
SECRET MARRIAGE? P560 for a valid marriage. Info on
DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA. THE LEGAL
CLINIC, INC.
Pls call: 5210767, 5217232, 5222041 8:30am-6pm 7F
Victoria Bldg., UN Ave, Mla"
Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic
because (1) it is engaged in the practice of law but its people
are not lawyers and (2) its advertisements are unethical.
ISSUES:
1. WON the Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law
2. WON their services can be advertised.
HELD:
1. Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law
however, such practice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic is
composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered
include various legal problems wherein a client may avail
of legal services from simple documentation to complex
litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these
services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals,
but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in
the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however,
the services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute
practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a
person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is
in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
2. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a
lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only
true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or
statement of facts. The standards of the legal profession
condemn the lawyers advertisement of his talents. A
lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his
profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner
similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Further, the
advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce,
secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other
circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate.
Such is highly reprehensible. The Supreme Court also
noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best
advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust,
which must be earned as the outcome of character and
conduct.
24 Khan vs Simbillo
(409 SCRA 229, 2003)
FACTS: Atty. Simbillo advertised his services in a Philippine
Daily Inquirer ad which read Annulment of Marriage
Specialist 532-433/521-2667. Atty. Ismael Khan, Jr., in his
capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the
Public Information Office filed an administrative complaint
against Atty. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation
in violation of Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is guilty of violating Rule
3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: YES. The Court held that the solicitation of legal business
is not altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation to be
proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal
profession. The use of simple signs stating the name or names
of the lawyers, the office, and the residence address and fields
of practice, as well as advertisements in legal periodicals
bearing the same brief data and the use of calling cards are
permissible. The publication in reputable law lists, in a manner
consistent with the standards of con
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
25 Villatuya vs Tabalingcos
(A.C. 6622 July 10, 2012)
FACTS: In this Complaint for disbarment filed with the Office or
t h e B a r C o n fi d a n t , c o m p l a i n a n t M a n u e l G .
Villatuya(complainant) charges Atty. Bede Tabalingcos
(respondent) with unlawful solicitation of cases, violation of
the Code or Professional Responsibility for nonpayment of fees
to complainant, and gross immorality for marrying two other
women while respondents first marriage was subsisting. The
Complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation within
sixty (60) days from receipt of the record. Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP (Commission) issued a Notice setting the
mandatory conference of the administrative case on 05 July
2005. During the conference, complainant appeared,
accompanied by his counsel and respondent. They submitted
for resolution three issues to be resolved by the Commission
ISSUE: (1)Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility by nonpayment of fees to complainant
(2)Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful
solicitation, and (3)Whether respondent is guilty of gross
immoral conduct for having married thrice
HELD: (1) A lawyer is proscribed by the Code to divide or agree
to divide the fees for legal services rendered with a person not
licensed to practice law. Based on the allegations, respondent
had agreed to share with complainant the legal fees paid by
clients that complainant solicited for the respondent.
Complainant failed to proffer convincing evidence to prove the
existence of that agreement. Dismissed.
(2) In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these
allegations and ruled that respondent had violated the rule on
the solicitation of clients, but it failed to point out the specific
provision that was breached. Based on the facts of the case, he
violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which prohibits lawyers from
soliciting cases for the purpose of profit. A lawyer is not
prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful
occupation. Impropriety arises, though, when the business is
of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be
inconsistent with the lawyers duties as a member of the bar.
Considering, however, that complainant has not proven the
degree of prevalence of this practice by respondent, we affirm
the recommendation to reprimand the latter for violating
Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the Code.
(3) Respondent committed bigamy twice is a serious
accusation. Its focus is on the qualification and fitness of a
lawyer to continue membership in the bar and not the
procedural technicalities in filing the case. The court found him
guilty of gross immorality under the Code. What has been
clearly established here is the fact that respondent entered
into marriage twice while his first marriage was still
subsisting. Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos is DISBARRED for
engaging in bigamy, a grossly immoral conduct.
26 BR Sebastian Enterprises, Inc vs CA
(
FACTS: Petitioner, thru its then counsel of record, Baizas,
Alberto and Associates, received notice to file Appellants Brief
within 45 days from receipt thereof. Counsel for petitioner
failed to file the Brief thus respondent Court issued a
Resolution requiring said counsel to show cause why the
appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file the
Appellants Brief within the reglementary period. As the latter
failed to comply with the above Resolution, respondent Court
issued another Resolution this time dismissing petitioners
appeal. Petitioner, this time thru the BAIZAS LAW OFFICE,
filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution dismissing
its appeal alleging that as a result of the death of Atty. Crispin
Baizas, senior partner in the law firm of BAIZAS, ALBERTO &
ASSOCIATES, the affairs of the said firm are still being settled
between Atty. Jose Baizas (son of Crispin Baizas) and Atty.
Ruby Alberto, the latter having established her own law office;
furthermore, Atty. Rodolfo Espiritu, the lawyer who handled
this case in the trial court and who is believed to have also
attended to the preparation of the Appellants Brief but failed to
submit it through oversight and inadvertence, had also left the
firm.
ISSUE: WON the death of a partner extinguish the lawyer-client
relationship with the law firm.
HELD: NO. Petition was dismissed. Petitioners counsel was the
law firm of BAIZAS, ALBERTO & ASSOCIATES and not
merely Atty. Crispin Baizas. Hence, the death of the latter did
not extinguish the lawyer-client relationship between said
firm and petitioner. With Baizas death, the responsibility of
Atty. Alberto and his Associates to the petitioner as counsel
remained until withdrawal by the former of their appearance
Page 13
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
in the manner provided by the Rules of Court. This is so
because it was the law firm which handled the case for
petitioner before both the trial and appellate courts. That Atty.
Espiritu, an associate who was designated to handle the case,
later left the office after the death of Atty. Baizas is of no
moment since others in the firm could have replaced him.
Upon receipt of the notice to file Brief, the law firm should
have re-assigned the case to another associate or, it could
have withdrawn as counsel in the manner provided by the
Rules of Court so that the petitioner could contract the
services of a new lawyer. Moreover, petitioner itself was
guilty of negligence when it failed to make inquiries from
counsel regarding its case. As pointed out by respondents, the
president of petitioner corporation claims to be the intimate
friend of Atty. Crispin Baizas; hence, the death of the latter
must have been known to the former. This fact should have
made petitioner more vigilant with respect to the case at bar.
Petitioner failed to act with prudence and diligence, thus, its
plea that they were not accorded the right to procedural due
process cannot elicit either approval or sympathy
CANON 4 Duty to suppor t the
improvement of the legal system
By reason of education and experience, lawyers
are especially qualified to recognize deficiencies
in the legal system and to initiate corrective
measures therein. Thus they should participate in
proposing and supporting legislation and
programs to improve the system, without regard
to the general interests or desires of clients or
former clients.
EXAMPLE:
1. Presenting position papers or resolutions for the
introduction of pertinent bills in Congress;
2. Petitions with the SC for the amendment of the
Rules of Court.
Every man owes some of his time to the up building
of the profession to which he belongs. (Report of
the IBP Committee)
Lawyers also have the duty to assist the Judicial
and Bar Council (JBC) is appraising accurately
the qualifications of candidates for judicial office
CANON 5 - Duty to keep abreast of legal
developments
This duty carries with it the obligation to be well
informed of the existing laws, and to keep abreast
with legal developments, recent enactment and
jurisprudence.
It is imperative that they be conversant with basic
legal principles. Unless they faithfully comply with
such duty, they may not be able to discharge
competently and diligently their obligations as
members of the Bar. Worse, they may become
susceptible to committing mistakes.
Three-Fold Obligation of a Lawyer
and Undersecretaries of executive
1. First, he owes it to himself to continue improving
his knowledge of the laws;
2. Second, he owes it to his profession to take an
active interest in the maintenance of high
standards of high education.
3. Third, he owes it to the law public to make the law
a part of their social consciousness.
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION (MCLE)
Members of the IBP, except those exempt under
Rule 7 of Bar Matter No. 850 (Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education), are required every
three (3) years to complete at least 36 hours of
continuing legal education activities, with
appropriate penalties for failure to do so.
BAR MATTER 850: MANDATORY CONTINUING
LEGAL EDUCATION (MCLE)
Purpose: To ensure that throughout their career, they
keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain
the ethics of the profession and enhance the
standards of the practice of law.
Requirements of Completion of MCLE
Members of the IBP, unless exempted under Rule 7,
shall complete every three (3) years at least 36
hours of continuing legal education activities.
The 36 hours shall be divided as follows:
a. 6 hours legal Ethics
b. 4 hours trial and pretrial skills
c. 5 hours alternative dispute resolution
d. 9 hours updates on substantive and
procedural laws and jurisprudence
e. 4 hours writing and oral advocacy
f. 2 hours international law and international
conventions
g. 6 hours such other subjects as may be
prescribed by the Committee on MCLE
Participatory Credit Units
1. Attending approved education activities like
seminars, conferences, conventions, symposia,
in-house education programs, workshops,
dialogues or round table discussion.
2. Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned
panelist, reactor, commentator, resource
speaker, moderator, coordinator or facilitator in
approved education activities.
3. Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar
review class.
Non-Participatory Credit Units
1. Preparing, as an author or co-author, written
materials published or accepted for publication,
e.g., in the form of an article, chapter, book, or
book review which contribute to the legal
education of the author member, which were not
prepared in the ordinary course of the member's
practice or employment.
2. Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.
Parties Exempted from the MCLE
1. The President, Vice-President, and the Secretaries
departments;
2. Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives;
3. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the
SC, incumbent and retired justices of the
judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial
and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers
Page 14
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
covered by the Philippine Judicial Academy
Program of continuing legal education;
4. The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor
and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of
Justice;
5. The Solicitor-General and the Assistant Solicitor-
General;
6. The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and
Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
7. The Chairman and Members of the Constitutional
Commissions;
8. T h e O m b u d s m a n , t h e O v e r a l l D e p u t y
Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman and the
Special Prosecutor of the Office of the
Ombudsman;
9. Heads of government agencies exercising quasi
judicial functions;
10. Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors
of law who have teaching experience for at least
10 years in accredited law schools;
11. The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of
the Corps of Professional Lecturers of the
Philippine Judicial Academy; and
12. Governors and Mayors
Other Exempted Parties
counsel's contracted services reached as far only in preparing
1. Those who are not in law practice, private or
public
2. Those who have retired from law practice with the
approval of the IBP Board of Governors
3. Lawyers in Government Service
Consequences of Non-Compliance
ISSUE: WON the IBP correctly dismissed the complaint against
1. A member who fails to comply with the
requirements after the 60-day period shall be
listed as delinquent member by the IBP Board
of Governors upon recommendation of the
Committee on MCLE.
2. T h e l i s t i n g a s a d e l i n q u e n t m e m b e r i s
administrative in nature but shall be made with
notice and hearing by the Committee on MCLE.
27 Arnado vs. Adaza
(G.R. No. L-48006, July 8, 1942)
FACTS: Atty. Samuel Arnado called the attention of the Court to
the practice of Atty. Homobono Adaza of indicating MCLE
application for exemption under process in his pleadings filed
in 2009, 2010, 2011 and2012, and MCLE Application for
Exemption for reconsideration in a pleading filed in 2012.
When Atty. Arnado inquired from the MCLE office, he
learned that Atty. Adaza did not comply with the
requirements of Bar Matter No. 850 for the First, Second, and
Third compliance period. The Office of the Bar Confidant found
that respondent had been remiss in his responsibilities as a
lawyer. The OBC stated that respondents failure to comply
with the MCLE requirements jeopardized the causes of his
clients because the pleadings he filed could be stricken off
from the records and considered invalid. The OBC
recommended that Atty. Adaza be declared a delinquent
member of the bar, guilty of non-compliance with the MCLE
requirements and be suspended from the practice of law for
six months
ISSUE: WON Atty. Adaza should be held administratively liable
for failure to comply with MCLErequirements
HELD: Yes, Atty. Adaza should be held administratively liable for
failure to comply with MCLE requirements.Bar Matter No. 850
requires members of the IBP to undergo continuing legal
education to ensure that throughout their career, they keep
abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the
profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law.
Atty. Adazas failure to comply with MCLE requirements and
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
disregard of the directives of the MCLE Office warrant his
declaration as a delinquent member of the IBP. Att. Adaza is
suspended from the practice of law for six months, or until he
has fully complied with the MCLE requirements for the First,
Second, Third, andFourth Compliance Periods, whichever is
later, and he has fully paid the required non-compliance and
reinstatement fees
28 Noble vs. Ailes
(A.C. No. 10628 July 1, 2015)
FACTS: Atty. Orlando O. Ailes filed an action for damages
against his brotherMarcelo O. Ailes, Jr. (Marcelo) who filed a
separate case of Grave Threat andEstafa against the
respondent. Maximino was the counsel of Marcelo who
represented him in his civil case (Action for Damages). When
Maximino was furnished a copy of the complaint, he
discovered that, through text messages,Orlando had been
maligning him and dissuading Marcelo from retaining his
services as counsel, claiming that he was incompetent and
that he charged exorbitant fees, saying, among others: Better
dismiss your hi-track lawyer who will impoverish you with
his unconscionable professional fee. MaxNoble, as shown in
court records, never appeared even once, that's why you lost
in the pre-trial stage, get rid of Noble as your lawyer. He
isout to squeeze a lot of money from you daig mo nga
mismong abogado mong polpol. Records show that Orlando
even prepared a Notice to Terminate Services of Counsel in
the complaint for damages, which stated that Maximino
has never done anything to protect the interests of the
defendants in a manner not be fitting his representation as a
seasoned law practitioner and, aside from charging enormous
amount of professional fees and questionable expenses, said
and filing uncalled for motions to dismiss as well as
aCompromise Agreement, both of which he sent to Marcelo
for his signature. Affronted, Maximino filed the instant
complaint charging Orlando with violation of Rule 7.03 of
Canon 7, the entire Canon 8 of the Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility (CPR) and prayed for the disbarment
of respondent as well as the award of damages. Meanwhile,
criminal charges against the respondent were downgraded to
unjust vexation and the latter pleaded guilty.
Orlando
HELD: In this case, the IBP found the text messages that Orlando
sent to his brother Marcelo as casual communications
considering that they were conveyed privately. To the Court's
mind, however, the tenor of the messages cannot be treated
lightly. The text messages were clearly intended to malign
and annoy Maximino, as evident from the use of the word
"polpol" (stupid). Likewise, Orlando's insistence that Marcelo
immediately terminate the services of Maximino indicates
Orlando's offensive conduct against his colleague, in violation
of the above-quoted rules. Moreover, Orlando's voluntary plea
of guilty to the crime of unjust vexation in the criminal case
filed against him by Marcelo was, for all intents and purposes,
an admission that he spoke ill, insulted, and disrespected
Maximino a departure from the judicial decorum which
exposes the lawyer to administrative liability. On this score, it
must be emphasized that membership in the bar is a privilege
burdened with conditions such that a lawyer's words and
actions directly affect the public's opinion of the legal
profession. Lawyers are expected to observe such conduct of
nobility and uprightness which should remain with them,
whether in their public or private lives, and may be disciplined
in the event their conduct falls short of the standards imposed
upon them.
D at e : J an u a ry 3 , 20 1 7
CANON 6 - The Canons apply to lawyers
in government service
Rule 6.01 - Duty to see to it that justice is done
Rule 6.02 - Duty not to use his public position to
promote or advance private interest
Rule 6.03 - Restrictions against government lawyers
who left the service
Page 15
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
Canon 6 makes the Code applicable to lawyers in
government services
Accepting or having any member of his family
RATIONALE: A lawyer does not shed his
professional obligations upon his assuming
public office.
Misconduct in the Discharge of Official Duties as
Governmental Official
RA 6713 , Sec. 7(b) Code of Conduct and Ethical
General Rule: May not be disciplined as a
member of the bar for the misconduct in the
discharge of his official duties
EXCEPTION: If the misconduct of a
government official is of such character as
to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to
show moral delinquency.
Public Office is Public Trust
licensed by their office unless expressly
Lawyers in government are public servants who
owe the utmost fidelity to the public service. Thus,
they should be more sensitive in the performance
of their professional obligations, as their conduct
is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the
public. (Vitriolo v. Dasig, 400 SCRA 172 [2003])
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards (R.A. 6713)
private enterprise which has a regular or
All public officials and employees, whether lawyers
or non-lawyers are governed by this Code.
Provides the standards of personal conduct in the
discharge and execution of official duties
Rule 6.01 - Duty to see to it that justice is done
Public Prosecutor a quasi-judicial officer as
such, he should seek equal and impartial justice.
He should be concerned with seeing that no
innocent man suffers as in seeing that no guilty
man escapes
Public Prosecutor is under no compulsion to
file a particular criminal information where he is
not convinced that he has evidence to prop up
the averments thereof, or that the evidence at
hand points to a different conclusion.
Rule 6.02 - Duty not to use his public position to
promote or advance private interest
consecutive postponements, the complainant became
Applies to: (1) lawyers in government service
allowed by law to engage in private practice
concurrently; and (2) those who, though
prohibited from engaging in the practice of law,
have friends, former associates and relatives who
are in the practice of law
Promotion of private interest includes soliciting gifts
or anything of monetary value in any transaction
requiring the approval of his office or which may
be affected by the functions of his office
Rule 6.03 - Restrictions against government lawyers
who left the service
Public Officials and Employees provides that acts of public
Rationale: To avoid conflict of interests, to
preclude the lawyers from using secrets or
information learned in his official capacity, or to
prevent the appearance of impropriety
Violation of restriction tantamount to representing
conflicting interests
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
RA 6713 , Sec. 3(d) Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
accept employment in a private enterprise which
has pending official business with him during the
pendency thereof or within one year after its
termination
Standards
(b) Outside employment and other activities related
thereto. Public officials and employees
during their incumbency shall not:
1) Own, control, manage or accept employment
as officer, employee, consultant, counsel,
broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any
private enterprise regulated, supervised or
allowed by law;
2) Engage in the private practice of their
p ro f e s s i o n u n l e s s a u t h o r i z e d b y t h e
Constitution or law, provided, that such
practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with
their official functions; or
3) Recommend any person to any position in a
pending official transaction with their office.
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a
period of one (1) year after resignation, retirement,
or separation from public office, except in the case
of subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professional
concerned cannot practice his profession in
connection with any matter before the office he
used to be with, in which case the one-year
prohibition shall likewise apply.
29 Ramos vs. Imbang
(A.C. No. 6788, August 23, 2007)
FACTS: Diana Ramos sought the assistance of Atty. Jose R.
Imbang in filing civil and criminal actions against the spouses
Jovellanos. Ramos tried to attend the scheduled hearings of
her cases against the Jovellanos. Oddly, respondent never
allowed her to enter the courtroom and always told her to
wait outside. He would then come out after several hours to
inform her that the hearing had been cancelled and
rescheduled. This happened six times and for each
"appearance" in court, respondent charged her P350. After six
suspicious. She personally inquired about the status of her
cases in the trial courts. She was shocked to learn that
respondent never filed any case against the Jovellanos and
that he was in fact employed in the Public Attorney's Office
(PAO).
ISSUE: WON, the respondent violated the provisions of the Code
of Professional Responsibility sufficient to warrant disbarment.
HELD: YES. Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with
honesty and integrity. More specifically, lawyers in
government service are expected to be more conscientious of
their actuations as they are subject to public scrutiny. They
are not only members of the bar but also public servants who
owe utmost fidelity to public service. Government employees
are expected to devote themselves completely to public
service. For this reason, the private practice of profession is
prohibited. Section 7(b) (2) of the Code of Ethical Standards for
officials and employees are declared unlawful:
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto,
public officials and employees during their incumbency
shall not:
(1) Engage in the private practice of profession unless
authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that
such practice will not conflict with their official
function.
Page 16
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
30 PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan
(G.R. Nos. 151809-12, April 12, 2005)
FACTS: In herein case, PCGG questions the ethical propriety of a
former Solicitor General, in the person of Atty. Estelito P.
Mendoza, who now stands as the private lawyer of the Lucio
Tan group who was benefitted in the liquidation proceeding of
GENBANK which was declared insolvent. PCGG filed motions
to disqualify Atty. Mendoza as counsel for respondents Tan, et
al. with the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan in Civil and
counsel to Central Bank, actively intervened in the
liquidation of GENBANK, which was subsequently acquired by
respondents Tan, et al. and became Allied Banking
Corporation. The motions to disqualify invokedRule 6.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.Rule 6.03prohibits former
government lawyers from accepting engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service.
ISSUE: WON Mendoza violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
HELD: The Court ruled in the negative reasoning that the advice
given by respondent Mendoza on the procedure to liquidate
GENBANK is not the matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. It grounded its
determination on ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 which clearly
stresses that the drafting, enforcing or interpreting
government or agency procedures, regulations or laws, or
briefing abstract principles of law are acts which do not fall
within the scope of the term matter in Rule 6.03 and
therefore cannot be a ground for disqualification. Moreover, it
explained that the term intervention in Rule 6.03 cannot be
insubstantial and insignificant. Given that the 1969 Code
restricted the latitude of the term intervention, hence, in DR
9-101(b), the prohibition extended only to a matter in which the
lawyer, while in the government service, had substantial
responsibility. The 1983 Model Rules further constricted the
reach of the rule. MR 1.11(a) provides that a lawyer shall not
represent a private client in connection with a matter in
which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as
a public officer or employee.
31 Huyssen vs. Guiterrez
(A.C. No. 6707, March 24, 2006)
FACTS: Respondent Atty. Gutierrez, a Bureau of Immigration
and Deportation officer, received US$20,000 from complainant
Huyssen. Accused of falsely representing that it was needed in
complainants application for visa and failing to return the
same, respondent denied misappropriating the said amount,
claiming that he gave it to a certain Atty. Mendoza who
assisted complainant and children in their application for visa.
He failed however to substantiate such denial. Atty. Gutierrez
had many alibis on why the money could not immediately be
returned to the complainant, and promised her several times
that he would repay her out of his personal funds. He even
issued personal post-dated checks on this, but which later
bounced.
ISSUE: WON Respondent is administratively liable for the
alleged act
HELD: Yes. He violated Canon 6, Rule 6.02. His defense was not
able to address the issue to prove his innocence, but it even
weakened his stand for he implicitly admitted that he really
required and received $20,000. Why was he too willing to give
outP800,000 out of his own personal money if there really is a
legal requirement of $20,000 which could have been possibly
refunded from the BID
Dat e: J an uar y 11, 2017
The Lawyer and the Legal Profession
CANON 7 - Duty to uphold the dignity of
the profession and to support the
activities of the integrated bar
Rule 7.01 - Duty not to make false statements or
suppress a material fact in connection with application
for admission to the bar
Rule 7.02 - Duty not to support unqualified bar
applicant
Rule 7.03 - Duty not to engage in conduct adversely
affecting the legal profession
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
Rule 7.01 - Duty not to make false statements or
suppress a material fact in connection with
application for admission to the bar
A lawyer is expected to be honest from the moment
he applies for admission to the bar. However, the
falsity referred to in this Canon must be knowingly
done
Consequences of knowingly making a false
statement of suppression of material fact in the
application for admission to the Bar
If discovered BEFORE the candidate could take the
bar exams denied permission to take the bar
If discovered AFTER the candidate had passed the
exams but BEFORE having taken his oath not
allowed to take the lawyers oath
If discovered AFTER the candidates had taken his
oath his name will be stricken from the Roll of
Attorneys
What is the effect if what is concealed is a crime not
involving moral turpitude?
Concealment will be taken against him, It is the fact
of concealment and not the commission of the
crime itself that makes him morally unfit to
become a lawyer.
When he made concealment, he perpetrated
perjury
As to what crime involves moral turpitude, is for the
Supreme Court to determine
Rule 7.02 - Duty not to support unqualified bar
applicant
A lawyer should aid in guarding the Bar against
admission of unfit or unqualified applicants
The act of supporting the application to the Bar of
any person known to him to be unqualified
constitutes gross misconduct in office (Rule 138,
Sec. 27, RRC)
Rule 7.03 - Duty not to engage in conduct adversely
affecting the legal profession
There is no distinction as to whether the
transgression is committed in the lawyers
professional capacity or in his private life or in his
private transaction because a lawyer may not
divide his personality so as to be an attorney at
one time and a mere citizen of another.
The conduct of nobility and uprightness should stay
with him whether in his public or private life
32 Santos vs Llamas
(A.C No. 4749. January 20, 2000)
FACTS: Atty. Francisco Llamas was complained of not paying
his IBP dues.He was also cited in the complaint as not paying
his professional tax or PTR as it was intermittently indicated in
his pleadings filed in court. It was also an alleged falsity when
he included his IBP-Rizal 259060 where in fact he was not in
good standing. Petitioner cited that Atty. Llamas was
dismissed as Pasay City Judge. But later revealed that the
decision was reversed and he was subsequently promoted as
RTC Judge of Makati. He also had criminal case involving
estafabut was appealed pending in the Court of Appeals. In the
Page 17
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
numerous violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
he expressed willingness to settle the IBP dues and plea for a
more temperate application of the law.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Llamas is guilty of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
HELD: YES. Respondent was suspended from the practice of
law for one (1) year, or until he has paid his IBP dues.
Respondents failure to pay his IBP dues and his
misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed in court indeed
merit the most severe penalty. However, in view of
respondents advanced age, his express willingness to pay his
dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law, we
believe the penalty of one year suspension from the practice
of law or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later, is
appropriate.
33 Letter of Atty. Arevalo
(B.M. 1370, May 9, 2005) (458 SCRA 209)
FACTS: In his letter, petitioner sought exemption from payment
of IBP dues allegedly unpaid for the years 1977-2005. He alleged
that after being admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1961, he
became part of the Philippine Civil Service, then migrated to,
and worked in, the USA until his retirement in the year 2003.
He maintained that he cannot be assessed IBP dues for the
years that he was working in the Philippine Civil Service since
the Civil Service law prohibits the practice of one's profession
while in government service, and neither can he be assessed
for the years when he was working in the USA.
Issue: WON petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of
his dues during the time that he was inactive in the practice of
law
Held: NO. The integration of the Philippine Bar means the official
unification of the entire lawyer population. This requires
membership and financial support of every attorney as
condition sine qua non to the practice of law and the retention
of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court. It
must be borne in mind that membership in the bar is a
privilege burdened with conditions, one of which is the
payment of membership dues. Failure to abide by any of them
entails the loss of such privilege if the gravity thereof
warrants such drastic move.
34 In Re: Galang, 1971 Bar Exam
(A.C. No. 1163 August 29, 1975)
FACTS: RAMON GALANG (1971 Bar Examinee) flunked in 1969,
1966-76, 1962-64 Bar exam. Administrative proceeding against
Victorio Lanuevo for disbarment. Admitted having brought the
five examination notebooks of Ramon E. Galang back to the
respective examiners for re-evalution or re-checking. The five
examiners admitted having re-evaluated or re-checked the
notebook to him by the Bar Confidant, stating that he has the
authority to do the same and that the examinee concerned
failed only in his particular subject and was on the borderline
of passing. Ramon galang was able to pass the 1971 bar exam
because of Lanuevos move but the exam results bears that he
failed in 5 subjects namely in (Political, Civil, Mercantile,
Criminal & Remedial). Galang on the otherhand, denied of
having charged of Slight Physical Injuries on Eufrosino de
Vera, a law student of MLQU.
ISSUE: WON Respondents are administratively liable for the
alleged act
HELD: Galang was also disbarred Sec. 2 of Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Curt of 1964, candidates for admission to the
bar must be of good moral character. Galang has a pending
criminal cases of Physical Injuries, he committed perjury
when he declared under oath that he had no pending criminal
case this resulted him to revoked his license.
35 In Re: Cuevas
(B.M. No. 810 January 27, 1998)
FACTS: In 1991, a neophyte died during the initiation rites of Lex
Talionis Fraternitas in the San Beda College of Law. Arthur
Cuevas Jr was one of the persons charged (with murder) for
the death of the neophyte. He pleaded guilty and was later
convicted to the lesser crime of Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Homicide. Thereafter, Cuevas was granted
probation and he continued taking up law. In 1995, he was
discharged from probation. In 1996, the Supreme Court
allowed Cuevas to take the bar on the condition that in case he
will pass, his oath taking will have to be approved by the
Supreme Court first. Cuevas did pass the 1996 bar exams and
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
in 1997, he filed a petition before the Supreme Court asking the
latter to allow him to take the Lawyers Oath.
ISSUE: WON Cuevas should be allowed to take his oath and sign
in the roll of attorneys despite his previous conviction for
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide
HELD: Petitioner's discharge from probation without any
infraction of the attendant conditions therefor and the various
certifications attesting to his righteous, peaceful and civic-
oriented character prove that he has taken decisive steps to
purge himself of his deficiency in moral character and atone
for the unfortunate death of Raul I. Camaligan. The Supreme
Court is duty bound to prevent the entry of undeserving
aspirants, as well as to exclude those who have been admitted
but have become a disgrace to the profession. Cuevas
participation in the senseless killing of the neophyte is highly
reprehensible however, the Supreme Court is willing to give
him a chance in the same manner that it recently allowed Al
Caparros Argosino, petitioner's co-accused below, to take the
lawyer's oath and considering that Cuevas has received
various certifications regarding his good behavior while on
probation.
36 In Re: Meling
IN THE MATTER OF THE DISQUALIFICATION in the 2002 BAR EXAM
FACTS: In his failure to disclose in his application that he has
pending criminal cases, Haron S. Meling was disqualified from
taking the bar examination, was not be allowed to take the
Lawyers Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys should he passes
the Bar Examinations, and his membership in the Sharia Bar
was suspended. Meling averred that he did not disclose of the
criminal cases filed against him since the retired judge advised
him of settlement of the case which would result in its
termination.
ISSUE: WON Haron S. Meling is qualified to take the Bar
Examination.
HELD: Haron S. Meling is not qualified to take the Bar
Examination. The practice of law, in any court, is not a matter
of right but merely a privilege which requires that an
applicant not only has knowledge of the law but is also of
good moral character as a requisite to the admission to the
practice of law. It is a standard that in the application for bar
examination, the applicant is required to declare under oath
that there is no any pending case or charge against him/
her. This requirement is imposed by the Court to determine
whether there is satisfactory evidence of good moral
character of the applicant. In the case at bar, Meling however,
did not disclose that he has pending criminal cases. His
deliberate silence constitutes concealment. This concealment
of Melings reflects of his lack of the requisite good moral
character and results in the forfeiture of the privilege
bestowed upon him as a member of the Sharia Bar.
CANON 8 - Duty of Professional Courtesy
Rule 8.01 - Duty not to use abusive and improper
language
Rule 8.02 - Duty not to encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer
Rule 8.01 - Duty not to use abusive and improper
language
To maintain the dignity of the legal profession,
lawyers must conduct themselves honorably,
fairly and handily toward each other. Respect
generates respect.
Lawyers should treat each other with courtesy,
fairness, candor and civility.
Any kind of language which attacks without
foundation the integrity of the opposing counsel
or the dignity of the court may be stricken off the
records or may subject a lawyer to disciplinary
action.
Page 18
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
The lawyers arguments, whether written or oral,
should be gracious to both the court and the
opposing counsel and be of such words as may
be properly addressed by one gentleman to
another.
Lack or want of intention is no excuse for the
disrespectful language employed. Counsel
cannot escape the responsibility by claiming that
his words did not mean what any reader must
have understood them as meaning. At best, it
extenuates liability.
Rule 8.02 - Duty not to encroach upon the
professional employment of another lawyer
otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at all times.
A lawyer should not steal the other lawyers client
nor induce the latter to retain him by promise of
better service, good result or reduced fees for his
services. Neither should be disparage another,
make comparisons or publicize his talent as a
means to further his law practice.
No encroachment when previous lawyer was
already dismissed.
Lawyer shall not negotiate with the opposite party
who is represented by counsel.
Lawyer may interview any witness or prospective
witness for the opposing side.
It is but proper to give advice and assistance to
victims of unfaithful and neglectful counsel
37 Barandon vs Ferrer
(A.C. No. 5768, 26 March 2010)
FACTS: Ferrer, as plaintiffs counsel, filed a reply with
opposition to motion to dismiss that contained abusive,
offensive and improper language and claimed Barandon
falsified a document in court. Ferrer filed a fabricated charge
against Barandon for alleged falsification of public document.
Document allegedly falsified was a notarized document
executed on Feb. 23, 1994, when Barandon was not yet a
lawyer/was assigned in Camarines Norte. At the MTC before
hearing, Ferrer, drunk, threatened Barandon by saying that
there are no good lawyers in Camarines Norte, as only
lawyers from Camarines Sur were present. Ferrer made the
accusation of falsification without bothering to check the copy
with the Office of the Clerk of Court and, with gross
negligence, failed to consider that a notarized document is
presumed to be genuine until proven otherwise. Ferrer was
already previously warned by the court not to repeat his
unethical act. Ferrer asked Barandon to falsify the daily time
record of his son who worked with the Commission on
Settlement of Land Problems, DOJ. Barandon declined but was
repeatedly harassed with inflammatory language.
ISSUE: WON IBO Investigating Commissioner erred in finding
Ferrer guilty
HELD: Guilty SUSPENSION FOR 1 YEAR. Ferrer uttered these
with intent to annoy, humiliate, incriminate, and discredit
Atty. Barandon in the presence of lawyers, court personnel,
and litigants waiting for the start of hearing in court. These
language is unbecoming a member of the legal profession. The
Court cannot countenance it. Though a lawyer's language
may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified
and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The
use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no
place in the dignity of judicial forum. Atty. Ferrer ought to
have realized that this sort of public behavior can only bring
down the legal profession in the public estimation and erode
public respect for it. Whatever moral righteousness Atty.
Ferrer had was negated by the way he chose to express his
indignation
38 Alcantara vs Pefianco
(A.C. No. 5938, December 3, 2002)
FACTS: While Atty. Ramon Salvani III was conferring with a
client in the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) at the Hall of Justice
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
in San Jose, Antique, a woman approached them. Atty.
Alcantara saw the woman in tears, whereupon he went to
the group and suggested that Atty. Salvani talk with her
amicably as a hearing was taking place in another room. At
this point, Atty. Mariano Pefianco, who was sitting nearby,
stood up and shouted at Atty. Salvani and his client, saying,
Nga-a gina-areglo mo ina, ipapreso ang imo nga kliyente
para mahibal-an na anang sala. (Why do you settle that
case? Have your client imprisoned so that he will realize his
mistake.)
ISSUE: did atty. Pefianco violate canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
HELD: YES. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
admonishes lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy,
fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are
duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They
must act honorably, fairly and candidly toward each other and
In this case, respondents meddling in a matter in which he
had no right to do so cause the untoward incident. He had no
right to demand an explanation from Atty. Salvani why the
case of the woman had not or could not be settled. Even so,
Atty. Salvani in fact tried to explain the matter to respondent,
but the latter insisted on his view about the case.
39 Likong vs Lim
(A.C. No. 3149, Aug. 17, 1994)
FACTS: Likong obtained a loan of P92,100.00 from a certain
Geesnell L. Yap. Complainant executed a promissory note in
favor of Yap and a deed of assignment, assigning to Yap
pension checks which she regularly receives from the United
States government as a widow of a US pensioner. The
aforementioned deed of assignment states that the same shall
be irrevocable until the loan is fully paid. Complainant likewise
executed a special power of attorney authorizing Yap to get,
demand, collect and receive her pension checks from the post
office at Tagbilaran City. The above documents were
apparently prepared and notarized by respondent Alexander
H. Lim, Yap's counsel. About three (3) months after the
execution of the aforementioned special power of attorney,
complainant informed the Tagbilaran City post office that she
was revoking the special power of attorney preventing
complainant from getting her pension checks from the
Tagbilaran City post office, As a consequence, Geesnell Yap
filed a complaint for injunction with damages against
complainant. He was represented by Atty Lim the respondent
in the case. On July 1985, complainant and Yap filed a joint
motion to allow the latter to withdraw the pension checks,
wherein Cerina was not represented by her counsel, same
with Aug 1985 where a compromise agreement were entered
into by Cerina and Yap, Atty Lim wasnt there to represent
her client. With this, petitioner filed a complaint for
disbarment, based on the following allegations: * complainant
was prevented from seeking assistance, advise and signature
of any of her two (2) lawyers; no copy thereof was furnished
to either of them or at least to complainant herself despite the
latter's pleas to be furnished copies of the same. * Complainant
was even advised by respondent that it was not necessary for
her to consult her lawyers under the pretense that: (a) this
could only jeopardize the settlement; (b) she would only be
incurring enormous expense if she consulted a new lawyer;
(c) respondent was assisting her anyway; (d) she had nothing
to worry about the documents foisted upon her to sign; (e)
complainant need not come to court afterwards to save her
time; and in any event respondent already took care of
everything; * Complainant had been prevented from exhibiting
fully her case by means of fraud, deception and some other
form of mendacity practiced on her by respondent; * Finally,
respondent fraudulently or without authority assumed to
represent complainant and connived in her defeat;
ISSUE: WON Respondent is guilty for violating the Code of
Professional Ethics.
HELD: With respect to respondent's failure to notify
complainant's counsel of the compromise agreement, it is of
record that complainant was represented by two (2) lawyers,
Attys. Inting and Aumentado. Complainant states that
respondent prevented her from informing her lawyers by
giving her the reasons enumerated in the complaint and
earlier quoted in this decision. There is no showing that
respondent even tried to inform opposing counsel of the
compromise agreement. Neither is there any showing
that respondent informed the trial court of the alleged
abandonment of the complainant by her counsel.
Instead, even assuming that complainant was really
Page 19
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307) Atty. Lood

abandoned by her counsel, respondent saw an Rule 9.02 - Duty not to divide legal fees with non-
opportunity to take advantage of the situation, and the
result was the execution of the compromise agreement lawyers

which, as previously discussed, is grossly and patently General Rule: Non-lawyers are not entitled to
disadvantageous and prejudicial to complainant. attorneys fees
Undoubtedly, respondent's conduct is unbecoming a Rationale: If attorneys fees were allowed to non-
member of the legal profession. lawyers, it would leave the public hopeless
confusions to whom to consult incase of necessity
Dat e: J an uar y 12, 2017
and also to leave the bar in a chaotic condition,
aside from the fact that non-lawyers are not
CANON 9 - Duty to Shun Unauthorized amenable to disciplinary measures.
Practice of Law
Rule 9.01 - Duty not to delegate legal work to Exceptions to the Rule in 19.02:

unqualified persons
Rule 9.02 - Duty not to divide legal fees with non- 1. Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a
lawyers partner or associate that, upon the latters death,
money shall be paid over a reasonable period of
time to his estate or persons specified in the
What is the rationale for the prohibition against the agreement; or
practice of law by a layman?
2. Where a lawyer undertakes to complete
unfinished legal business of a decreased
It is grounded in the need of the public for integrity
lawyer; or
and competence of those who underage to
render legal service. Because of the fiduciary and 3. Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer
p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r o f t h e l a w y e r- c l i e n t employees in a retirement plan, even if the plan
relationship and the inherently complex nature of is based in whole or in part, on a profit sharing
our legal system, the public can better be arrangement.
assured of the requisite responsibility and
competence if the practice of law is confined to Note:
those who are subject to the requirements and 1 Compensation for services rendered by the
regulations imposed upon members of the legal deceased lawyer
profession. 2 The person who undertakes is a lawyer
3 Not a division of fees but a pension
Rule 9.01 - Duty not to delegate legal work to representing additional deferred wages ti the
unqualified persons
employees past services
Public policy requires that practice of law be limited
only to those individuals found duly qualified in 40 Cambaliza vs Tenorio
(Adm. Case No. 6290, July 14, 2004)
education and character. FACTS: Complainant Ana Marie Cambaliza, a former employee
Rationale: To protect the public, the court, the client of respondent Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio in her law
and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty office, charged the latter with deceit, grossly immoral
conduct, and malpractice or other gross misconduct in office.
of those unlicensed to practice law and not Case on deceit and grossly immoral conduct did not pursue
subject to the disciplinary control of the court. lacking clear and convincing evidence. On malpractice or
other gross misconduct in office, the complainant alleged that
the respondent cooperated in the illegal practice of law by her
Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, husband, who is not a member of the Philippine Bar and two
and acting as such without authority = indirect other allegations. The respondent averred that this disbarment
complaint was filed by the complainant just to get even with
contempt = fine, or imprisonment, or both. her. The complainant later filed a Motion to Withdraw
(Sections 3 & 7, Rule 71, Rules of Court) Complaint as she is no longer interested in pursuing the case.
This motion was not acted upon by the IBP and the case was
Corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a pursued. The IBP found the respondent guilty of assisting in
party to a case without authority to do so = unauthorized practice of law.
suspension or disbarment. (Section 27, Rule 138, ISSUE: WON Respondent is administratively liable for the
Rules of Court) alleged act
HELD: Respondent is administratively liable and suspended for 6
Delegation of legal work to an unqualified person is months. IBP correctly found that the charges of deceit and
misbehavior grossly immoral conduct were not substantiated. Felicisimo R.
Tenorio, Jr., is not a lawyer, but he holds himself out as one.
Unqualified person not limited to non- His wife, the respondent herein, abetted and aided him in the
lawyers but also to lawyers who are unauthorized practice of the legal profession. At the hearing,
the respondent admitted that the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio
suspended or disbarred or whose authority Law Office listed Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., Gerardo A.
to practice has been withdraw due to a Panghulan, and Maricris D. Battung as senior partners. She
change in citizenship or alliance to the admitted that the first two are not lawyers but paralegals.
They are listed in the letterhead of her law office as senior
country partners because they have investments in her law office.
Example: Lawyer was suspended (unqualified That is a blatant misrepresentation. The Sagip Communication
person) who drafted in the office, met with Radio Group identification card is another proof that the
respondent assisted Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., in
clients, etc. misrepresenting to the public that he is a lawyer. Notably, the
identification card stating that he is Atty. Felicisimo Tenorio,
Jr., bears the signature of the respondent as Chairperson of
the Group.

(SandeeSuan) Page 20
! of 31
!
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
41 Noe-Lacsamana vs Busmente
(A.C. No. 7269, November 23, 2011)
FACTS: Noe-Lacsamana alleged that she was the counsel for
the plaintiff in a civil case while Busmente was the counsel for
the defendant Imelda B. Ulaso (Ulaso). Noe-Lacsamana alleged
that Ulasos deed of sale over the property subject of the said
civil case was annulled, which resulted in the filing of an
ejectment case where Busmente appeared as counsel.
Another case for falsification was filed against Ulaso where
Busmente also appeared as counsel. Noe-Lacsamana alleged
that one Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa or Atty. Liza Dela Rosa
(Dela Rosa) would accompany Ulaso in court, projecting
herself as Busmentes collaborating counsel. Noe-
Lacsamana alleged that upon verification with this Court and
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, she discovered
that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer. The IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline (IBP-CBD) found that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer
and that she represented Ulaso as Busmentescollaborating
counsel which recommended Busmentes suspension from
the practice of law for not less than five years. Busmente
alleged that Dela Rosa was a law graduate and was his
paralegal assistant for a few years. Busmente alleged that
Dela Rosas employment with him ended in 2000 but Dela Rosa
was able to continue misrepresenting herself as a lawyer
with the help of Regine Macasieb(Macasieb), Busmentes
former secretary. Busmente alleged that he did not represent
Ulaso in Civil Case No. 9284 and that his signature in the
Answer presented as proof by Noe-Lacsamana was forged.
ISSUE: WON Respondent is administratively liable for the
alleged act
HELD: It has been established that Dela Rosa, who is not a
member of the Bar, misrepresented herself as Busmentes
collaborating counsel in Civil Case No. 9284. Busmente alleged
that Dela Rosas employment in his office ended in 2000 and
that Dela Rosa was able to continue with her illegal practice of
law through connivance with Macasieb, another member of
Busmentes staff. As pointed out by the IBP-CBD, Busmente
claimed that Macasieb resigned from his office in 2003. Yet,
Dela Rosa continued to represent Ulaso until 2005. Pleadings
and court notices were still sent to Busmentes office until
2005. The IBP-CBD noted that Dela Rosas practice should have
ended in 2003 when Macasieb left.
42 Tapay vs Bancolo
(A.C. No. 9604, March 20, 2013)
FACTS: Rodrigo Tapay and Anthony Rustia, both employees of
the Sugar Regulatory Administration received an Order from
the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas requiringthem to file a
counter-affidavit to a complaint for usurpation of authority,
falsification of public document, and graft and corrupt
practices filed against them by Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr., a
co-employee. The Complaint was allegedly signed on behalf of
Divinagracia by Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo. When Atty. Bancolo
and Rustia accidentally chanced upon each other, the latter
informed Atty. Bancolo of the case filed against them. Atty.
Bancolo denied that he represented Divinagracia since he had
yet to meet Divinagracia and declared that the signature in the
Complaint was not his. Thus, Atty. Bancolo signed an affidavit
denying the said signature. This affidavit was used by Tapay
and Rustia in filing a counter-affidavit accusing Divinagracia of
falsifying the signature of Atty. Bancolo. Divinagracia, denying
the same, presented as evidence an affidavit byRichard A.
Cordero, the legal assistant of Atty. Bancolo, that the Jarder
Bancolo Law. Office accepted Divinagracias case and that the
Complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman was signed
by the office secretary per Atty. Bancolos instructions. The
case was then dismissed. Tapay and Rustia then later filed
with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines a complaint to disbar
Atty. Bancolo and Atty. Jarder, Atty. Bancolos law partner.
The complainants alleged that not only were respondents
engaging in unprofessional and unethical practices, they were
also involved in falsification of documents used to harass and
persecute innocent people. In their Answer, respondents
admitted that due to some minor lapses, Atty. Bancolo
permitted that the pleadings be signed in his name by the
secretary of the law office. After investigation, Atty. Lolita A.
Quisumbing, theInvestigating Commissioner of the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP, submitted her Report.
Atty. Quisumbing found that Atty. Bancolo violated Rule 9.01 of
Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility while Atty.
Jarder violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1of the same Code, and
recommended that Atty. Bancolo be suspended for two years
from the practice of law and Atty. Jarder be admonished for
his failure to exercise certain responsibilities in their law firm
ISSUE: WON Atty. Bancolo is guilty of violating Canon 9 of the
Code of ProfessionalResponsibility
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
HELD: YES. Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed
for a former client before theOffice of the Ombudsman was
signed in his name by a secretary of his law office. He
likewise categorically stated that because of some minor
lapses, the communications and pleadings filed against Tapay
and Rustia were signed by his secretary, albeit with his
tolerance. Atty. Bancolos authority and duty to sign a pleading
are personal to him. Although he may delegate the signing of a
pleading to another lawyer, he may not delegate it to anon-
lawyer. Further, under the Rules of Court, a counsels
signature serves as a certification that (1) he has read the
pleading; (2) to the best of his knowledge, information and
belief there is good ground to support it; and (3) it is not
interposed for delay. Thus, by affixing ones signature to a
pleading, it is counsel alone who has the responsibility to
certify to these matters and give legal effect to the document.
For violating rule 9.01 of the CPR, Atty. Bacolo was meted with
the penalty the suspension from the practice of law for one
year
43 Amalgamated Laborers Assoc vs CIR
(G.R. No. L-23467, March 27, 1968)
FACTS: Amalgamated Laborers Association won a case of
unfair labor practice against Binalbagan Sugar Central
Company, Inc. (Biscom). Upon motion of the complainants, CIR
sent the Chief Examiner to go to Biscom and compute the
backwages. Total net backwages amounted to P79,755.22.
Appeals were made against this decision. In the interim, Atty.
Leonardo C. Fernandez (herein respondent), in the same case,
filed a Notice of Attorneys Lien over the amount to be
awarded. He alleged therein that he had been the attorney of
record for the said case since the inception of the preliminary
hearings of said case up to the Supreme Court in Appeal, as
chief counsel. He claimed that the labourers have voluntarily
agreed to give him as attorneys fees on contingent basis 25%
of the award. He further averred that this is already a
discounted fee out of the plea of the unions president to
reduce it from 30% for them to also satisfy Atty. Jose Ur
Carbonell. Meanwhile, CIR decided the appeals still in favour of
the petitioners and ordered Biscom to deposit the amount
representing 25% of P79,755.22 with the cashier of the court to
be awarded and granted to Atty. Fernandez. Atty. Carbonell
and ALA appealed from the decision contending that 1) CIR is
bereft of jurisdiction to adjudicate contractual disputes over
attorneys fees averring that a dispute arising from contracts
for attorneys fees is not a labor dispute and is not one among
the cases ruled to be within CIRs authority and to consider
such a dispute to be a mere incident to a case over which CIR
may validly assume jurisdiction is to disregard the special and
limited nature of said courts jurisdiction; 2) the award of 25%
as attorneys fees to Atty. Fernandez is excessive, unfair and
illegal. This and a subsequent motion for reconsideration was
denied. Hence, this petition
ISSUE: WON Respondent is entitled to the attorneys fees as
granted by the CIR
HELD: The attorneys fees in the amount of P19,938.81 as granted
by the CIR to Respondent is not proper. An examination of the
record of the case will readily show that an award of twenty-
five per cent (25%) attorneys' fees reasonably compensates the
whole of the legal services rendered in CIR Case No. 70-ULP-
Cebu. This fee must be shared by petitioner Atty. Carbonell
and respondent Atty. Fernandez. For, after all, they are the
counsel of record of the complainants. Respondent Atty.
Fernandez cannot deny this fact. The pleadings filed even at
the early stages of the proceedings reveal the existence of an
association between said attorneys. The pleadings were filed
under the name of "Fernandez & Carbonell." This imports a
common effort of the two. It cannot be denied though that
most of those pleadings up to judgment were signed for
Fernandez & Carbonell by respondent Fernandez.
J a n ua r y 17, 2 0 17
The Lawyer and the Court
CANON 10 Duty of Cando, Fairness, and
Good Faith to the Courts
Rule 10. 01 - Duty not to do any falsehood; duty not to
mislead
Page 21
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
Rule 10.02 - Duty not to knowingly misquote or
misrepresent
Rule 10.03 - Duty to observe the rules of procedure; duty
not to misuse the rules
A lawyers conduct before the court should be characterized
by candor and fairness. His duty is to uphold the dignity
and authority of the courts to which he owes fidelity, not to
promote distrust in the administration of justice.
RATIONALE: The burden cast on the judiciary
would be intolerable if it could not take at face
value what is asserted by counsel.
Rule 10. 01 - Duty not to do any falsehood; duty not
to mislead
The Lawyers Oath mandates the lawyer:
(a) to do no falsehood,
(b) nor consent to the doing of the same in court
(c) to conduct himself as a lawyer according to
the best of his knowledge and discretion
with all good fidelity to the court
Some Cases of Falsehood which Merited Discipline
1. Lawyers falsely stating in a deed of sale that
property is free from all liens and encumbrances
when it is not so. (Sevilla v. Zoleta, A.C. No. 31, March
28, 1955)
2. Lawyers making it appear that a person, long
dead, executed a deed of sale, in his favor.
(Monterey v. Arayata, Per. Rec. Nos 3527, 3408, August 23,
1935)
3. Lawyer, encashing a check payable to a
deceased cousin by signing the lattes name on
the check. (In re: Samaniego, A.C. No. 74, November 20,
1959)
4. Lawyer falsifying a power of attorney and used it
in collecting the money due to the principal and
appropriating the money for his own benefit. (In
re: Rusina, A.C. No. 270, May 29, 1959)
5. Lawyer denying having received the notice to file
brief which is belied by the return card. (Ragasajo
v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69129, August 31, 1987)
6. Lawyer Falsifying Sheriffs Return and seeking the
default of the defendant (Libit v Oliva, 237 SCRA 375)
7. Using in pleadings the IBP number of another
lawyer (Bongolota v Castillo, CBD No. 176, Jan. 1, 1995)
8. Manufacturing, flanging and using a spurious CA
resolution before the RTC (Florido v Florido, A.C.
5624, Jan. 20, 2004)
Rule 10.02 - Duty not to knowingly misquote or
misrepresent
RATIONALE: If not faithfully and exactly quoted,
the decisions and rulings of the court may lose
their proper and correct meaning, to the
detriment of other courts, lawyers and the public
who may thereby be misled.
A Lawyer is Prohibited from:
planning to take the children to Bacolod, she immediately took
1. Knowingly misquoting or misrepresenting
(a) contents of a paper,
(b) language of argument of opposing counsel
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
2. Knowingly citing as law, a provision already
rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment
3. Asserting as a fact that which has not been
proved
Rule in the Quotation of a Decision
In citing the SC decisions and rulings, it is the
bounden duty of courts, judges and lawyers to
reproduce or copy the same word for word and
punctuation mark for punctuation mark.
Rule 10.03 - Duty to observe the rules of procedure;
duty not to misuse the rules
RATIONALE: Procedures are instruments in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice,
They should be used to achieve such end and
not to derail it.
A lawyer should always bear in mind that the Rules
of Procedure, like the Rules of Court, are intended
to facilitate the delivery of justice to those whom it
is due without unnecessary expense and waste of
time, for truly, justice delayed is justice denied.
Rules of procedure must be used to attain such
objective. Any lawyer who uses them to defeat or
frustrate the ends of justice deserves condonation
44 Que vs Atty. Revilla
(A.C. No. 7054, December 4, 2009)
FACTS: In an unlawful detainer case, a decision was rendered
by the RTC against respondent Atty. Anastacio Revilla Jr.s
clients. Thereafter, Atty. Revilla filed series of petition all
containing a prayer for injunctive relief. Conrado Que, accused
Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. before the IBP of committing abuse
of court remedies and processes, a violation of Rule 10.03
Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
makes it obligatory for a lawyer to "observe the rules of
procedure and. . . Not [to] misuse them to defeat the ends of
justice.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Revilla has violated Rule 10.03 Canon 10 for
committing abuse of court remedies and processes.
HELD: YES. Rule 10.03 Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which makes it obligatory for a lawyer to
"observe the rules of procedure and. . . not [to] misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice." The successive filings of petitions
all containing a prayer forinjunctiverelief, reveal the
respondents persistence in preventing and avoiding the
execution of the final decisions of the lower courts against his
client. The respondent violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
45 Hueysuwan vs Florido
(A.C. No. 5624, January 20, 2004)
FACTS: Natasha Hueysuwan-Florido (H-F) filed this
administrative complaint against her husband James Florido
for violating his oath as a lawyer by manufacturing, flaunting
and using a spurious and bogus CA resolution/order. H-F
admits that she and her husband live separately. They have
two children. Sometime in Dec. 2001, Florido went to H-Fs
house and showed her a photocopy of a resolution issued by
the CA apparently giving to Florido the legal custody of their
children. H-F doubted the authenticity of the CA resolution so
she did not give her children to Florido. Then in 2002, while H-F
and her children were in the ABC Learning Center, Florido
arrived accompanied by armed men. Florido demanded that
H-F surrender custody of their children to him. H-F, fearing for
her childrens safety, called the police. In the police station, H-F
agreed to let the children sleep with Florido just for one night
at a hotel. But when H-F heard of news that Florido was
them away. Florido then filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus on the basis of the CA resolution he presented to H-F
earlier. This petition was dismissed because Florido did not
appear and H-F presented a certification from the CA that
there was no resolution granting Florido with legal custody of
Page 22
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
their children. Thus, this present action. The IBP has
recommended that Florido be suspended from the practice of
law for 6 years.
ISSUE: WON Florido was liable for making false court resolution
HELD: Yes. A lawyer who used a spurious Resolution of the
Court of Appeals is presumed to have participated in its
fabrication. Candor and fairness are demanded of every
lawyer. The burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable
if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel.
The time that will have to be devoted just to the task of
verification of allegations submitted could easily be imagined.
Even with due recognition then that counsel is expected to
display the utmost zeal in the defense of a clients cause, it
must never be at the expense of the truth.
46 Del Rosario vs Chingcuangco
(G.R. No. L-25503, December 17, 1966)
FACTS: Del Rosario filed a special civil action against
Respondents asking for a preliminary injuction for the
execution of a judgment of the Court of Agrarian Reform
ejecting Petitioner from the premises of Respondent Imperio.
He also argued that he has a right of retention over the land
until he is indemnified for expenses and improvements
pursuant to the ruling of Paz Ongsiako, Inc. vs. Celestino Abad,
et al. Respondent filed a petition for contempt against
Petitioners counsel for having cited a fictitious case and a non-
existing ruling
ISSUE: WON Petitioners counsel is administratively liable for
having cited a fictitious case and a non-existing ruling
HELD: Petitioners counsel is not administratively liable.
Petitioner cannot also be ejected from the premises of
Respondent Imperio until he is indemnified for expenses and
improvements. The same is plainly but a slight typographical
mistake not sufficient to place him in contempt, especially
because the names of the parties were given correctly. As to
said counsel's interpretation of this Court's decision in said
case, or of what the ruling therein "in effect" created,
established or confirmed, the same are mere arguments fully
within the bounds of earnest debate, rather than a deception
urged upon this Court. The first petition for contempt is
therefore without merit.
47 COMELEC vs Noynay
(G.R. No. 132365, July 9, 1998)
FACTS: COMELEC filed an information for violation of Section
261(i) of the Omnibus Election Code against Diosdada Amor, a
public school principal and Esbel Chua and Ruben Magluyoan,
both public school teachers, for having engaged in partisan
activities. Nine informations/criminal cases for violation of the
Code were filed. Judge Tomas Noynay, presiding judge,
ordered motu proprio the records of the cases to be
withdrawn and that COMELEC Law dept. should file the cases
with the MTC on the ground that RTC has no jurisdiction over
the case because the maximum imposable penalty does not
exceed 6 years of imprisonment. Atty. Jose P. Balbuena,
Director IV of petitioners law department carelessly cited
Alberto Naldeza vs Judge Juan Lavilles, Jr., in the motion
for Reconsideration he filed with the court. Also in this petition,
Balbuena cited the case as Alberto vs Judge Juan Lavilles,
Jr. 245 SCRA 286. The correct name of the complainant
should have been Alberto Naldoza. The case was not reported
in volume 245 of the SCRA as falsely represented in the
petition but in Volume 254 of the SCRA. Balbuena, in his
motion for reconsideration and petition, deliberately made it
appear that the quoted portions were findings of the Supreme
Court when in fact those were just part of the memorandum
of the Court Administrator quoted in the decision.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Balbuena has violated Canon 10 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility (CPR)
HELD: YES. Atty. Balbuena is also admonished for being
reckless in citing cases. The Supreme Court said that the
passage cited by Balbuena in his Motion was not the actual
decision of the Supreme Court in the said case cited but rather
the memorandum of the court administrator which was
quoted in the said case. Further, his citation of Naldeza vs
Lavilles, Jr. was wrong. Not only did he spell Naldeza wrong
(as the correct spelling was NALDOZA), he also cited the
wrong SCRA. It should have been 254 SCRA 286 and not 245
SCRA 286. Balbuena is reminded of Rule 10.02, Canon 10 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which requires that a
lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the text
of a decision or authority.
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
48 Adez Realty Inc. vs CA
(G.R. No. 100643, December 12, 1995) (215 SCRA 301)
FACTS: Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay was disbarred from the
practice of law for having found guilty of intercalating a
material fact in a decision of the Court of Appeals thereby
misleading the Court in order to obtain a favorable judgment.
During the three years of his disbarment, Atty. Dacanay
admitted his guilt for the offense committed and repeatedly
pleas for compassion from the court with a prayer that he be
reinstated, asserting his readiness to meet the standards of the
legal profession.
ISSUE: WON Dacanay shall be reinstated for the practice of law.
HELD: Dacanay shall be reinstated for the practice of law. The
practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions.
Obedience to the standards of mental fitness and morality and
faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are
the conditions required for remaining a member of good
standing of the bar. The disbarment of Atty. Dacanay for three
(3) years has given him to reflect on his professional conduct,
redeem himself and proves once more that he is worthy to
practice law and be capable of upholding the dignity of the
legal profession. His admission of guilt and repeated pleas for
compassion and reinstatement show that he is ready once
more to meet the exacting standards the legal profession
demands from its practitioners. Hence, the Court ruled that the
disbarment of Atty. Dacanay be lifted.
CANON 11 Duty to give respect to the
Courts
Rule 11.01 - Duty to appear in court properly attired
Rule 11.02 - Duty to be punctual at court hearings
Rule 11.03 - Duty to abstain from scandalous, offensive or
menacing language or behavior before the courts
Rule 11.04 - Duty not to attribute to a judge motives not
supported by the record or having no materiality to the
case
Rule 11.05 - Duty to submit grievances against a judge to
the proper authorities
CANON 11 Duty to give respect to the Courts
RATIONALE: Disrespect towards the court would
necessarily undermine the confidence of the
people in the honesty and integrity of the
members of the court, and consequently to lower
or degrade the administration of justice by the
court.
It is one of the bounden duties of an attorney to observe
and maintain the respect due to the courts of Justice and
judicial officers. (Rule 138, Section 20[b], RRC) The respect is not
only toward the Justices and Judges but also to other
officers of the Courts like Clerks of Court, Sheriffs and
other judicial officers who take part in the judicial work.
Lawyers must be respectful not only in their actions
but also in their use of language whether in oral
arguments or pleadings.
Criticisms of Courts Must Not Spill Over the Walls of
Decency and Propriety
Freedom of speech is not absolute, and must
occasionally be balanced with the requirements
of equally important public interests, such as the
maintenance of the integrity of the courts and
orderly functioning of the administration of justice.
Thus, the making of the contemptuous
statements directed against the court is not an
exercise of free speech; rather, it is a abuse of
such right. Unwarranted attacks on the dignity of
Page 23
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
the courts cannot be disguised as free speech,
for the exercise of said right cannot be used to
impair the independence and efficiency of courts
to public respect and confidence therein.
Rule 11.01 - Duty to appear in court properly attired
proceedings are pending constitutes direct contempt
As an officer of the court and in order to maintain
the dignity and respectability of the legal
profession, a lawyer who appears in court must
be properly attired. Consequently, the court can
hold a lawyer in contempt of court if he does not
appear in proper attire. Any deviation from the
commonly accepted norm of dressing in court
(barong or tie, not both) is enough to warrant a
citing for contempt.
Respect begins with the lawyers outward physical
appearance in court.
case. A lawyers right to criticize the acts of courts
The traditional attires for male lawyers in the
Philippines are the long-sleeve Barong Tagalog or
coat and tie. Female lawyers appear in semi-formal
attires. Judges also appear in the same attire in
addition to black robes.
Courts have ordered a male attorney to wear a necktie and
have prohibited a female attorney from wearing a hat.
However, the prohibition of a dress whose hemline was
five inches above the knee was held to be acceptable as
such had become an accepted mode of dress even in
places of worship
Sloppy informal attire adversely reflects on the
lawyer and demeans the dignity and solemnity of
court proceedings.
Rule 11.02 - Duty to be punctual at court hearings
but it is improper to subject them to abuse and
A lawyer owes the court and his client the duty to
punctually appear at court proceedings
He shall delay no man for money or malice (Lawyers
oath)
Inexcusable absence from, or repeated tardiness
in, attending a pre-trial or hearing may subject the
lawyer to disciplinary actin as his actions showing
disrespect to the court makes him guilty of
contemptuous behavior.
Rule 11.03 - Duty to abstain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language or behavior
before the courts
judge who decided on it is subject to the same
The lawyers duty to render respectful subordination
to the courts is essential to the orderly
administration of justice. Hence, in the assertion
of the clients rights, lawyers even those gifted
with superior intellect, are enjoined to rein up their
tempers. (Zaldivar v. Gonzalez, G.R. Nos. 79690-707
October 7, 1988)
There is no defense against the use in a pleading
by a lawyer of disrespectful, threatening, abusive,
and abrasive language. It cannot be justified by
the constitutional right of free speech for such
right is not absolute and its exercise must be
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
within the context of a functioning and orderly
system of dispensing justice.
Pleadings containing derogatory, offensive or malicious
statements submitted to the court or judge in which the
The lawyers disavowal of any offensive intent in
using defamatory words is of no avail.
Lack or warrant of intention is no excuse for the
disrespectful language employed. At best, it
extenuates liability
Rule 11.04 - Duty not to attribute to a judge motives
not supported by the record or having no
materiality to the case
This rule allows such criticism so long as it is
supported by the record or it is material to the
and judges in a proper and respectful way
through legitimate channels is well recognized.
The cardinal condition of all such criticism that
it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the
walls of decency and propriety.
When is public comment and criticism of a court
decision permissible and when would it be
improper?
A lawyer, like every citizen, enjoys the right to
comment on and criticize the decision of a court.
As an officer of the court, a lawyer is expected not
only to exercise that right but also to consider it
his duty to expose the shortcomings and
indiscretions of courts and judges. But such right
is subject to the limitations that it shall be bona
fide. It is proper to criticize the courts and judges,
slander, degrade them or destroy public
confidence in them. Moreover, a lawyer shall not
attribute to a judge, motives not supported by the
record or have no materiality in the case.
What a lawyer can ordinarily say against a
concluded litigation and the manner the judge
handed down the decision therein may not
generally be said to a pending action. The court,
in a pending litigation, must be shielded from
embarrassment and influence in performing the
important duty of deciding it.
On the other hand, once litigation is concluded, the
criticism as any other public official because then
his ruling becomes public property and is thrown
open to public consumption.
Rule 11.05 - Duty to submit grievances against a
judge to the proper authoritie
A lawyer has the duty to defend a judge from
unfounded criticism or groundless personal
attack.
The duty to respect does not preclude a lawyer
from filing administrative complaints against
erring judges, or fro acting as counsel for clients
who have legitimate grievances against them.
Page 24
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
Nature of the Case Where to File
It shall be filed with the Office of the Court
If administrative in nature
Administrator of the Supreme Court
If criminal and not purely It shall be filed with the Office of the
administrative Ombudsman
It must be coursed through the House of
If it involves a Justice Supreme
Representative and the Senate in
based impeachable offenses
accordance with the rules on impeachment.
Constitution, Article VIII, Section 6. The Supreme Court shall
have administrative supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof
An administrative complaint is not an appropriate
remedy where judicial recourse is still available,
such as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal,
or a petition for certiorari, unless the assailed
order or decision is tainted with fraud, malice, or
dishonesty. (Santiago III v. Justice Enriquez, Jr. A.M.
No. CA-09-47-J, February 13, 2009)
49 In Re: Almacen
(G.R. No. L-27654, February 18, 1970) (31 SCRA 562)
FACTS: Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen filed a Petition to
Surrender the Lawyers Certificate of Title to the Supreme
Court as a sign of his protest as against to what he call a
tribunal peopled by people who are calloused to our pleas for
justice.... He also expressed strong words as against the
judiciary like justice... is not only blind, but also deaf and
dumb. The petition rooted from the case he lost due to the
absence of time and place in his motion in the trial court. His
appeal was dismissed in the Court of Appeals. In a petition for
certiorari in the Supreme Court, it was again dismissed thru a
minute resolution. With the disappointments, he thought of
this sacrificial move. He claimed that this petition to surrender
his title is only in trust, and that he may obtain the title again
as soon as he regained confidence in the justice system.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Almacen should be given disciplinary actions
for his acts.
HELD: YES. Every citizen has the right to comment upon and
criticize the actuations of public officers. The Court also treats
with forbearance and restraint a lawyer who vigorously
assails their actuations, provided it is done in respectful terms
and through legitimate channels; for courageous and fearless
advocates are the strands that weave durability into the
tapestry of justice. The reason is that an attorney does not
surrender his right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the
court in fair and respectful manner, and the independence of
the Bar, as well as the judiciary, has always been encouraged
by the courts. Criticism has been an important part of the
traditional work of a lawyer. As a citizen and as officer of the
court, a lawyer is expected not only to exercise his right, but
also to consider it his duty to avail of such right. But the
cardinal condition of all such criticism is that is shall be bona
fide and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.
50 Wicker v Arcangel
(G.R. No. 112869, January 29, 1996)
FACTS: Wicker argued that when a person, impelled by
justifiable apprehension and acting in a respectful manner,
asks a judge to inhibit himself from hearing his case, he does
not thereby become guilty of contempt. Arcangel held the
Petitioners guilty of direct contempt and sentenced each to
suffer imprisonment for five (5) days and to pay a fine of
P100.00 and argued that the motion for inhibition by Petitioners
are "malicious, derogatory and contemptuous" and that their
explanation was insufficient
ISSUE: WON Petitioners are guilty for contempt
HELD: Petitioners are guilty. However, the 5 days imprisonment
is removed. Atty. Rayos claims he merely did what he had
been bidden to do by his client of whom he was merely a
"mouthpiece." He was just "lawyering" and "he cannot be
gagged," even if the allegations in the motion for the inhibition
which he prepared and filed were false since it was his client
who verified the same. Atty. Rayos, however, cannot evade
responsibility for the allegations in question. Atty. Rayos' duty
to the courts is not secondary to that of his client
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
51 Re: Letter of UP Law Faculty
(A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, October 19, 2010)
SUMMARY: Shortly after the promulgation of the Supreme
Court decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, the counsel
for the petitioners therein filed, 1) a Motion for Reconsideration
reiterating the fundamental responsibility of states in
protecting its citizens human rights specifically pertaining to
jus cogens norms; and, 2) a supplement thereto asserting that
the Vinuya decision was plagiarized from different sources
and that the true intents of the plagiarized sources were
twisted by the ponente to suit the arguments laid down in said
decision. Thereafter, an ethics committee tasked to investigate
the veracity of the alleged plagiarism, the authors who were
purportedly plagiarized sent their respective letters to the
Supreme Court.Due to this, the faculty of UP College of Law
came up with a statement (Restoring Integrity Statement),
which alleged plagiarism against Justice del Castillo, treating
the same not only as an established fact, but as a truth. Said
statement was posted online and at the Colleges bulletin
board and was submitted to the Supreme Court. Thus, the
Supreme Court issued a Show Cause Resolution directing
respondents to show cause why they should not be disciplined
as members of the Bar for violations of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
52 Baculi vs Battung
(A.C. No. 8920 September 28, 2011)
FACTS: Judge Baculi, Presiding Judge of Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Branch 2, Tuguegarao City, filed a complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Battung. He claimed that on July 24,
2008, during the hearing on the motion for reconsideration of
Civil Case No. 2502, the respondent was shouting while
arguing his motion. Judge Baculi advised him to tone down his
voice but instead, the respondent shouted at the top of his
voice. When warned that he would be cited for direct
contempt, the respondent shouted, Then cite me!Judge
Baculi cited him for direct contempt and imposed a fine of
P100.00. The respondent then left. While other cases were
being heard, the respondent re-entered the courtroom and
shouted, Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am
not afraid of you! Judge Baculi cited him for direct contempt
of court for the second time. After his hearings, respondent
again shouted in a threatening tone, Judge, I will file gross
ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you! He kept on
shouting, I am not afraid of you! and challenged the judge to
a fight. Staff and lawyers escorted him out of the building.
Judge Baculi later found out that after the respondent left the
courtroom, Atty. Battung continued shouting and punched a
table at the Office of the Clerk of Court.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Battung violate Cannons 11 and 12 of the CPR
HELD: Respondent is liable. He is suspended for 1 year. Atty.
Battung disrespected Judge Baculi by shouting at him inside
the courtroom during court proceedings in the presence of
litigants and their counsels, and court personnel. The
respondent even came back to harass Judge Baculi. This
behavior, in front of many witnesses, cannot be allowed. We
note that the respondent continued to threaten Judge Baculi
and acted in a manner that clearly showed disrespect for his
position even after the latter had cited him for contempt. In
fact, after initially leaving the court, the respondent returned
to the courtroom and disrupted the ongoing proceedings.
These actions were not only against the person, the position
and the stature of Judge Baculi, but against the court as well
whose proceedings were openly and flagrantly disrupted, and
brought to disrepute by the respondent.
53 Judge Cervantes vs Atty. Sabio
(A.C. No. 7828 August 11, 2008)
FACTS: Respondent filed motions for inhibition on complainant
judge on the ground that EDC (a party to the case handled by
Atty. Sabio) gave complainant a house and lot putting into
serious doubt his impartiality, independence and integrity. The
motions were denied. Later on in his affidavit of complaint,
Atty. Sabio submitted an affidavit stating certain instances
pointing out irregularities with the handling of his case under
Judge Cervantes. The complaint was dismissed.
A complaint for disbarment was later filed by Judge Cervantes
against Sabio alleging that (1) the complaint for bribery filed by
the latter against the former were unsubstantiated and
motivated by plain unfounded suspicion, and, (2) such
complaints were filed after the effectivity of his optional
retirement.
The complaint by Judge Cervantes was referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report
and recommendation.
Page 25
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
ISSUE: WON the respondent is guilty under the Code of
Professional Responsibility for filing a malicious, false and
untruthful complaint.
HELD: YES. The IBP established that by filing the groundless
bribery charge against complainant, respondent violated the
proscription of the Code of Professional Responsibility against
"wittingly or willingly promoting or suing any groundless
suit" including baseless administrative complaints against
judges and other court officers and employees.
The Court found the action taken by the IBP Board of Governors
well taken.
Respondent ought to be aware that if a court official or
employee, or a lawyer, is to be disciplined, the evidence
against him should be substantial, competent and derived
from direct knowledge, not on mere allegations, conjectures,
suppositions, or on the basis of hearsay.
No doubt, it is the Court's duty to investigate the truth behind
charges against judges and lawyers. But it is also its duty to
shield them from unfounded suits which are intended to,
among other things, harass them.
54 Andamo vs Larida
(A.M. No.RTJ-11-2265, September 21, 2011)
FACTS: Herein petitioner, Atty. Emmanuel Andamo, counsel for
the Cavite Rural Banking Corporation (CRBC), filed this
administrative complaint against the respondents, Hon. Judge
Edwin Larida, Clerk of Court Stanlee Calma and Legal
Researcher Diana Ruiz with gross ignorance of law .Petitions
for the issuance of Writs of Possession and Certificates of Sale
in favor of petitioners client were filed before the RTC of
Tagaytay city. At that time, respondent Hon. Judge Edwin
Larida, was the attendant judge of said court together with
respondents Clerk of Court and Legal Researcher. Respondent
judge denied the petitions for the said certificates and writs on
the ground that it has not observed the required elements for
the said application. The respondents Clerk of Court and Legal
Researcher denied the complainants petition for extrajudicial;
foreclosure in the following grounds: (1) non-payment of filing
fees; (2) non-assignment of docket numbers; (3) absence of
proof of service to the sheriff and to the parties; etc
ISSUE:
HELD: Complainant's charge of gross ignorance of the law
against respondents remains unfounded and unsubstantiated.
The evidence which complainant submitted, instead of helping
his cause, showed that it was he who was stubbornly remiss
in his duties to his client and to the court, as well. The
evidence likewise showed that contrary to complainant's
accusation, respondents in fact strictly complied with
applicable laws, rules, and jurisprudence pertaining to
issuance of writs of possession or allowance of extrajudicial
foreclosure. It is worth noting, too, that there were no pending
motions for reconsideration filed or other incidents initiated by
complainant in the subject cases to warrant their entry in the
court calendar. As a matter of fact, complainant does not deny
that the assailed Order dated March 17, 2004 had long attained
finality For Atty. Calma. Clearly, this is a frivolous and
baseless complaint. The respondents cannot be held liable for
judiciously performing their sworn duty to observe and follow
court proceedings as provided by the Rules. Complainant
apparently filed this complaint primarily to divert the attention
of his client from his shortcomings as its counsel, if not to
simply harass the respondents. A lawyer who files an
unfounded complaint must be sanctioned because, as an
officer of the court, he does not discharge his duty by filing
frivolous petitions that only add to the workload of the
judiciary.Such filing of baseless complaints is contemptuous of
the courts. Complainant was ordered to show cause why he
should not be subjected to disciplinary action for filing a
frivolous and baseless complaint
55 Maceda vs Ombudsman
(G.R. No. 102781, April 22, 1993)
FACTS: Napoleon Abiera of PAO filed a complaint before the
Office of the Ombudsman against RTC Judge Bonifacio Sanz
Maceda. Abiera alleged that Maceda has falsified his certificate
of service by certifying that all civil and criminal cases which
have been submitted for decision for a period of 90 days have
been determined and decided on or before January 31, 1989,
when in truth and in fact, Maceda knew that no decision had
been rendered in 5 civil and 10 criminal cases that have been
submitted for decision. Abiera alleged that Maceda falsified his
certificates of service for 17 months.
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
ISSUE: WON the investigation made by the Ombudsman
constitutes an encroachment into the SCs constitutional duty
of supervision over all inferior courts.
HELD: In the absence of any administrative action taken against
him by the Court with regard to his certificates of service, the
investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches
into the Courts power of administrative supervision over all
courts and its personnel, in violation of the doctrine of
separation of powers. Art. VIII, Sec. 6 of the Constitution
exclusively vests in the SC administrative supervision over all
courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the
CA down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of
this power, it is only the SC that can oversee the judges and
court personnels compliance with all laws, and takes the
proper administrative action against them if they commit any
violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude
into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of
separation of powers.
Where a criminal complaint against a judge or other court
employee arises from their administrative duties, the
Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the
same to the SC for determination whether said judge or court
employee had acted within the scope of their administrative
duties.
CANON 12 Duty to Assist in the Speedy
and Efficient Administration of Justice
Rule 12. 01 - Duty to adequately prepare for trial
Rule 12. 02 - Duty not to engage in forum shopping
Rule 12. 03 - Duty to file pleadings on time
Rule 12. 04 - Duty not to unduly delay a case
Rule 12. 05 - Duty not to talk to witness, during break or
recess, while the latter is still under examination
Rule 12. 06 - Duty not to knowingly assist a witness to
misrepresent or impersonate
Rule 12. 07 - Duty not to abuse, browbeat or harass or
needlessly inconvenience a witness
Rule 12. 08 - Duty to avoid testifying in behalf of his
client
Canon 12 - Duty to Assist in the Speedy and Efficient
Administration of Justice
CONST. Art III, Sec 6. All persons shall have the
right to a speedy disposition of their cases before
all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies
Rule 138, Sec. 20 (g). Duties of attorneys Not to
encourage either the commencement or the
continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay
any man's cause, from any corrupt motive or
interest.
Rule 12. 01 - Duty to adequately prepare for trial
A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without
adequate preparation. (Rule 18.02)
A lawyer should never come to court unprepared.
Most cases brought to court without preparation
are cases lost. Half of the work of a lawyer is done
in the office. It is spent in study and research.
Inadequate preparation
Rule 12. 02 - Duty not to engage in forum shopping
Forum shopping: the institution of two or more
actions or proceeding grounded on the same
cause, on the gamble that one or the other court
would make a favorable decision.
Page 26
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
The Essential Elements of Forum Shopping
Rule 12. 04 - Duty not to unduly delay a case
a. Two or more cases are pending
b. The pending cases involve: same parties, same
causes of action, and same relief prayed for.
Penalties for violation of the rule against forum
shopping under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of
Court
1. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements
shall not be curable by mere amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall
be cause for the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon
motion and after hearing;
2. The submission of a false certification or non-
compliance with any of the undertakings therein
shall constitute indirect contempt of court,
without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions, and
3. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly
constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping,
the same shall be ground for summary
dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute
direct contempt, as well as a cause for
administrative sanctions.
Specific Instances of forum shopping that merited
sanction
1. When, as a result of an adverse opinion in one
forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other
than by appeal or certiorari) in another
2. Filing an action in court while the same cause of
action is still pending in an administrative
proceeding.
3. Filing a second suit in a court without jurisdiction
4. When counsel omits to disclose the pendency of
an appeal, in filing a certiorari case
Who signs the Certification against Forum Shopping
The lawyer who is guilty of the above is both
General Rule: It must be signed by the client and
not by the counsel. Otherwise, it is equivalent to
non-compliance with the Rules of Court and is
defective
Exceptions: When the counsel, when clothed
with a special power of attorney to do so,
attests in the certification that he has
personal knowledge of the facts stated and
gives justifiable reasons why the party
himself cannot sign the same
Rule 12. 03 - Duty to file pleadings on time
necessary or maligning them with such other
The court censures the practice of counsels who
secures repeated extensions of time to file their
pleadings and thereafter simply let the period
lapse without submitting the pleading or even an
explanation or manifestation of their failure to do
so.
Where a lawyers motion for extension of time to file
a pleading, memorandum or brief has remained
enacted by the court, the least that is expected of
him is to file it within the period asked for.
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
It is understandable for a party to make full use of
every conceivable legal defense the law allows it.
However, of such attempts to evade liability to
which a party should respond, it must ever be
kept in mind that procedural rules are intended as
an aid to justice, not as means for its frustration.
Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the
prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of
his victory by some subterfuge devised by the
losing party. Unjustified delay in the enforcement
in the enforcement of a judgment sets at naught
the role of the courts in disposing justiciable
controversies with finality.
Rule 12. 05 - Duty not to talk to witness, during
break or recess, while the latter is still under
examination
Purpose: To prevent the suspicion that he is
coaching the witness what to say during the
resumption of the examination. Moreover, this rule
is also designed to uphold and maintain fair play
with the other party and to prevent the examining
lawyer from being tempted to coach his own
witness to suit his purpose.
Rule 12. 06 - Duty not to knowingly assist a witness
to misrepresent or impersonate
The witness who commits misrepresentation is
criminally liable for False Testimony either
under Art. 181, 182, or 183 of the RVP, as the
case may be. The lawyer who induces a witness
to commit false testimony is equally guilty as the
witness.
The lawyer who presented a witness knowing him
to be a false witness is criminally liable for
Offering False Testimony in Evidence under Art.
184 of RVP.
criminally and administratively liable.
Rule 12. 07 - Duty not to abuse, browbeat or harass
or needlessly inconvenience a witness
The lawyer has a duty to always treat adverse
witnesses and suitors with fairness and due
consideration.
Thus, it is misbehavior in court for a lawyer to
frighten or shout at witness, to terrorize them or
tear them down arrogantly, cross-examine them
with incessant questions beyond what is fair and
similar acts where disrespect instead of respect,
is the tone of the action
Rights and Obligations of a Witness under Section 3,
Rule 132, RRC
A witness must answer questions although his
answer may tend to establish a claim against him.
However, it is the right of a witness:
Page 27
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or
insulting questions and from harsh or insulting
demeanor;
2. Not to be detained longer than the interest of
justice requires;
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters
pertinent to the issue;
4. Not to give any answer which will tend to subject
him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise
provided by law; or
5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade
his reputation, unless it be the very fact at issue
or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be
presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact
of his previous and final conviction for an
offense
Rule 12. 08 - Duty to avoid testifying in behalf of his
client
Exceptions: (a) on Formal matters, such as the
mailing, authentication or custody of 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.
Rationale for the Rule
There is a difference between the respective
functions of a witness and an advocate
The function of a witness is to tell the facts as he
recalls them in answer to questions.
The function of an advocate is that of a partisan.
The lawyer will find it difficult to distinguish between
the zeal of an advocate and the fairness and
impartiality of a disinterested witness.
Instances when a lawyer MAY NOT testify as witness
58 Santiago vs Rafanan
1. When as an attorney, he is to testify on the theory
of the case
2. When such would Adversely affect any lawful
interest of the client with respect to which
confidence has been reposed on him
3. Having accepted a Retainer, he cannot be a
witness against his client;
4. He cannot serve Conflicting interests
5. When he is to violate the Confidence of
his client
Instances when a lawyer MAY testify as witness in a
case which he is handling for a client
affidavits related to cases pending before courts and other
1. On Formal matters, such as the mailing,
authentication or custody of instrument and the
like;
2. Acting as an Expert on his fee;
3. 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;
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
56 Alcantara vs de Vera
(A.C. No. 5859, November 23, 2010)
FACTS: Atty. Eduardo De Vera won a case for Rosario Mercado.
De Vera garnished the bank account of the opposing party but
he did not remit the same to Mercado, instead he claimed that
he used the same to pay off the judge and whats left was for
his attorneys fees. Mercado filed an administrative complaint
and eventually De Vera was suspended from the practice of
law for one year. In obvious retaliation, he filed various
complaints against Mercado and her family, the IBP officers
who suspended and several others. He attempted to re-open
the case of her client in an attempt to collect more attorneys
fees. He also instigated the opposing party in the case he won
for Mercado to file lawsuits against Mercado. The complaints
were dismissed but he re-filed them nonetheless.
ISSUE: WON De Vera should be disbarred
HELD: Yes. What he did is grossly unethical and filled with ill-
motive. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to remove from
the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him
unfit to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities
belonging to an office of an attorney, and thus to protect the
public and those charged with the administration of justice,
rather than to punish the attorney.
57 Nunez vs Atty. Ricafort
(A.C. No. 5054, May 29, 2002)
FACTS: Soledad Nunez authorized Atty. Romulo Ricafort to sell
her parcels of land. After having sold the lots, Nunez
demanded from Atty. Ricafort the proceeds of the sale but the
latter failed to deliver the money. Atty. Ricafort paid only a
partial amount and issued post-dated checks to cover the
balance. Said checks however, were dishonoured because the
account against which they were drawn was closed.
Consequently, Nunez filed a motion to cite Atty. Ricafort for
contempt for his acts of misconduct and for his acts
unbecoming of a lawyer.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Romulo Ricafort has committed acts of
misconduct in his dealings with Nunez.
HELD: YES. Rule 1:01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct. In the
case at bar, Atty. Ricafort gravely abused the confidence that
his client has given in him and committed dishonesty when
he did not turn over the proceeds of the sale of her property.
He even closed the account against which the checks for the
payment of unpaid balance were drawn, which depicts that
he never had the intention of paying his obligation.
(A.C. No. 6252, October 5, 2004)
FACTS: This is a disbarment case against Atty. Edison Rafanan
filed by Jonar Santiago, an employee of the Bureau of Jail
Management & Penology (BJMP). It charged Atty. Rafanan
with violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice, among others.
Complainant alleged, among others, that Respondent in
notarizing several documents on different dates failed and/or
refused to: a) make the proper notation regarding the cedula or
community tax certificate of the affiants; b) enter the details of
the notarized documents in the notarial register; and c) make
and execute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP
numbers in the documents he had notarized, all in violation of
the notarial provisions of the Revised Administrative Code.
Respondent claimed that he believed that thenon-notation of
their Residence Certificates in the Affidavits and the Counter-
affidavits was allowed. He opined that the notation of
residence certificates applied only to documents
acknowledged by a notary public and was not mandatory for
government offices. He pointed out that in the latter, the
affidavits, which were sworn to before government
prosecutors, did not have to indicate the residence certificates
of the affiants.
ISSUE: WON a lawyer (in this case, Rafanan) can stand as
witness in favor of his clients.
HELD: A lawyer is not disqualified from being a witness, except
only in certain cases pertaining to privileged communication
arising from an attorney-client relationship.
Reason: The difficulty posed upon lawyers by the task of
dissociating their relationship to their clients as witnesses
from that as an advocate (Note: A witness must only say
what happened. Only the truth. As compared with the task of
Page 28
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307) Atty. Lood

a lawyer who will use all the available remedies and actions
in his arsenal for his client to win the case.)
In prosecuting or defending cases the lawyer must be
It is difficult to distinguish the fairness and impartiality of a guided by the principles of justice. He must rely on the
disinterested witness from the zeal of an advocate. merits of his cases and should avoid using influence
The preference is for lawyers to REFRAIN from testifying as and connections to win his cases. His cases must be won
witnesses, unless they absolutely have to; and should they do because they are meritorious and not because of
so, to withdraw from active management of the case.
Atty. Rafanan cannot be administratively liable because: Its a
connections, clout, dominance or influence. To do so, the
duty of the lawyer to assert every remedy and defense that is lawyer breaks the basic principles of justice which is
authorized by law for the benefit of the client. (Remember, highly demandable.
there isa criminal case of attempted murder against his client
which will deprive his client of his life and liberty, if they fail to Courts as impartial administrators of justice are
display a good defense.) entitled to dispose of their business in a orderly
manner, free form outside interference
59 Fil-Garcia Inc. vs Hernandez obtrusive of their functions and tending to
(A.C. No. 7129, July 16, 2008) embarrass the administration of justice, just as
FACTS: Filomeno Garcia, president of Fil-Garcia Inc., after losing litigants are entitled to have their cause tried fairly
his case in the CA for a sum of money, secured the serviced of by an impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by
Atty. Fernando Hernandez, who received the denied resolution
for Garcia as counsel, and was given 15 days to appeal. Instead publication, public clamor, bias, prejudice or
of filing the appeal, Hernandez filed for a Motion for Extension sympathies.
the day before the expiration of the period to file the appeal,,
alleging that he was counsel for a mayoralty candidate and a
senatorial candidate, and he was also needed in the
canvassing of votes, so the urgency of the nature of his work
Rule 13.01 Duty not to extend extraordinary
will not allow him the limited time to file the appeal, thus attention nor seek opportunity for cultivating
asked for 30 days extension. 30 days later, Hernandez again
filed his 2nd Motion for Extension, this time, because he fell ill, familiarity with judges

and his physical state will not allow him to file the appeal on Rationale: To protect the good name and
time, thus asking for 20 days extension. 20 days later, the 3rd
Motion for Extension was filed, with the grand excuse that reputation of the judge and the lawyer.
because he fell ill the last time, his work load piled up, thus
requiring him more time to conclude on the work load he
missed when he was ill, plus the appeal, hence the request for The unusual attention may subject both the judge
10 days extension, to which 10 days later, he did actually file
the appeal. Afterwards, Hernandez learned that all three
and the lawyer to suspicion

Motions for Extensions were denied by the court, and to his The common practice of some lawyers making
dismay, received a copy of the resolution denying the appeal judges and prosecutors godfathers of their
all together. However, instead of informing his client, Fil-
Garcia, he decides to forward the resolution of denial of the children to enhance their influence and their law
appeal some 7 months later, which greatly angered his client, practice should be avoided by judges and
pushing him to file for his disbarment. lawyers alike
ISSUE: WON Hernandez liable for malpractice, gross A lawyer should not see a judge in chamber and
misconduct, tantamount to violation of his oath as a lawyer
talk to him about a case he is handling and
HELD: Yes, to gross negligence, but no to disbarment. The filing pending in the judges court
of 3 motions for extension on the careless assumption that
each motion will be granted by the Court, and without taking A lawyer should not communicate to the judge the
care of informing himself of the Court's action thereon, merits of a pending case
constitutes inexcusable negligence. Moreover, respondent
knowingly referred to Rule 65 in the petition he belatedly filed
as an afterthought in his desperate attempt to salvage the Rule 13.02 - Duty not to make public statements in
appeal. While pressure of work or some other unavoidable
reasons may constrain a lawyer to file a motion for extension the media regarding pending case

of time to file pleadings, he should not presume that his

motion for extension of time will be granted. Motions for Test when public statement is contemptuous The
extension of time to file a pleading are not granted as a matter character of the act done and its direct tendency
of course but lie in the sound discretion of the court. It is thus to prevent and obstruct the discharge of official
incumbent on any movant for extension to exercise due
diligence to inform himself as soon as possible of the Court's duty.
action on his motion, by timely inquiry from the Clerk of
Court. Should he neglect to do so, he runs the risk of time
running out on him, for which he will have nobody but Rationale: To preserve the independence of the
himself to blame. To make matters worse, it took respondent judges in the performance of their duties.
7 months from the time he received a copy of the Court's
resolution to inform complainant of the same.
Rule 13.03 - Duty not to invite outside interference
in the judicial proceedings

CANON 13 Duty to refrain from acts Basis of the rules: Principle of Separation of Powers
giving appearance of influencing the
court
60 Lantoria vs Atty. Bunyi
Rule 13.01 Duty not to extend extraordinary attention (A.M. No. 1769, June 8, 1992)
nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with FACTS: Cesar Lantoria sought disciplinary action against Bunyi,
judges counsel for Mrs. Constancia Mascarinas in certain civil cases.
He allegedly committed acts of "graft and corruption,
Rule 13.02 - Duty not to make public statements in the dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of the
media regarding pending case Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and corruption of the judge
Rule 13.03 - Duty not to invite outside interference in the (Vicente Galicia of Esperanza, Agusan del Sur) and bribery in
cases for ejectment of squatters in Mascarinas land, Bunyi
judicial proceedings allegedly was the one who prepared the decisions and judge
simply signed them
ISSUE: WON Bunyi is guilty of unethical conduct

(SandeeSuan) Page 29
! of 31
!
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307)
HELD: Letters show that he indeed prepared draft decisions for
the judge to sign. It does not matter if it was clearly shown
that the judge consented to such act or even asked for it
61 Foodsphere, Inc. vs Mauricio
(AC No. 7199. July 22, 2009)
FACTS: A certain Alberto Cordero (Cordero) purportedly bought
from a grocery in Valenzuela City canned goods including a
can of CDO Liver spread. As Cordero and his relatives were
eating bread with the CDO Liver spread, they found the spread
to be sour and soon discovered a colony of worms inside the
can. This was complained before the BFAD. After conciliation
meetings between Cordero and the petitioner, the Corderos
eventually forged a KASUNDUAN seeking the withdrawal of
their complaint before the BFAD. The BFAD thus dismissed
the complaint. Respondent, Atty. Mauricio, Jr., who affixed his
signature to the KASUNDUAN as a witness, later wrote in one
of his articles/columns in a tabloid that he prepared the
document.
Complainant filed criminal complaints against respondent and
several others for Libel and Threatening to Publish Libel under
Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised Penal Code before the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela
City. The complaints were pending at the time of the filing of
the present administrative complaint. Despite the pendency of
the civil case against him and the issuance of a status quo
order restraining/enjoining further publishing, televising and
broadcasting of any matter relative to the complaint of CDO,
respondent continued with his attacks against complainant
and its products.
ISSUE: WON respondent violated the CPR
HELD: YES. Respondent suspended for three (3) years from the
practice of law. The language employed by respondent
undoubtedly casts aspersions on the integrity of the Office of
the City Prosecutor and all the Prosecutors connected with
said Office. Respondent clearly assailed the impartiality and
fairness of the said Office in handling cases filed before it and
did not even design to submit any evidence to substantiate
said wild allegations. The use by respondent of the above-
quoted language in his pleadings is manifestly violative of
Canon 11 and the fundamental Canon 1 also of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes. Respondent
defied said status quo order, despite his (respondents) oath as
a member of the legal profession to obey the laws as well as
the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities.
62 Re: Suspension of Atty. Bagabuyo
(
FACTS: The administrative case has its roots from the case of
People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza heard before the sala of Judge
Jose Manuel Tan, Regional trial court of Surigao City, Branch
29. Luis Bucalon, was found to be guilty of homicide and not
murder with the evidence as basis. Counsel of the defense
thereafter filed a motion to fix that amount of bail bond, with
which Senior state prosecutor and deputized prosecutor of the
case Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo contests stating that murder is
non-bailable. Atty. Bagabuyo thereafter filed a motion for
reconsideration which was consequently denied. Hence,
instead of resorting to his available judicial remedies,
respondent caused the publication of an article in the August
18, 2003 issue of Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Atty. Bagabuyo
again resorted to the media, after he was ordered arrested and
put up a bail of P100,000.00 this time at Radio Station DXKS. He
attacked once again Judge Tan and his disposition on the
proceedings of People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Bagabuyo has violated the Code of
professional conduct.
HELD: Atty. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating the code of
professional conduct Canon 13, Rule 13.02 which states that a
lawyer shall not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for
or against a party. That instead of resorting to the available
judicial remedies before him, Atty. Bagabuyo has degraded the
dignity and authority of the court and the presiding judge, as
well as promoted distrust in the administration of justice
when he resorted to media and declared his complaints there.
Atty. Bagabuyo is also cited for violation of Canon 11, when he
disrespected the courts and the judicial officers and Rule 11.05
when he did not submit grievances against a judge to proper
authorities only.
(SandeeSuan)
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Atty. Lood
J a n ua r y 19 , 20 17
The Lawyer and the Client
Relation as Strictly Personal
The relationship involves mutual trust and
confidence to the highest degree
The personal character of the relation prohibits its
delegation in favor of another attorney without
the clients consent
A client can terminate the relationship anytime
with or without cause
An attorney, however, being an officer of the court,
enjoys no similar right. He may be permitted to
withdraw from the case only with the consent
of the client or that the court
It also terminates upon the death of either the
client or the attorney
Relation as Fiduciary and Confidential
It demands undivided allegiance, a high degree of
good faith, disinterestedness, candor, fairness,
loyalty, fidelity, and absolute integrity in all his
dealings with his clients and utter renunciation of
every personal advantage conflicting with the
interest of his client.
Creation of Relation
1. Oral counsel is employed without a written
agreement, but the conditions and amount of
attorneys fees are agreed upon.
2. Express terms and conditions of engagement
oar evidenced by a written document
3. Implied there is no agreement, but the client
allowed the lawyer to render legal services not
intended to be gratuitous without objection, and
client is benefited by reason thereof
Note: While a written agreement for professional
services is the best evidence to show the relation,
formality is not an essential element of the
employment of an attorney. The absence of a
written contract will not preclude a finding that there
is a professional relationship. Documentary
formalism is not an essential element in the
employment of an attorney.
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 21
An attorney willfully appearing in court for a person
without being employed, unless by leave of the
court, may be punished for contempt as an officer
of the court who has misbehaved in his official
transactions.
CANON 14 Duty to render legal service
to the needy
Rule 14.01 Duty to make available service regardless of
status
Rule 14.02 Duty not to decline appointment as counsel
de officio or amicus curiae
Rule 14.03 Duty not to refuse representation of
indigent clients
Page 30
! of 31
!
Legal & Judicial Ethics (EH 307) Atty. Lood

reason of their experience and ability, may

Rule 14.04 Duty to observe the same standard of
conduct for all clients
A private practitioner is not obliged to act as counsel for a
person who may wish to become his client. He has the
right to decline employments
EXCEPTION: Canon 14 provides the exceptions
to the general rule and emphasizes the lawyers
public responsibility of rendering legal services
to the needy and the oppressed who are unable
to pay attorneys fees. In such cases, refusal is
the exception rather than the rule.
adequately defend the accused.
Amicus curiae A friend of the court; a
bystander (usually a counselor) who interposes
or volunteers information upon some matter of law
in regard to which the judge may be doubtful or
might go wrong; acts merely as consultant to
guide the court in a doubtful question or issue
pending before it. The amicus curiae serves
without compensation.
Rule 14.03 Duty not to refuse representation of
indigent clients

Indigent shall refer to a person who has has no

Rule 14.01 Duty to make available service visible means of income or whose income is
regardless of status
insufficient for the subsistence of his family, to be
A lawyer cannot decline to repress a person for the determined by the fiscal or judge, taking into
SOLE reason of the latters (1) race, (2) sex, (3) account the members of his family dependent
creed, (4) status in life, or (5) because of the upon him for subsistence.
lawyers opinion that said person is guilty of the Indigent one who has no money or property
charge. sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic
The administration of justice does not discriminate necessities for himself and his family.
against any one on grounds of nationality, religion, Indigent those (a) whose gross income and that
sex, or status of life. of their immediate family do not exceed an
amount double the monthly minimum wage of an
employee and (b) who do not own real property
Rule 14.01 Applicable only in Criminal Cases
with a fair market value as stated in the current
1. A lawyer cannot decline to represent an accused tax declaration of more than three hundred pesos
because of his opinion that the accused is guilty
of the charge field against the latter
Rule 14.03 allows 2 exceptions:

2. It is not for the lawyer to adjudge the guilt of his

own client who under the law is presumed a) Lack of competence
innocent until proven otherwise b) Conflict of Interest
3. It is not unethical for a lawyer to defend an
accused charged with any crime, heinous or Rule 14.04 Duty to observe the same standard of
otherwise, because in the eyes of the law, until conduct for all clients

his conviction, he enjoys the rebuttable

Amount of attorneys fees or clients financial
presumption of innocence.
capability to pay should not serve as a test to
determine the extent of the lawyers devotion to
Rule 14.01 Inapplicable in Civil Cases
his clients cause.
1. The attorneys signature in every pleading Lawyers who devote their professional practice to
constitutes a certificate by him that there is good representing litigants who could ill afford legal
cause to support it and that it is not interposed services deserve commendation. However, it is
for delay, and willful violation of such rule shall not enough to say that all pauper litigants should
subject him to disciplinary action; be assured of legal representation. They deserve
2. It is the attorneys duty to counsel or maintain quality representation as well.
such actions or proceedings only as appears to
him to be just and only such defenses as he
believes to be honestly debatable under the law;
3. A lawyer is not to encourage either the
commencement or the continuance of an action
or proceeding, or delay any mans cause, for
any corrupt motive or interest; and
4. A lawyer must decline to conduct a civil cause or
to make a defense when convinced that it is
intended merely to harass or injure the opposite
party or to work oppression or wrong.

Rule 14.02 Duty not to decline appointment as

counsel de officio or amicus curiae

Counsel de Officio a counsel, appointed or

assigned by the court, from among such
members of the bar in good standing who by

(SandeeSuan) Page 31
! of 31
!
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.