Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Practice of law means any activity in or out of Lee v. Tambago: Notaries public must observe with
court which requires the application of law, legal utmost care and utmost fidelity the basic requirements in
procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. the performance of their duties, otherwise the confidence
To engage in the practice of law is to perform of the public in the integrity of notarized deeds will be
those acts characteristic of the profession. undermined.
Generally, to practice law is to give notice or Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed
render any kind of service which require the use by law render the entire will invalid. This carelessness
cannot be taken lightly in view of the importance and
ETHICS MIDTERMS REVIEWER
delicate nature of a will, considering that the testator and series of worthless checks also shows the remorseless
the witnesses, as in this case, are no longer alive to attitude of respondent, unmindful to the deleterious
identify the instrument and to confirm its contents. effects of such act to the public interest and public order.
It also manifests a lawyer’s low regard to her commitment
Moreno v. Araneta: Estafa thru falsification of a to the oath she has taken when she joined her peers,
commercial document constitutes a crime involving moral seriously and irreparably tarnishing the image of the
turpitude for which he was indefinitely suspended. profession she should hold in high esteem.
Agno v. Cagatan: The issuance of check knowingly that Tolentino v. Mendoza: This Court has been exacting in its
said account was already closed constitutes gross demand for integrity and good moral character of
misconduct which should be penalized. members of the Bar. They are expected at all times to
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
Cham v. Paita-Moya: Having debts, respondent had the refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the
moral duty and legal responsibility to settle then when trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity,
they became due. Respondent should have complied with honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. Membership
just contractual obligations and acted fairly and adhered in the legal profession is a privilege. And whenever it is
to the high ethical standards to preserve the courts made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of
integrity. However, the respondent acted the opposite, the trust and confidence of the public, it becomes not only
the right but also the duty of this Court, which made him
leaving the apartment without settling her obligations.
one of its officers and gave him the privilege of
This conduct is violative of the CPR Canon 1 Rule 1.01.
ministering within its Bar, to withdraw the privilege.
Catu v. Rellosa: Rule 6.03 prohibits former gov’t lawyers Arnobit v. Arnobit: A lawyer may be suspended or
from accepting engagement/employment in connection disbarred for any misconduct which, albeit unrelated to
w/ any matter which they had intervened while in said the actual practice of his profession, would show him to
service. Respondent was an incumbent punong barangay be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges with
at the time he committed the act complained of. which his license and the law invest him. A member of the
Therefore, he was not covered by the provision. bar and an officer of the court is not only required to
refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping a
Pimentel v. Llorente: A lawyer who holds a government mistress but must also so behave himself as to avoid
position may not be disciplined as a member of the bar scandalizing the public by creating the impression that he
for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a is flouting those moral standards.
government official. However, if the misconduct also
constitutes a violation of the CRP of the lawyers oath or Rangwhani v. Dino: The ultimate goal is to protect the
is of such character as to affect his qualification as a profession and the public from an erring lawyer. It found
lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part, such in Rule 138 that No investigation for administrative cases
individual may be disciplined as a member of the bar for shall be interrupted by desistance of complainant.
such misconduct.
Cruz v. Cabrera: “Appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna”
CANONS 7 to 9: does not amount to a violation of Rule 8.01 of the CPR.
MORAL FITNESS Such single outburst, though uncalled for, is not of such
Co v. Bernardino: The general rule is that a lawyer may magnitude as to warrant respondents suspension or
not be suspended or disbarred, and the court may not reproof. It is but a product of impulsiveness or the heat
ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him for of the moment in the course of an argument between
misconduct in his non-professional or private capacity. them. It has been said that lawyers should not be held to
Where, however, the misconduct outside of the lawyer's too strict an account for words said in the heat of the
professional dealings is so gross a character as to show moment, because of chagrin at losing cases, and that the
him morally unfit for the office and unworthy of the big way is for the court to condone even contemptuous
privilege which his licenses and the law confer on him, the language.
court may be justified in suspending or removing him
from the office of attorney. Rule 8.01 doctrine: Membership in the bar imposes upon
them certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the
Barrientos v. Meteoro: The issuance of checks, which dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct
were later dishonored for having been drawn against a themselves honorably and fairly. Though a lawyers
closed account, indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always
and confidence reposed on her. It shows a lack of be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the
personal honesty and good moral character as to render legal profession. The use of intemperate language and
her unworthy of public confidence. The issuance of a
ETHICS MIDTERMS REVIEWER
unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial
forum.
CANON 10 Cases:
Olbes v Deciembre: A high standard of excellence and
ethics is expected and required of members of the Bar.
Such conduct of nobility and uprightness should remain
with them, whether in their public or in their private lives.
As officers of the courts and keepers of the public faith,
they are burdened with the highest degree of social
responsibility and are thus mandated to behave at all
times in a manner consistent with truth and honor.