Item 1
LAWYER’s OATH
I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support
the Constitution and obey the 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 in court; I will not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the
same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according
to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my
clients; and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion. So help me God.
Item 2
The practice of law is any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. It is to give notice or render any kind of service,
which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill (Cayetano v.
Monsod (1991)).
PRACTICE OF LAW
A.C. No. 6705, March 31, 2006
RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO v. ATTY. CARLOS B. SAGUCIO
FACTS:
Taggat Industries retains Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio until his appointment as Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor of Tuguegarao, Cagayan in 1992.
Sometime in 1995 and 1996, Taggat Industries paid retainer fees for the services of Atty. Sagucio.
Lim-Santiago now charges Atty. Sagucio for engaging in the private practice of law while
working as a government prosecutor. Atty. Sagucio does not dispute his receipt after his
appointment as government prosecutor of retainer fees from Lim-Santiago but claims that it was
only on a case-to-case basis and it ceased in 1996, and that the fees were paid for his
consultancy services and not for representation. Atty. Sagucio submits that consultation is not
the same as representation and that rendering consultancy services is not prohibited.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Sagucio is guilty of engaging in the private practice of law while working as a
government prosecutor.
HELD:
YES. Government prosecutors are prohibited to engage in the private practice of law. Private
practice of law contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily
holding ones self to the public as a lawyer. The act of being a legal consultant is a practice of
law. The law does not distinguish between consultancy services and retainer agreement. For as
long as respondent performed acts that are usually rendered by lawyers with the use of their
legal knowledge, the same falls within the ambit of the term practice of law.
The Court has defined the practice of law broadly as
x x x 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 those acts
which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render
any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge
or skill.
A.C. No. 5737. October 25, 2004
FERDINAND A. CRUZ vs. ATTY. STANLEY CABRERA
FACTS:
The case stemmed in the statement of Atty. Cabrera against Cruz in a hearing of a case. The
court in asking Cruz if he is a lawyer, Atty. Cabrera engulfed with anger in a raising voice said:
“Appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna”.
Cruz is a law student who personally litigate his case on the basis of Section 34 of Rule 138. Atty.
Cabrera’s imputations were uncalled for and his act of compelling the court to ask complainant
whether he is a lawyer or not was intended to malign him before the public, inasmuch as he
knew that Cruz is not a lawyer. The manner, substance, tone of voice and how the words appear
ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna! were uttered were totally with the intention to annoy, vex and
humiliate, malign, ridicule, incriminate and discredit Cruz before the public.
In Atty. Cabrera’s reply, the reason he informed the court that Cruz is not a lawyer was because
the presiding judge did not know that Cruz is not a lawyer and Cruz did not inform the presiding
judge that he is not a lawyer when he stated: for the plaintiff your honor; he stated “pumasa ka
muna” out of indignation because of Cruz temerity in misrepresenting himself as lawyer.
ISSUE:
WON Cruz is precluded from litigating personally his cases.
WON Cruz is in practice of law.
HELD:
NO. Section 34 of Rule 138 “A party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an
agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney.” This provision
means that in a litigation, parties may personally do everything during its progress -- from its
commencement to its termination.
NO. Individuals have long been permitted to manage, prosecute and defend their own actions;
and when they do so, they are not considered to be in the practice of law.
The practice of law, though impossible to define exactly, involves the exercise of a profession or
vocation usually for gain, mainly as attorney by acting in a representative capacity and as
counsel by rendering legal advise to others. Practice of law has been interpreted as customarily
or habitually holding one's self out to the public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such
services.
Clearly, in appearing for himself, Cruz was not customarily or habitually holding himself out to
the public as a lawyer. Neither was he demanding payment for such services. Hence, he cannot
be said to be in the practice of law.
Item 3
Requirement of Citizenship in the Practice of Law
Item 4
Item 5
Section 201. Effect of Failure to Stamp Taxable Document. - An instrument, document or paper
which is required by law to be stamped and which has been signed, issued, accepted or
transferred without being duly stamped, shall not be recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof
or any record of transfer of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any court until the
requisite stamp or stamps are affixed thereto and cancelled.
Item 6
Item 7
Item 8
GUIDELINES ON LEGAL AID
GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF LEGAL AID OFFICES IN ALL
CHAPTERS OF THEINTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
ARTICLE I PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY
SECTION. 1. Public service. – Legal Aid is not a matter of charity. It is a means for the correction
of social imbalances that may and often do lead to injustice, for which reason it is a public
responsibility of the Bar. The spirit of public service should, therefore, underlie all legal aid offices.
The same should be so administered as to give maximum possible assistance to indigent and
deserving members of the community in all cases, matters and situations in which legal aid may
be necessary to forestall an injustice.
Item 9
Item 10
B.M. 850. October 2, 2001
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
RESOLUTION
ADOPTING THE REVISED RULES ON THE CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
Considering the Rules on the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) for members of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), recommended by the IBP, endorsed by the Philippine
Judicial Academy, and reviewed and passed upon by the Supreme Court Committee on Legal
Education, the Court hereby resolves to approve, as it hereby approves, the following Revised
Rules for proper implementation:
Rule 1. PURPOSE
SECTION 1. Purpose of the MCLE. Continuing legal education is required of members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) 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.
Rule 2. MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
SECTION 1. Commencement of the MCLE. Within two (2) months from the approval of these
Rules by the Supreme Court En Banc, the MCLE Committee shall be constituted and shall
commence the implementation of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) program
in accordance with these Rules.
SEC. 2. Requirements of completion of MCLE. Members of the IBP not exempt under Rule 7 shall
complete every three (3) years at least thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal education
activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36 hours:
(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics equivalent to six (6) credit units.
(b) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial skills equivalent to four (4) credit
units.
(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute resolution equivalent to five (5)
credit units.
(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and procedural laws, and
jurisprudence equivalent to nine (9) credit units.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral advocacy equivalent to four
(4) credit units.
(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and international conventions
equivalent to two (2) credit units.
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may be prescribed by the
MCLE Committee equivalent to six (6) credit units.
Rule 3. COMPLIANCE PERIOD
SECTION 1. Initial compliance period. -- The initial compliance period shall begin not later than
three (3) months from the adoption of these Rules. Except for the initial compliance period for
members admitted or readmitted after the establishment of the program, all compliance
periods shall be for thirty-six (36) months and shall begin the day after the end of the previous
compliance period.
SEC. 2. Compliance Groups. -- Members of the IBP not exempt from the MCLE requirement shall
be divided into three (3) compliance groups, namely:
(a) Compliance group 1. -- Members in the National Capital Region (NCR) or Metro Manila are
assigned to Compliance Group 1.
(b) Compliance group 2. -- Members in Luzon outside NCR are assigned to Compliance Group
2.
(c) Compliance group 3. -- Members in Visayas and Mindanao are assigned to Compliance
Group 3.
Nevertheless, members may participate in any legal education activity wherever it may be
available to earn credit unit toward compliance with the MCLE requirement.
SEC. 3. Compliance period of members admitted or readmitted after establishment of the
program. Members admitted or readmitted to the Bar after the establishment of the program
shall be assigned to the appropriate Compliance Group based on their Chapter membership
on the date of admission or readmission.
The initial compliance period after admission or readmission shall begin on the first day of the
month of admission or readmission and shall end on the same day as that of all other members
in the same Compliance Group.
(a) Where four (4) months or less remain of the initial compliance period after admission or
readmission, the member is not required to comply with the program requirement for the initial
compliance.
(b) Where more than four (4) months remain of the initial compliance period after admission or
readmission, the member shall be required to complete a number of hours of approved
continuing legal education activities equal to the number of months remaining in the
compliance period in which the member is admitted or readmitted. Such member shall be
required to complete a number of hours of education in legal ethics in proportion to the number
of months remaining in the compliance period. Fractions of hours shall be rounded up to the
next whole number.
Rule 4. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT UNITS(CU)
SECTION 1. Guidelines. - CREDIT UNITS ARE EQUIVALENT TO CREDIT HOURS. CREDIT UNITS measure
compliance with the MCLE requirement under the Rules, based on the category of the lawyers
participation in the MCLE activity. The following are the guidelines for computing credit units
and the supporting documents required therefor:
PROGRAMS/ACTIVITY CREDIT UNITS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
1. SEMINARS, CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, IN-HOUSE EDUCATION PROGRAMS,
WORKSHOPS, DIALOGUES, ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS BY APPROVED PROVIDERS UNDER RULE 7
AND OTHER RELATED RULES
1.1 PARTICIPANT/ 1 CU PER HOUR OF CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDEE ATTENDANCE ATTENDANCE WITH
NUMBER OF HOURS
1.2 LECTURER FULL CU FOR THE PHOTOCOPY OF RESOURCE SUBJECT PER PLAQUE OR SPEAKER
COMPLIANCE PERIOD SPONSORS CERTIFICATION
1.3 PANELIST/REACTOR 1/2 OF CU FOR THE CERTIFICATION COMMENTATOR/ SUBJECT PER FROM
MODERATOR/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD SPONSORING COORDINATOR/ ORGANIZATION
FACILITATOR
2. AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND REVIEW
2.1 LAW BOOK OF NOT FULL CU FOR THE PUBLISHED BOOK LESS THAN 100 PAGES SUBJECT PER
COMPLIANCE PERIOD
2.2 BOOK EDITOR 1/2 OF THE CU OF PUBLISHED BOOK AUTHORSHIP CATEGORY WITH PROOF AS
EDITOR
2.3 RESEARCH PAPER 1/2 OF CU FOR THE DULY INNOVATIVE PROGRAM/ SUBJECT PER CERTIFIED/
CREATIVE PROJECT COMPLIANCE PERIOD PUBLISHED TECHNICAL REPORT/PAPER
2.4 LEGAL ARTICLE OF AT 1/2 OF CU FOR THE PUBLISHED ARTICLE LEAST TEN (10) PAGES SUBJECT
PER COMPLIANCE PERIOD
2.5 LEGAL NEWSLETTER/ 1 CU PER ISSUE PUBLISHED LAW JOURNAL EDITOR NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL
2.6 PROFESSORIAL CHAIR/ FULL CU FOR THE CERTIFICATION OF BAR REVIEW LECTURE SUBJECT PER
LAW DEAN OR LAW TEACHING/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD BAR REVIEW DIRECTOR
Rule 5. CATEGORIES OF CREDIT UNITS
SECTION 1. Classes of Credit units. -- Credit units are either participatory or non-participatory.
SEC. 2. Claim for participatory credit units. -- Participatory credit units may be claimed for:
(a) Attending approved education activities like seminars, conferences, conventions, symposia,
in-house education programs, workshops, dialogues or round table discussion.
(b) Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned panelist, reactor, commentator, resource
speaker, moderator, coordinator or facilitator in approved education activities.
(c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review class.
SEC. 3. Claim for non-participatory credit units. Non-participatory credit units may be claimed
per compliance period for:
(a) 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 members practice or employment.
(b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.
Rule 6. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT HOURS (CH)
SECTION 1. Computation of credit hours. -- Credit hours are computed based on actual time
spent in an education activity in hours to the nearest one-quarter hour reported in decimals.
Rule 7. EXEMPTIONS
SECTION 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The following members of the Bar are exempt
from the MCLE requirement:
(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and
Undersecretaries of Executive Departments;
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;

(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired
members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent
court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial Academy program of continuing judicial
education;
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Department
of Justice;
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman and the
Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience for at
least ten (10) years in accredited law schools;
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and Professorial
Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
SEC. 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE. The following Members of the Bar are likewise
exempt:
(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.
(b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of Governors.
SEC. 3. Good cause for exemption from or modification of requirement A member may file a
verified request setting forth good cause for exemption (such as physical disability, illness, post
graduate study abroad, proven expertise in law, etc.) from compliance with or modification of
any of the requirements, including an extension of time for compliance, in accordance with a
procedure to be established by the MCLE Committee.
SEC. 4. Change of status. The compliance period shall begin on the first day of the month in
which a member ceases to be exempt under Sections 1, 2, or 3 of this Rule and shall end on the
same day as that of all other members in the same Compliance Group.
SEC. 5. Proof of exemption. Applications for exemption from or modification of the MCLE
requirement shall be under oath and supported by documents.
Rule 8. STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF
EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
SECTION 1. Approval of MCLE program. Subject to the implementing regulations that may be
adopted by the MCLE Committee, continuing legal education program may be granted
approval in either of two (2) ways: (1) the provider of the activity is an accredited provider and
certifies that the activity meets the criteria of Section 2 of this Rule; and (2) the provider is
specifically mandated by law to provide continuing legal education.
SEC. 2. Standards for all education activities. All continuing legal education activities must meet
the following standards:
(a) The activity shall have significant current intellectual or practical content.
(b) The activity shall constitute an organized program of learning related to legal subjects and
the legal profession, including cross profession activities (e.g., accounting-tax or medical-legal)
that enhance legal skills or the ability to practice law, as well as subjects in legal writing and oral
advocacy.
(c) The activity shall be conducted by a provider with adequate professional experience.
(d) Where the activity is more than one (1) hour in length, substantive written materials must be
distributed to all participants. Such materials must be distributed at or before the time the activity
is offered.
(e) In-house education activities must be scheduled at a time and location so as to be free from
interruption like telephone calls and other distractions.
Rule 9. ACCREDITATION OF PROVIDERS
SECTION 1. Accreditation of providers. -- Accreditation of providers shall be done by the MCLE
Committee.
SEC. 2. Requirements for accreditation of providers. Any person or group may be accredited as
a provider for a term of two (2) years, which may be renewed, upon written application. All
providers of continuing legal education activities, including in-house providers, are eligible to
be accredited providers. Application for accreditation shall:
(a) Be submitted on a form provided by the MCLE Committee;
(b) Contain all information requested in the form;
(c) Be accompanied by the appropriate approval fee.
SEC. 3. Requirements of all providers. -- All approved accredited providers shall agree to the
following:
(a) An official record verifying the attendance at the activity shall be maintained by the
provider for at least four (4) years after the completion date. The provider shall include the
member on the official record of attendance only if the members signature was obtained at
the time of attendance at the activity. The official record of attendance shall contain the
members name and number in the Roll of Attorneys and shall identify the time, date, location,
subject matter, and length of the education activity. A copy of such record shall be furnished
the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(b) The provider shall certify that:
(1) This activity has been approved BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE in the amount of ________ hours of
which ______ hours will apply in (legal ethics, etc.), as appropriate to the content of the activity;
(2) The activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by these
Rules and such regulations as may be prescribed by the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(c) The provider shall issue a record or certificate to all participants identifying the time, date,
location, subject matter and length of the activity.
(d) The provider shall allow in-person observation of all approved continuing legal education
activity by THE MCLE COMMITTEE, members of the IBP Board of Governors, or designees of the
Committee and IBP staff Board for purposes of monitoring compliance with these Rules.
(e) The provider shall indicate in promotional materials, the nature of the activity, the time
devoted to each topic and identity of the instructors. The provider shall make available to each
participant a copy of THE MCLE COMMITTEE-approved Education Activity Evaluation Form.
(f) The provider shall maintain the completed Education Activity Evaluation Forms for a period
of not less than one (1) year after the activity, copy furnished the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(g) Any person or group who conducts an unauthorized activity under this program or issues a
spurious certificate in violation of these Rules shall be subject to appropriate sanctions.
SEC. 4. Renewal of provider accreditation. The accreditation of a provider may be renewed
every two (2) years. It may be denied if the provider fails to comply with any of the requirements
of these Rules or fails to provide satisfactory education activities for the preceding period.
SEC. 5. Revocation of provider accreditation. -- the accreditation of any provider referred to in
Rule 9 may be revoked by a majority vote of the MCLE Committee, after notice and hearing
and for good cause.
Rule 10. FEE FOR APPROVAL OF ACTIVITY AND ACCREDITATION OF PROVIDER
SECTION 1. Payment of fees. Application for approval of an education activity or accreditation
as a provider requires payment of the appropriate fee as provided in the Schedule of MCLE
Fees.
Rule 11. GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
SECTION 1. Compliance card. -- Each member shall secure from the MCLE Committee a
Compliance Card before the end of his compliance period. He shall complete the card by
attesting under oath that he has complied with the education requirement or that he is exempt,
specifying the nature of the exemption. Such Compliance Card must be returned to the
Committee not later than the day after the end of the members compliance period.
SEC. 2. Member record keeping requirement. -- Each member shall maintain sufficient record of
compliance or exemption, copy furnished the MCLE Committee. The record required to be
provided to the members by the provider pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 9 should be a sufficient
record of attendance at a participatory activity. A record of non-participatory activity shall also
be maintained by the member, as referred to in Section 3 of Rule 5.
Rule 12. NON-COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
SECTION 1. What constitutes non-compliance. The following shall constitute non-compliance:
(a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance period;
(b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;
(c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of exempt
status) within the prescribed period;
(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such compliance within
sixty (60) days from receipt of non-compliance notice;
(e) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period;
(f) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to circumvent or
evade compliance with the MCLE requirements.
SEC. 2. Non-compliance notice and 60-day period to attain compliance. -Members failing to
comply will receive a Non-Compliance Notice stating the specific deficiency and will be given
sixty (60) days from the date of notification to file a response clarifying the deficiency or
otherwise showing compliance with the requirements. Such notice shall contain the following
language near the beginning of the notice in capital letters:
IF YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE MCLE REQUIREMENT BY
(INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF NOTICE), YOU SHALL BE LISTED AS A DELINQUENT MEMBER
AND SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ADEQUATE PROOF OF
COMPLIANCE IS RECEIVED BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE.
Members given sixty (60) days to respond to a Non-Compliance Notice may use this period to
attain the adequate number of credit units for compliance. Credit units earned during this
period may only be counted toward compliance with the prior compliance period requirement
unless units in excess of the requirement are earned, in which case the excess may be counted
toward meeting the current compliance period requirement.

Rule 13. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE
SECTION 1. Non-compliance fee. -- A member who, for whatever reason, is in non-compliance
at the end of the compliance period shall pay a non-compliance fee.
SEC. 2. Listing as delinquent member. -- A member who fails to comply with the requirements
after the sixty (60) day period for compliance has expired, shall be listed as a delinquent
member of the IBP upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee. The investigation of a
member for non-compliance shall be conducted by the IBPs Commission on Bar Discipline as a
fact-finding arm of the MCLE Committee.
SEC. 3. Accrual of membership fee. -- Membership fees shall continue to accrue at the active
rate against a member during the period he/she is listed as a delinquent member.
Rule 14. REINSTATEMENT
SECTION 1. Process. -- The involuntary listing as a delinquent member shall be terminated when
the member provides proof of compliance with the MCLE requirement, including payment of
non-compliance fee. A member may attain the necessary credit units to meet the requirement
for the period of non-compliance during the period the member is on inactive status. These
credit units may not be counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement.
Credit units earned during the period of non-compliance in excess of the number needed to
satisfy the prior compliance period requirement may be counted toward meeting the current
compliance period requirement.
SEC. 2. Termination of delinquent listing is an administrative process. The termination of listing as
a delinquent member is administrative in nature AND it shall be made by the MCLE Committee.
Rule. 15. COMMITTEE ON MANDATORY CONTINUING
LEGAL EDUCATION
SECTION 1. Composition. The MCLE Committee shall be composed of five (5) members, namely,
a retired Justice of the Supreme Court as Chair, and four (4) members respectively nominated
by the IBP, the Philippine Judicial Academy, a law center designated by the Supreme Court
and associations of law schools and/or law professors.
The members of the Committee shall be of proven probity and integrity. They shall be appointed
by the Supreme Court for a term of three (3) years and shall receive such compensation as may
be determined by the Court.
SEC. 2. Duty of committee. The MCLE Committee shall administer and adopt such implementing
rules as may be necessary subject to the approval of the Supreme Court. It shall, in consultation
with the IBP Board of Governors, prescribe a schedule of MCLE fees with the approval of the
Supreme Court.
SEC. 3. Staff of the MCLE Committee. Subject to approval by the Supreme Court, the MCLE
Committee shall employ such staff as may be necessary to perform the record-keeping,
auditing, reporting, approval and other necessary functions.
SEC. 4. Submission of annual budget. The MCLE Committee shall submit to the Supreme Court
for approval, an annual budget [for a subsidy] to establish, operate and maintain the MCLE
Program.
Item 11
What may be used to satisfy the requirement of competent evidence of identity?
ANSWER:
The phrase "competent evidence of identity" refers to the identification of an individual based
on:
(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the
photograph and signature of the individual, such as but not limited to, passport, driver’s license,
Professional Regulations Commission ID, National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police
clearance, postal ID, voter’s ID, Barangay certification, Government Service and Insurance
System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS) card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card,
Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID, seaman’s book, alien certificate
of registration/immigrant certificate of registration, government office ID, certification from the
National Council for the Welfare of Disable Persons (NCWDP), Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD) certification;
Item 12
Atty. Castro has consistently failed to pay his annual IBP dues for several years. Demand letters
have been sent to him and he has acknowledged receipt of these letters. However, all the IBP’s
efforts proved futile. As a result, the IBP sent Atty. Castro a notice that his name would be stricken
off the Roll of Attorneys. Was the IBP’s action correct?
ANSWER:
NO. The Constitution vests upon the Supreme Court the power to integrate the Philippine bar.
The striking out of names in the Roll of Attorneys can be ordered only by the Supreme Court.
Also, due process must be observed.
Item 13
Ms. Seller and Mr. Buyer presented to a commissioned notary public a deed of sale for
notarization. The notary public explained to them the transaction the deed embodies and
asked them if they were freely entering the transaction. After the document was signed by all
the parties, the notary public collected the notarial fee but did not issue any BIR-registered
receipt. Discuss the legality of this.
ANSWER:
The notarization of the deed is proper because any irregularity in the payment of the notarial
fees does not affect the validity of the notarization made. (Ocampo v. Land Bank of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 164968, July 3, 2009)
Item 14
In order to comply with the MCLE requirements, Atty. Argento enrolled in a seminar given by an
MCLE provider. Whenever he has court or other professional commitments, he would send his
messenger or a member of his legal staff to register his attendance at the MCLE sessions so he
could be credited with the required qualifying attendance. He would also ask them to secure
the printed handouts and the lecturers’ CDs, all of which he studied in his free time. Correct?
ANSWER:
NO. Atty. Argento should be sanctioned because he circumvented or evaded full compliance
with the MCLE requirements under Rule 12 of the MCLE.
Item 15
Atty. Andanar is engaged in the practice of law and has a regular, live, weekly TV program
where he gives advice to and answers questions from the audience and program viewers
concerning U.S. immigration problems. Occasionally, advertisements inviting viewers to watch
his TV program are shown outside his regular program schedule. Because of the popularity of
his TV program, the number of his law practice clients increased tremendously. Is this
permissible?
ANSWER:
There is no jurisprudence that guides whether the rendering of legal advice on National TV is
ethical or not.
As to the advertisement, it depends. It is ethical when the advertisement is made by the TV
Network without his knowledge because the lawyer can no longer be held responsible for the
action of the TV Network. However, it would be unethical if he knew about the network’s
intention and he did not stop it for it against Canon 2 Rule 2.03.
Item 16
Vito is a notorious gangster in the province who has been accused of raping and mercilessly
killing a 16-year old girl. Sentiments run very strongly against him and the local Bar Association
met and decided that no lawyer in the locality would represent him. Vito could not afford the
services of an out-of-town counsel.
What is the legal and ethical characterization of the decision of the local Bar Association?
ANSWER:
It is unethical; it constitutes a collective denial of Vito’s right to the assistance of counsel. Rule
14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the latter's race,
sex. creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of said person.
(Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 14, Rule 14.01; 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2).
Item 17
Graft Investigator Atty. Retirada served the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for eight years
before retiring from the service. While still a Graft Investigator, she investigated a government
contract for office supplies where Mr. Sakim was the supplier. The transaction was supposedly
overpriced. Atty. Retirada recommended that no charges be filed against the officials involved
and the recommendation benefited Mr. Sakim as the supplier involved in the transaction.
After her retirement from the service, Atty. Retirada’s services as counsel were engaged by Mr.
Sakim as counsel to represent the Sakim family in a claim against the State arising from a family
property that had been expropriated. Atty. Retirada now consults you about the ethical
permissibility of accepting the engagement.
What advice would you give Atty. Retirada?
ANSWER:
There is no ethical objection to her acceptance of the engagement because the case is neither
criminal nor administrative in character.
There is no conflict of interest since the case involved is an expropriation case (R.A. 910, Sec. 1).
Atty. Retirada should accept the engagement.
Under Rule 6.02 of the CPR “A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while
in said service.”
The prohibition regarding the acceptance of legal employment after government service
applies to matters in which the lawyer was involved while in said service. In the case at bar, Atty.
Retirada was a graft investigator and at present his service is being engaged with respect to an
expropriation case. The two matters not being connected, Atty. Retirada may accept
employment by the Sakim Family without violating the CPR.
Item 18
Melo engaged the services of Atty. Lebron in a criminal case. In the course of their consultations,
Melo admitted to Atty. Lebron that he committed the crime
and in fact actively planned its commission. He stressed, however, that under no circumstance
would he admit or confess to the murder charge he is facing and, in fact, would enter a plea
of "not guilty" on arraignment. Rule.
ANSWER:
Allow Melo to choose his course of action; Atty. Lebron’s duty is to protect all his legal and
statutory rights. Rule 14.01 – A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account
of the latter’s race, sex, creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt
of said person.
Item 19
A Regional Trial Court issues a temporary restraining order ( TRO ) halting the demolition order
issued by the City Mayor who has long loathed the cluster of shanties put up by informal settlers
along the road leading to the city’s commercial district. The TRO, however, carried conditions
that must be in place before the threatened demolition can be fully halted.
The city legal officer advised the City Engineer’s Office and the local PNP chief that the TRO’s
conditions are not in place so that the demolition could proceed. The city filed a manifestation
reflecting the city legal officer’s position, while the informal settlers’ counsel sought its own
clarification and reconsideration from the court, which responded by decreeing that the
conditions have been fulfilled. Despite this ruling, the city legal officer insisted that the conditions
have not been fulfilled and thus gave the PNP clearance to aid the City Engineer’s Office in
proceeding with the demolition.
From the perspective of professional ethics, how would you characterize the city legal officer’s
actions?
ANSWER:
It is unethical since he counseled civil servants to disregard a court order. CANON 12 - A LAWYER
SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Item 20
Wanda finally became pregnant in the 10th year of her marriage to Horacio. As her pregnancy
progressed, she started having difficulty breathing and was easily fatigued. The doctors
diagnosed that she has a heart congestion problem due to a valve defect, and that her
chances of carrying a baby to full term are slim. Wanda is scared and contemplates the
possibility of abortion. She thus sought legal advice from Diana, a lawyer-friend and fellow
church member, who has been informally advising her on legal matters.
What is Diana’s best ethical response?
ANSWER:
Advise Wanda on the purely legal side of her problem and assure her that abortion is allowed
by law if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother.
Canon 2 Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse
to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the
latter's rights.
Item 21
Based on the same facts as above, assume that Diana, aside from being a family friend of the
couple, has been formally and informally acting as their lawyer in all their personal and family
affairs. She has represented them in court in a case involving a car accident and in the purchase
of their family home, for which they formally paid the attorney’s fees that Diana billed.
In this instance, Wanda asked about her legal rights but did not formally ask for a written opinion
from Diana. Horacio never had any input on the query as he was then away on an out-of-town
trip for his office.
Diana advised Wanda that she is fully protected in law and her best course of action is to have
an abortion while her pregnancy is not yet far advanced.
Did Diana violate the prohibition against representing conflicting interests when she provided
legal advice to Wanda without Horacio’s knowledge?
ANSWER:
Yes. The decision of whether to have an abortion should be decided by both spouses; thus,
Diana should not have provided legal advice in the absence of Horacio whose concerns and
positions are unknown to her. CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND
LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No. The decision on whether or not to have an abortion lies solely with Wanda; it is her body and
health that is in issue.
Item 22
Christine was appointed counsel de oficio for Zuma, who was accused of raping his own
daughter. Zuma pleaded not guilty but thereafter privately admitted to Christine that he did
commit the crime charged. Can Christine withdraw as counsel of Zuma should he insist in going
to trial? Explain.
ANSWER:
Christine cannot withdraw as counsel of Zuma.
Canon 14, Rule 14.01 of CPR states that “a lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely
on account of the latter's race, sex. creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion
regarding the guilt of said person.”
Despite the admission of Zuma, Christine cannot withdraw as Zuma's counsel because Zuma is
still considered innocent until proven guilty. Further, there may be mitigating circumstances that
Christine may raise as a defense that is favorable to Zuma.
Item 23
Dumbledore, a noted professor of commercial law, wrote an article on the subject of letters of
credit which was published in the IBP Journal.
a. Assume he devoted a significant portion of the article to a commentary on how the
Supreme Court should decide a pending case involving the application of the law on letters of
credit. May he be sanctioned by the Supreme Court? Explain.
b. Assume Dumbledore did not include any commentary on the case. Assume further
after the Supreme Court decision on the case had attained finality, he wrote another IBP Journal
article, dissecting the decision and explaining why the Supreme Court erred in all its conclusions.
May he be sanctioned by the Supreme Court? Explain.
ANSWER:
A. Yes, he may be sanctioned by the court.
Canon 13, Rule 13.02 provides 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.”
As a lawyer, Dumbledore should not have made such statements regarding a pending case so
as not to influence the court in deciding the case or giving the public the impression that the
court was influenced by his commentaries, should the court arrive at a decision similar to that
of Dumbledore's comments.
B. No, he may not be sanctioned by the court.
Dumbledore's commentary in the IBP journal is not unethical. What the CPR prohibits is the
making of public statements regarding pending cases before the courts. Dumbledore's article
in the IBP Journal is about a decided case already. Once a case has been decided, it is already
open for public consumption hence anyone can criticize or make known their opinions
regarding the conclusion of the case.
Item 24
Atty. Abigail filed administrative cases before the Supreme Court against Judge Luis. Thereafter,
Atty. Abigail filed a Motion for Inhibition praying that Judge Luis inhibit himself from trying,
hearing or in any manner acting on all cases, civil and criminal, in which Atty. Abigail is involved
and handling.
Should Judge Luis inhibit himself as prayed for by Atty. Abigail? Explain fully. 2008 bar

ANSWER:
No. Being the subject of an administrative case is not one of the grounds for disqualification of
a judge from handling case provided by the Code of Judicial Responsibility in Canon 3 Rule 12.
Item 25
State, with a brief explanation, whether the lawyer concerned may be sanctioned for the
conduct stated below.
A suspended lawyer working as an independent legal assistant to gather information and
secure documents for other lawyers during the period of his suspension.
An unwed female lawyer carrying on a clandestine affair with her unwed male hairdresser.
ANSWER:
Yes. Canon 9, Rule 9.01 states that “a lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the bar in good
standing.” Under the law, only lawyers in good standing can perform or engage in the practice
of law. In the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, the Court held that the practice of law involves
rendering service to the general public that calls for the professional judgment of a lawyer, the
essence of which is his educated ability to relate the general body and philosophy of law to a
specified legal problem. Clearly, the act of working as a legal assistant in gathering information
and securing documents for other lawyers is within the scope of practicing law. A suspended
lawyer is temporarily prohibited to practice the legal profession therefor he cannot engage in
the mentioned acts
No. Both parties are of age and qualified to marry each other hence the affair is not one which
is grossly immoral. It is not so corrupt nor so unprincipled to warrant sanction from the court.
Item 26
State, with a brief explanation, whether the judge concerned may be sanctioned for the
conduct stated below.
Refusing to inhibit himself although one of the lawyers in the case is his second cousin.
Deciding a case in accordance with a Supreme Court ruling but adding that he does not agree
with the ruling.
ANSWER:
No. Under Canon 3, Rule 3.12 a judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's
impartiality might reasonably be questioned. One of the cases would be where the judge is
related by consanguinity or affinity to counsel within the fourth degree. A second cousin is a
relative within the 6th degree, hence it is not covered by the prohibition.
No. There is no law or rule prohibiting such conduct. Regardless of his opinion, the judge still
followed the Supreme Court's ruling thus there is really nothing wrong with such act. Further, his
opinion will not have any bearing as it is not part of the decision.
Item 27
Atty. D was required by Judge H of the RTC of Manila to show cause why he should not be
punished for contempt of court for shouting invectives at the opposing counsel and harassing
his witness. Assuming that there was sufficient cause or ground and Judge H finds that the
actuations of Atty. D are grossly unethical and unbecoming of a member of the bar, may Judge
H disbar Atty. D? Explain your answer.
ANSWER:
NO.
Judge H has no power to disbar Atty. D for grossly unethical and unbecoming conduct because
such power is only vested on the Supreme Court as provided for by Section 27 of Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court which states that a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct
in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, among others. The
rule clearly provides that it is the Supreme Court who has the power to disbar a member of the
bar and not the Regional Trial Court Judge. Hence, the judge of the Regional Trial Court is only
allowed to suspend a member of the bar but not to disbar because this is an exclusive power
of the Supreme Court.
Other Answer:
NO.
Judge H cannot disbar Atty. D because it is only the Supreme Court who can impose such
penalty in accordance with its authority under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and
the authority of the Supreme Court to discipline lawyers under the 1987 Constitution.
Item 28
Will a lawyer violate the Code of Professional Responsibility if he forms a partnership with
professionals of other disciplines like doctors, engineers, architects or accountants? Explain your
answer.
ANSWER:
YES.
Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits unauthorized practice of law so that
lawyers cannot directly or indirectly assist said practice, or delegate its practice to one who is
not qualified to do so. In partnership, the act of a partner is the act of the partnership; hence,
a non-lawyer cannot perform an act that has a legal effect and in the name of the partnership.
Item 29
After the pre-trial of a civil case for replevin, Judge D advised B’s counsel to settle the case
because according to Judge D, his initial assessment of the case shows that B’s evidence is
weak. Did Judge D commit an act of impropriety? Explain.
ANSWER:
YES.
Judge D violated Canon 3, Impartiality, New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary. He should not make any comment that might reasonably be expected the effect the
outcome of the proceedings or impair the manifest fairness of the process.
Item 30
In an action to prevent the condominium developer from building beyond ten (10) floors, Judge
C rendered judgment in favor of the defendant developer. The judgment became final after
the plaintiffs failed to appeal on time. Judge C and Atty. C, counsel for the developer,
thereafter separately purchased a condominium unit each from the developer.
Did Judge C and Atty. C commit any act of impropriety or violate any law for which they should
be held liable or sanctioned?
ANSWER:
Judge C and Atty. C did not commit any act of impropriety, nor did they violate any law.
The prohibition imposed in the Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 10, with regard to purchase
of any interest in the subject matter of the litigation both refer only to instances where the
property is still the subject of litigation.
The prohibition does not apply to instances, such as in the problem, where the conveyance
takes place after the judgment because the property can no longer be said to be the “subject
of litigation” (Director of Lands vs. Ababa, G.R. No. L-26096, February 27, 1979, 88 SCRA 513).
Other Answer:
Atty. C did not commit any ethical violation nor did he violate any law when he purchased a
condominium unit from the developer. The prohibition under the Canons of Professional Ethics
and under the Civil Code, Art. 1491(5) finds application only why the property is still the subject
of litigation. With the judgment having attained a state of finality, the property can no longer
be said to be the “subject of litigation.” (Ibid.)
While technically, Judge C has not violated the provisions of the Civil Code, Art. 1491(3), when
he purchased a condominium unit from the developer because the judgment has attained a
state of finality, there may be some concerns on the ethical aspect of what he has done.
Familiar is the maxim, Non omne quod licet honestum est (Not everything that is legal is ethical).
Judges, like Judge C, should be free from any whiff of impropriety. Judges shall avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities (New Code of Conduct
for the Philippine Judiciary, Canon 4, Sec. 1).
His purchase of a condominium unit from the developer might be interpreted by some quarters
as a consideration for his having decided the case in favor of the defendant developer.
Item 31
Judge A has an illicit relationship with B, his Branch Clerk of Court. C, the wife of Judge A,
discovered the illicit affair and consulted a lawyer to vindicate her violated marital rights. If you
were that lawyer, what would you advice C, and if she agrees and asks you to proceed to take
action, what is the legal procedure that you should follow? Discuss fully.
ANSWER:
File a case of immorality against Judge A and the clerk of court for violation or Rule 1.01, CPR;
impropriety under Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct against Judge A; and invoke
the automatic conversion of the administrative case against Judge A and the clerk of court as
members of the bar under A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, with the Office of the Court Administrator.
Complaint for disbarment against Judge A and the clerk of court may also be filed. (This is
without prejudice to the filing of criminal and civil cases).
Item 32
Atty. F is a member of the Philippine Bar. He went to New York City, took the New York State Bar,
and passed the same. He then practice in New York City. One of his American clients filed a
case for disbarment against him for pocketing the money which was entrusted to him as
payment for the filing fee and other incidental expenses for his damage suit. Atty. F was later
disbarred for dishonesty. Disheartened, Atty. F came back to the Philippines and practiced as
a lawyer. Will his disbarment in New York be used against him for purposes of disbarment
proceeding here in the Philippines?
ANSWER:
YES.
Atty. F’s disbarment in New York can be used against him but he should be accorded due
process.
Item 33
Atty. H requested his fraternity brother, Judge P, to introduce him to Judge A, before whom he
has a case that had been pending for sometime.
Judge P, a close friend of Judge A, acceded to the request, telling the latter that Atty. H is his
fraternity “brod” and that Atty. H simply wanted to ask for advice on how to expedite the
resolution of his case. They met, as arranged, in the fine dining restaurant of a five-star hotel.
Atty. H hosted the dinner.
Did Atty. H, Judge P and Judge A commit any ethical/administrative violation for which they
can be held liable?
ANSWER:
YES.
The three (3) of them committed ethical/administrative violations for which they can be held
liable.
For hosting the dinner, Atty. H acted in contravention of ethical standards. A lawyer should
refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence or give the appearance of influencing the
court (Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 13). A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary
attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with judges (Ibid., Canon
13, Rule 13.01). Marked attention and unusual hospitality on the part of a lawyer to a judge,
uncalled for by the personal relations [of] the parties, subject both the judge and the lawyer to
misconstruction of motive and should be avoided (Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 3, par.
2, 1st sentence). Even if the purpose of the meeting was merely to “ask advice on how to
expedite the resolution of his case,” Atty. H still acted outside of the bounds of ethical conduct.
This is so because a lawyer deserves rebuke and denunciation for any device or attempt to gain
from a judge special personal consideration or favor (Ibid., Canon 3, par. 2, 2nd sentence).
Both Judge P and Judge A may be held liable for having the dinner meeting with Atty. H. Judges
shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in
the view of a reasonable observer (New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary,
Canon 2, Sec. 1). Their having dinner with Atty. H, a practicing lawyer could be construed as
appearance of impropriety.
Judge P for having allowed himself to use as a “bridge” by Atty. H, his fraternity “brod”, to meet
with Judge A exhibited judicial misconduct in the following manner the outcome of litigation or
dispute pending before another court ( Ibid., Canon 1, Sec. 3). Furthermore in allowing Atty.
Hernando to make advantage to his fraternity bond, Judge P
allowed the use of prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of others,
conveyed or permitted his fraternity “brod” to convey the impression that he is in a special
position to influence the judge (Ibid., Canon 1, Sec. 4, 2nd sentence).
The specific violations of Judge A were committed when he allowed himself to be convinced
by Judge P to have the dinner meeting with Atty. H to discuss how the case may be expedited
in performing judicial duties, judges shall be independent from judicial colleagues in respect of
decisions which the judge is obliged to make independently (Ibid., Canon 1, Sec. 2). Finally, in
having a dinner meeting with Atty. H who has a pending case with his sala, Judge A has
exhibited an appearance of impropriety in his activities (Ibid., Canon 4, Sec. 1).
Item 34
Can a lawyer who lacks the number of units required by the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) Board continue to practice his profession?
ANSWER:
A lawyer who lacks the number of units required by MCLE cannot continue to practice the legal
profession since he is declared as a delinquent member of the bar per Resolution of the
Supreme Court dated January 14, 2014, revoking OCA Circular No. 66-2008.
Item 35
Can a lawyer still practice his profession despite having arrears in his Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) dues?
ANSWER:
Arrears in the IBP may be a ground to suspend the lawyer upon recommendation by the IBP to
the Supreme Court.
Item 36
Atty. Bravo represents Carlos Negar (an insurance agent for Dormir Insurance Co.) in a suit filed
by insurance claimant Andy Limot who also sued Dormir Insurance. The insurance policy requires
the insured/claimant to give a written notice to the insurance company or its agent within 60
days from the occurrence of the loss.
Limot testified during the trial that he had mailed the notice of the loss to the insurance agent,
but admitted that he lost the registry receipt so that he did not have any documentary
evidence of the fact of mailing and of the timeliness of the mailed notice. Dormir Insurance
denied liability, contending that timely notice had not been given either to the company or its
agent. Atty. Bravo’s client, agent Negar, testified and confirmed that he never received any
notice.
A few days after Negar testified, he admitted to Atty. Bravo that he had lied when he denied
receipt of Limot’s notice; he did receive the notice by mail but immediately shredded it to
defeat Limot’s claim.
If you were Atty. Bravo, what would you do in light of your client’s (Carlos Negar’s) disclosure
that he perjured himself when he testified?
ANSWER:
If I were Atty. Bravo, I shall promptly call upon Carlos Nagar, my client, to rectify his perjured
testimony by recanting the same before the court.
Should he refuse or fail to do so I shall then terminate my relationship with him (Code of
Professional Responsibility, Canon 19, Rule 19.02) stating that with his having committed perjury
he pursued an illegal conduct in connection with the case (Ibid., Canon 22, Rule 22.01).
Since my client Limot refuses to forego the advantage thus unjustly gained as a result of his
perjury, I should promptly inform the injured person or his counsel, so that they may take the
appropriate steps (Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 41).
Finally, as part of my duty to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court (Code
of Professional Responsibility, Canon 10, Rule 10.01; Attorney’s Oath), I shall file a manifestation
with the court attaching thereto the notice of termination as Limot’s counsel.
Item 37
Atty. Repatriar, a law school classmate, approached you on your 25th Class Reunion, with
questions on how he can resume the practice of law in the Philippines. He left the country in
1977 after two (2) years of initial law practice, and migrated to the United States where he was
admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York. He asks that you give him a formal
legal opinion on his query.
Outline briefly the steps and the supporting legal reasons you would state in your legal opinion
on what Atty. Repatriar should do to resume his Philippine practice.
ANSWER:
Atty. Repatriar must prepare a sworn petition to re-acquire the privilege to practice law in the
Philippines. He should manifest in his petition his desire to resume his law practice in the
Philippines, and he is not disqualified to practice law. 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. It cannot be overstressed that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with
conditions. It is so delicately affected with public interest that it is both the power and duty of
the state (through the Supreme Court) t control and regulate it in order to protect and promote
the public welfare.
Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality,
faithful observance of the legal profession, compliance with the mandatory continuing legal
education requirement, and payment of membership fees to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) are the conditions required for membership in good standing in the bar and for
enjoying the privilege to practice law. Any breach by a lawyer of any of these conditions makes
him unworthy of the trust and confidence which the courts and clients repose in him for the
continued exercise of his professional privilege (In re: petition to re-acquire the privilege to
practice law in the Philippines, Epifanio B. Muneses, B.M. No. 2112, July 24, 2011).
He should file the petition with the Supreme Court, through the Bar Confidant, accompanied
by the original or certified copies of the following documents:
1. Showing that he is still a Filipino citizen. “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.” (Ibid.) Having retained Philippine citizenship could be evidenced by
the Philippine passport, the U.S. Green Card showing Philippine citizenship and U.S.
residency, or other authentic documents which the Supreme Court may require.
On the other hand, if Atty. Repatriar has lost his Philippine citizenship, he must submit the
following:
(a) Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;
(b) Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship);
(c) Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
(d) Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of Immigration.
 The loss of Filipino citizenship means termination of Atty. Repatriar’s membership in the lawyer can achieve or implies that the lawyer can achieve results by improper means (ABA
bar; ipso jure the privilege to engage in the practice of law. “Under R.A. No. 9225, Model Rule 7.1.b).
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 END
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.” (Ibid.)
2. Certification from the IBP indicating updated payments of annual membership dues;
3. Proof of payment of professional tax; and
4. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office. (Ibid.)
5. A certificate of good moral character attested to by at least three (3) members of the
bar; and
6. A certification from the State Bar of New York that Atty. Repatriar does not have any
previous or pending disciplinary action filed against him before that body.

Item 38
As a new lawyer, Attorney Novato started with a practice limited to small claims cases, legal
counseling, and notarization of documents. He put up a solo practice law office and was
assisted by his wife who served as his secretary/helper. He used a makeshift hut in a vacant lot
near the local courts and a local transport regulatory agency. With this strategic location, he
enjoyed heavy patronage assisting walk-in clients in the preparation and filing of pleadings and
in the preparation and notarization of contracts and documents. He had the foresight of
investing in a good heavy duty copier machine that reproduces quality documents, and
charges a reasonable fee for this service. He draws electric power from an extension wire
connected to an adjoining small restaurant. He put up a shingle that reads: "Atty. Novato,
Specialist in Small Claims, Fastest in Notarization; the Best and Cheapest in Copier Services."
Is Attorney Novato’s manner of carrying out his professional practice – i.e., mixing business with
the practice of law, announcing his activities via a shingle and locating his office as above-
described – in keeping with appropriate ethical and professional practice?

ANSWER:
NO.
Attorney Novato’s manner of carrying out his professional practice is not in keeping with
appropriate ethical and professional practice. He has degraded the law profession which may
result to loss of respect to lawyers as a whole.
The use of a makeshift hut standing alone would create the impression that the lawyer does not
have a permanent address which is required to be stated in all pleadings he signs as well as
required to be shown in documents he notarizes.
His shingle shows that he has considered the law profession as a business. He should have
separate shingle for his copier services business.
When he included in his shingle the phrases “Specialist in Small Claims” and “Fastest in
Notarization” he has transgressed the rule that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall
use only dignified information or statement of facts (Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon
3). So also the norm that a lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any misleading, undignified,
self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services (Ibid.,
Canon 3, Rule 3.01).
The use of the phrases “Specialist in Small Claims” and “Fastest in Notarization” is misleading
advertisement because they are likely to create an unjustified expectation about the results the