Rule 1.

02 – No Counseling to Defy Law

G.R. No. 1203

May 15, 1903
In the matter of the suspension of HOWARD D. TERRELL from the practice of law.
Facts:
An action for the suspension of attorney-at-law Howard Terrell from the practice of
law was filed in the CFI of Manila for allegedly assisting in the organization of
“Centro Bellas Artes” and acting as attorney for such association with full
knowledge that it was created for the purpose of evading the law then inforce in
said city. The CFI of Manila held that the charges against Terrell were true and made
an order suspending him from his office as a lawyer in the Philippine Islands. Aside
from the action for his suspension from the practice of law, Terrell was also charged
with estafa in a separate criminal action but was eventually acquitted

Issue:
WON Terrell should be suspended from the practice of law

Ruling:
Yes, he should be suspended from the practice of law for a term of one year

Ratio:
The promoting of organizations, with knowledge of their objects, for the purpose of
violating or evading the laws against crime constitutes such misconduct on the part
of an attorney, an officer of the court, as amounts to malpractice or gross
misconduct in his office, and for which he may be removed or suspended. The
assisting of a client in a scheme which the attorney knows to be dishonest, or the
conniving at a violation of law, are acts which justify disbarment. However, Terrell’s
acquittal on the charge of estafa serves to lower his sanction to suspension from
the practice of law in the Philippine Islands for the term of one year from February
7,1903.
 Willem Kupers vs. Atty. Johnson B. Hontanosas
A.C. No. 5704 May 8, 2009
Facts:
Complainant is a counsel for Hans and Vivian Busse. Meanwhile, respondent had
prepared a memorandum of agreement and a contract of lease between the
spouses Busse and Hochstrasser, a Swiss national. Under said agreement,
Hochstrasser would lease Vivian Busses property in Alcoy, Cebu for 50 years,
renewable for another 50 years. Complainant added that respondent had acted
despite conflict of interest on his part since the Spouses Busse and Hochstrasser
were both his clients. Respondent prepared a similar agreement and lease contract
between the spouses Busse and Karl Emberger, a Swiss national, over another
parcel of land in Alcoy, Cebu. This time the lease contract was for a period of 49
years renewable for another for 49 years. All four (4) documents were notarized by
respondent.
Complainant filed this complaint against respondent as the latter prepared and
notarized contracts that are both invalid and illegal as these contracts violated the
limitations on aliens leasing private lands.
In his defense, respondent avers that the assailed contracts are valid under R.A. No.
7652(see laws/provisions). The commissioner found that respondent had prepared
and notarized contracts that violated P.D. No. 471 since leases of private lands by
aliens cannot exceed 25 years, renewable for another 25 years and recommended 2
months suspension for respondent. Upon review, the IBP Board of Governors
disregarded the recommendation and dismissed the complaint out of compassion.
Issue: Won respondent is subject to disciplinary action based on the foregoing facts.
Held: Yes. In preparing and notarizing the illegal lease contracts, respondent
violated the Attorneys Oath and several canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Respondent Hontanosas is found GUILTY of violating the lawyers
oath and gross misconduct and is suspended from the practice of law for 6
months.
Ratio: Respondent’s defense that the assailed contracts are valid under
R.A. No. 7652 is untenable. Assuming that it can be duly established that his foreign
clients are indeed foreign investors as contemplated under R.A. No. 7652, said law
allows the lease for the original period of fifty (50) years, renewable for another
period of twenty five (25) years, well below the periods of fifty (50) years
renewable for another fifty (50) years, and forty-nine (49) years renewable for
another forty-nine (49) years respectively, stipulated in the two lease agreements.
Respondent, by drafting the questioned lease agreements, caused his clients to
violate Section 7 of R.A. No. 7652(see laws/provisions).
Laws/Provisions:
R.A. No. 7652
R.A. No. 7652 An Act Allowing The Long-Term Lease of Private Lands by Foreign
Investors. - Allows foreign investors to enter a contract of lease for the original
period of fifty (50) years, renewable for another period of twenty five (25) years.
Sec. 7. Penal Provision. Any contract or agreement
made or executed in violation of any of the following
prohibited acts shall be null and void ab initio and both
contracting parties shall be punished by a fine of not less than
One Hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) nor more than One
million pesos (P1,000,000), or imprisonment of six (6) months
to (6) years, or both, at the discretion of the court:
(1) Any provision in the lease agreement stipulating a lease
period in excess of that provided in paragraph (1) of Section
4;
COPF/Lawyer’s Oath Violations:
Canon 1:
A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.02
A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
decreasing confidence in the legal systems.
Canon 15
A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS
AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
Rule 15.07
A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles
of fairness.
Canon 17:
A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE
MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
Rule 1.03 – Not to Encourage Lawsuit or Proceedings
Rule 1.04 – Encourage Client to Avoid Controversy
Canon 2 Provide Efficient and Convenient Legal Services
Rule 2.01 – Not to Reject or Oppressed Defenseless or Oppressed Services
· IBP Handbook, Guidelines Governing the Establishment and Operation
of Legal Aid Office, Art.1 sec.1

A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC (IRR): Re: Rule on the Exemption From the Payment of Legal
Fees of the Clients of the National Committee on Legal Aid and of the Legal Aid
Offices in the Local Chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
ARTICLE I
Purpose
Section 1. Purpose. This Rule is issued for the purpose of enforcing the right of free
access to courts by the poor guaranteed under Section 11, Article III of the
Constitution. It is intended to increase the access to justice by the poor by
exempting from the payment of legal fees incidental to instituting an action in
court, as an original proceeding or on appeal, qualified indigent clients of the NCLA
and of the legal aid offices in local IBP chapters nationwide.
 Ledesma V Climaco
GR No L-23815
(A counsel de parte is an attorney retained by a party litigant, usually for a fee, to
prosecute or defend his cause in court. Counsel de officio is an attorney appointed
by the court to an indigent criminal defendant.)
FACTS:
Petitioner (Adelino H. Ledesma) was a counsel de parte for an accused in a case
pending in the sala of the respondent judge.
On October 13, 1964, petitioner was appointed Election Registrar for the
Municipality of Cadiz, Province of Negros Occidental.
He commenced discharging his duties, and filed a motion to withdraw from his
position as counsel de parte.
Not only did respondent Judge deny such motion, but he also appointed him
counsel de oficio for the two defendants.
Subsequently, petitioner filed an urgent motion to be allowed to withdraw as
counsel de oficio, premised on the policy of the Commission on Elections to require
full time service as well as on the volume or pressure of work of petitioner, which
could prevent him from handling adequately the defense.
However, the Judge still denied the said motion, as well as the motion for
reconsideration.
Hence, petitioner instituted this certiorari proceeding.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Ledesma, a member of the bar, may withdraw as
counsel de oficio, due to an appointment as Election Registrar.
HELD: NO, petitioner Ledesma may not withdraw as counsel de oficio for the sole
reason of his appointment as Election Registrar. The petition for certiorari is
dismissed.
1. Granting petitioner’s withdrawal will result to the delay in the administration
of justice. It is to be noted that the proceedings has been delayed at least eight
times at the defense's instance, resulting to undue inconvenience to the parties
involved. It was also noted that there was no incompatibility between petitioner’s
duty to the accused and to the court and the performance of his task as Election
Registrar.
2.The court reiterated that “Membership in the bar carries with it a responsibility
to live up to its exacting standard. The law is a profession, not a trade or a craft.
Those enrolled in its ranks are called upon to aid in the performance of one of the
basic purposes of the State, the administration of justice.” (People v. Daban)
3. If respondent Judge were required to answer the petition, the welfare of the
accused could be prejudiced as stressed by Chief Justice Moran in People v.
Holgado in these words: “Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no
skill in the science of law, particularly in the rules of procedure, and; without
counsel, he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not
know how to establish his innocence. And this can happen more easily to persons
who are ignorant or uneducated. It is for this reason that the right to be assisted by
counsel is deemed so important that it has become a constitutional right and it is so
implemented that under rules of procedure it is not enough for the Court to apprise
an accused of his right to have an attorney, it is not enough to ask him whether he
desires the aid of an attorney, but it is essential that the court should assign one de
oficio for him if he so desires and he is poor or grant him a reasonable time to
procure an attorney of his own.”
According to the court, the admonition is ever timely for those enrolled in the ranks
of legal practitioners that there are times when duty to court and to client takes
precedence over the promptings of self-interest.
Rule 2.02 – Not to Refuse to Give Legal Advice
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
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to
solicit legal business
Rule 138 sec. 27, Rules of Court
Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what
grounds. — A member of the bar may be removed 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 any violation of the
oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a
wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or
willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to
do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice
 In Re: Tagorda decision is in consideration of the abovementioned factors and any future instances
[G.R. No. 32329. March 23, 1929; 53 Phil 37] of this kind will be dealt with disbarment.

FACTS:

Luis B. Tagorda, a member of the provincial board of Isabella and a practicing

attorney, admitted that prior to the last general elections, he sent out cards in
Spanish and Ilocano which says that as a notary public he can extend services such
as renewal of lost documents, execute any kind of affidavits, and as a lawyer, can
help collect loans past overdue date, and other such matters.

When he won, he wrote a letter, written in Ilocano, addressed to the lieutenant of

the barrio of Iloilo, his home municipality saying that even as he was elected as an
official , he will retain his residence in Echague, Isabela and continue serving as a
lawyer and notary, and will then arrange a system that allows him to attend
sessions of the board of Ilagan. He also said that even as an elected official, he can
practice law; that the lieutenant should disseminate the info and that he is willing
to receive contracts and affidavits and land registration cases for a charge of three
pesos.

ISSUE: WON Tagorda is guilty of soliciting cases

HELD: YES. Tagorda is suspended for one month.

RATIO: Under Canons 27 and 28 of the Code of Ethics adopted by the Philippine Bar
Association in 1917, it is unprofessional for a lawyer to advertise and stir up suits
and quarrels leading to litigations directly or through agents, which is a crime under
common law, the penalty of which is disbarment.

This malpractice committed by Tagorda is, in current laws, a violation of Canon 2,

Rule 2.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that “A lawyer
shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business.”

The reason for this is the nature of law as a profession, and not a business.
Solicitation of cases is destructive of the honor of a great profession, lowers the
standards of that profession, and works against the confidence of the community in
the integrity of the members of the bar. It also results in needless litigation and
incenting to strife otherwise peaceful citizens.

In the case, Tagorda was not disbarred but suspended for one month instead due to
mitigating circumstances in favor of him such as his lack of awareness of the
impropriety of his acts, his youth and inexperience at the bar, and his promise not
to commit a similar mistake in the future. But it should be understood that the

Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993
MAURICIO C. ULEP, petitioner, vs. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC., respondent.
TL; DR: The Respondent is an org that published ads proving support on
divorce, annulments, secret marriages, and other legal problems one might
have. So, is it engaging in an unauthorized practice of law? The court ruled YES
and restrained them from publishing ads and rendering services.
FACTS:
Respondent “The Legal Clinic, Incorporated” is a corporation that is engaging in
the business of providing legal support services to both lawyers and laymen by
providing them with a computerized database of cases, laws, doctrines, facts,
and other services one might need in the practice of law or simply for their
information.
However, the respondent had allegedly published two advertisements
regarding their business that are now being assailed by the petitioner herein.
The first of these advertisements is a promotion of a “Secret Marriage” with a
valid marriage license for the price of P560.00. The ad also includes information
regarding divorce, absence, annulments, and visas.
The second advertisement is one that focuses primarily on divorce, particularly
Guam divorce. The said ad is also promoting the distribution of “Free Books on
Guam Divorce” by a certain Attorney Don Parkinson. The ad also promotes
information on Guam divorce, Annulment of Marriage, Immigration Problems,
and Visa Problems, among others.
Petitioner contends that these actions of the respondent are unethical,
demeaning of the law profession, and is destructive of the community’s
confidence. He further avers that the respondent is in an unauthorized practice
of law.
However, respondent contends that it is not engaged in the practice of law. It
avers that it is rendering its support services through paralegals, using the aid
of computers and information technology.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT the respondent Legal Clinic is engaged in an unauthorized
practice of law
RULING:
YES. The Legal Clinic, Incorporated has been restrained and enjoined from
publishing any similar advertisements. Furthermore, they are also restrained
from conducting any activity, operation, or transaction associated with the
legal profession.
APPLICATION:
For the purpose of determining the issue, the Supreme Court requested the aid
of the (1) Integrated Bar of the Philippines, (2) Philippine Bar Association, (3)
Philippine Lawyers’ Association, (4) UP Women’s Lawyers’ Circle, (5) Women
Lawyers Association of the Philippines, and the (6) Federacion International de
Abogadas.
These lawyer associations have all come to the conclusion that the respondent
is a corporation in an unauthorized practice of law and that their defenses of
(1) being under the control of paralegals, and (2) that they are not practicing
law but are simply providing information services is not to be sustained. The
associations’ averment is that the publication of these advertisements is largely
detrimental to the already tainted image of the law profession by destroying
the integrity of the bar in promoting bigamy, divorce, and secret marriages,
two of which are violations of the law and the last being a mockery of the
sanctity of marriage protected by both the constitution and the Family Code.
The associations also suggested to the SC that the practice of law is not limited
to conduct of cases in litigation but also involves the preparation of pleadings,
provision of advice to clients, and preparation written instruments.
The respondent is therefore in the practice of law because the court finds it
hard to believe that the Legal Clinic simply serves as a one-stop-shop for
information and would leave it at that. The court believes that the Legal Clinic
would also have to explain the intricacies of law to the client availing of their
services and thus, is unduly practicing law.
 A.C. No. 6672 | September 4, 2009
PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO,
respondent.
FACTS:
-Pedro Linsangan filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Tolentino for
solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services.
-Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano,
convinced his clients to transfer legal representation by promising them financial
assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. To induce them to hire his
services, he persistently called them and sent them text messages.
-To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit of James
Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client
relations with complainant and utilize respondent’s services instead, in exchange
for a loan of P50,000.
-Complainant also attached “respondent’s” calling card which included the phrase
“W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE”
-Respondent, however, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and
circulation of the said calling card.
-The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.
CBD: -Respondent had encroached on the professional practice of complainant,
violating Rule 8.02 and other canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR). Moreover, he contravened the rule against soliciting cases for gain,
personally or through paid agents or brokers as stated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court.
- Respondent be reprimanded with a stern warning that any repetition would merit
a heavier penalty.
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Tolentino solicited clients and encroached upon professional
services of Atty. Linsangan
RULING: YES. Atty. Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3
of the Code of Professional. Hence, He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of one year effective immediately.
Ratio:
Solicitation of Employment
CANON 3: A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY
TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
-Lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a profession and not a
business; lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise
their wares.
RULE 2.03: A LAWYER SHALL NOT DO OR PERMIT TO BE DONE ANY ACT
DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO SOLICIT LEGAL BUSINESS.
-Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain,
either personally or through paid agents or brokers. Such actuation constitutes
malpractice, a ground for disbarment.
RULE 1.03: A LAWYER SHALL NOT, FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE OR INTEREST,
ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING OR DELAY ANY MAN’S CAUSE.
-This rule proscribes the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an
attorney, personally or through an agent in order to gain employment
(“ambulance chasing”).
-Complainant presented substantial evidence consisting of the sworn
statements of the very same persons coaxed (persuaded) by Labiano and
referred to respondent’s office to prove that respondent indeed solicited legal
business as well as profited from referrals’ suits.
-Although respondent initially denied knowing Labiano, he later admitted it
during the mandatory hearing.
-Through Labiano’s actions, respondent’s law practice was benefited. Hapless
seamen were enticed to transfer representation on the strength of Labiano’s
word that respondent could produce a more favorable result.
Encroachment of professional services:
-Under Rule 8.02 of the CPR that a lawyer should not steal another lawyer’s
client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good
result or reduced fees for his services. The respondent never denied having
these seafarers in his client list nor receiving benefits from Labiano’s
“referrals.” Furthermore, he never denied Labiano’s connection to his office.
Respondent committed an unethical, predatory overstep into another’s legal
practice. He cannot escape liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR.
Engaging money-lending:
-Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his clients as
borrowers, respondent violated Rule 16.04. The rule is that a lawyer shall not
lend money to his client. The only exception is, when in the interest of justice,
he has to advance necessary expenses (such as filing fees, stenographer’s fees
for transcript of stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond,
etc.) for a matter that he is handling for the client.
RE: Calling Card:
 A final word regarding the calling card presented in evidence by petitioner. A
lawyer’s best advertisement is a well-merited reputation for professional
capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and conduct. For this
reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by publication in
reputable law lists or use of simple professional cards.
Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:
(a) lawyer’s name;
(b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;
(c) address;
(d) telephone number and
(e) special branch of law practiced.

The phrase “W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE” was clearly used to entice clients
(who already had representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans
to finance their legal actions. Money was dangled to lure clients away from
their original lawyers, thereby taking advantage of their financial distress and
emotional vulnerability.

Rule 2.04 – No Rates Lower Than Customarily Charged

Canon 3 Information on Legal Services that is True, Honest, Fair, Dignified, and
Objective
Rule 3.01 – No False or Unfair Claim re: Qualifications
 Khan v. Simbillo
[A.C. No. 5299. August 19, 2003; 409 SCRA 299]
FACTS:
This administrative complaint arose from a paid advertisement that appeared in the
July 5, 2000 issue of the newspaper, Philippine Daily Inquirer, which reads:
ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/521-2667.
Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public Information Office of the
Supreme Court, called up the published telephone number and pretended to be an
interested party. She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed that her husband, Atty.
Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a
court decree within four to six months, provided the case will not involve
separation of property or custody of children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her
husband charges a fee of P48,000.00, half of which is payable at the time of filing of
the case and the other half after a decision thereon has been rendered.
Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public
Information Office revealed that similar advertisements were published in the
August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The
Philippine Star.
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court
Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office, filed an administrative
complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation
of his legal services, in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court..
(SIMBILLO):
In his answer, respondent Simbillo admitted the acts imputed to him, but
argued that advertising and solicitation per se are not prohibited acts; that the time
has come to change our views about the prohibition on advertising and solicitation;
that the interest of the public is not served by the absolute prohibition on lawyer
advertising; that the Court can lift the ban on lawyer advertising; and that the
rationale behind the decades-old prohibition should be abandoned. Thus, he prayed
that he be exonerated from all the charges against him and that the Court
promulgate a ruling that advertisement of legal services offered by a lawyer is not
contrary to law, public policy and public order as long as it is dignified.
ISSUES: W/N Simbillo violated Rule 3.01 (and Rule 2.03) of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, as well as Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
RULING: Yes.
RATIO: The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to
public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily
meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that
necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary
consideration. The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should
be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal
interests or what they owe to themselves.
The following elements distinguish the legal profession from a business:
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which
one may attain the highest eminence without making much money;
2. A relation as an officer of the court to the administration of justice involving
thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability;
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
4. 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 directly with their clients.
What adds to the gravity of respondents acts is that in advertising himself as a self-
styled Annulment of Marriage Specialist, he wittingly or unwittingly erodes and
undermines not only the stability but also the sanctity of an institution still
considered sacrosanct despite the contemporary climate of permissiveness in our
society. Indeed, in assuring prospective clients that an annulment may be obtained
in four to six months from the time of the filing of the case, he in fact encourages
people, who might have otherwise been disinclined and would have refrained from
dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so.
Nonetheless, 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. If it is made in a modest and decorous manner, it would bring no
injury to the lawyer and to the bar. Thus, the use of simple signs stating the name
or names of the lawyers, the office and residence address and fields of practice, as
well as advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data, are
permissible. Even the use of calling cards is now acceptable. Publication in
reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed
by the canon, of brief biographical and informative data is likewise allowable.
CONCLUSION:
 The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline passed Resolution No. XV-2002-306,
finding respondent guilty of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court, and
suspended him from the practice of law for one (1) year with the warning that a
repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The IBP Resolution was
noted by this Court on November 11, 2002

LAWS/PROVISIONS:
Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim
regarding his qualifications or legal services.

Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to
solicit legal business.

SEC. 27, Rule 138:. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court,
grounds therefor. 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 any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience
appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so.
 being members of the Philippine bar, practicing under the firm name of Guerrero &
Torres, are members or associates of Baker & Mckenzie.

Rule 3.02 – No False or Misleading Firm Name As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents’ use of the firm name Baker &
McKenzie constitutes a representation that being associated with the firm they
Adm. Case No. 2131. May 10, 1985.* could “render legal services of the highest quality to multinational business
ADRIANO E. DACANAY, complainant, vs. BAKER & MCKENZIE and JUAN G. enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment.”
COLLAS, JR., LUIS MA. GUERRERO, VICENTE A. TORRES, RAFAEL E.
EVANGELISTA, JR., ROMEO L. SALONGA, JOSE R. SANDEJAS, LUCAS M.
NUNAG, J. CLARO TESORO, NATIVIDAD B. KWAN and JOSE A.
CURAMMENG, JR., respondents.

Facts:

Lawyer Adriano E. Dacanay, admitted to the bar in 1954, in his 1980 verified
complaint, sought to enjoin Juan G. Collas, Jr. and nine other lawyers from
practicing law under the name of Baker & McKenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois.

In a letter dated November 16, 1979 respondent Vicente A. Torres, using the
letterhead of Baker & McKenzie, which contains the names of the ten lawyers,
asked Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International,
Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client.

Attorney Dacanay, in his reply dated December 7, 1979, denied any liability of
Clurman to Gabriel. He requested that he be informed whether the lawyer of
Gabriel is Baker & McKenzie “and if not, what is your purpose in using the
letterhead of another law office.” Not having received any reply, he filed the instant
complaint.

Issue:

WON the use by Philippine lawyers of the firm name of an American law firm is
ethical.

Held:
No. This is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practice law
here. The respondents are enjoined from practicing law under the firm name Baker
& McKenzie.

We hold that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the
Philippines. As admitted by the respondents in their memorandum, Baker &
McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with
members and associates in 30 cities around the world. Respondents, aside from

Rule 3.02 – In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading, or assumed name shall be
used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided
that the firm indicates in all of its communications that said partner is deceased.
Rule 3.03 – Partners Assuming Public Office
Constitution Art. 6, sec. 14; Art. 7, sec. 13; Art. 9, sec. 2
Rule 3.04 – Not Use Media to Attract Legal Business
Canon 4 Particitipate in Improvement of the Legal System: Support Law Reforms
and Administration of Justice
Canon 5 Participate in Legal Education Program
· Bar Matter 850 Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
EN BANC
[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.
This resolution shall take effect on the fifteenth of September 2000, following its
publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2000, as amended on 02 October 2001.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Kapunan, J., on official leave.
 Bar Matter No. 1922, dated June 3, 2008

B.M. No. 1922 June 3, 2008

RE. NUMBER AND DATE OF MCLE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/EXEMPTION
REQUIRED IN ALL PLEADINGS/MOTIONS.

Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated
June 3, 2008
"Bar Matter No. 1922. – Re: Recommendation of the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) Board to Indicate in All Pleadings Filed with the Courts the
Counsel’s MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption. – The Court
Resolved to NOTE the Letter, dated May 2, 2008, of Associate Justice Antonio
Eduardo B. Nachura, Chairperson, Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters,
informing the Court of the diminishing interest of the members of the Bar in the
MCLE requirement program.
The Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Committee on Legal
Education and Bar Matters, to REQUIRE practicing members of the bar to INDICATE
in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date
of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may
be applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance period. Failure to disclose
the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction
of the pleadings from the records.
The New Rule shall take effect sixty (60) days after its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation." Caprio-Morales Velasco, Jr., Nachura, JJ., on official leave.
(adv216a)
Very truly yours,
MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA(sgd)
Clerk of Court
 Rodriguez Manahan v. Flores
[AC No. 8954. Nov. 13, 2013; 709 SCRA 297]
FACTS:
- A complaint for Damages was filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San
Mateo, Rizal docketed as Civil Case No. 1863, entitled Marsha Aranas vs. Arnold
Balmores. The Public Attorney's Office (PAO) thru Atty. Ferdinand P. Censon
represented the complainant while Atty. Rodolfo Flores appeared as counsel for the
defendant. Case is presided by herein complainant Judge Maribeth Rodriguez-
Manahan (Judge Manahan).
- During the proceedings in the civil case, Judge Manahan issued an Order whereby
she voluntarily inhibited from the hearing.
- Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) deemed the pronouncements of Judge Manahan
as a formal administrative Complaint against Atty. Flores. The case was referred to
the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Rizal for investigation, report and
recommendation.
Investigating Judge Josephine Zarate Fernandez (Investigating Judge) narrated the
antecedents of the case as follows:
1. During the Preliminary Conference, respondent Atty. Flores entered his appearance
and was given time to file a Pre-Trial Brief.
2. Respondent Atty. Flores filed his Pre-Trial Brief but without proof of MCLE
compliance.
3. The preliminary conference was reset several times for failure of respondent Atty.
Flores to appear and submit his pre trial brief indicating thereon his MCLE
compliance. The court gave respondent Atty. Flores a last chance to submit his pre
trial brief with stern warning that failure to do so shall be considered a waiver on
his part.
4. Respondent Atty. Flores later filed his pre-trial brief bearing an MCLE number which
was merely superimposed without indicating the date and place of compliance.
During the preliminary conference, respondent Atty. Flores manifested that he will
submit proof of compliance of his MCLE on the following day. Respondent again
failed to appear and to submit the said promised proof of MCLE compliance. In its
stead, respondent Atty. Flores filed a Letter of even date stating as follows:
“If only to give your Honor another chance to prove your pro plaintiff
sentiment, I am hereby filing the attached Motion which [you may once more]
assign to the waste basket of [nonchalance]. With the small respect that still
remains, I have asked the defendant to look for another lawyer to represent him for
I am no longer interested in this case because I feel I cannot do anything right in
your sala.”
 The Investigating Judge found Atty. Flores to have failed to give due
respect to the court by failing to obey court orders, by failing to submit
proof of his compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE) requirement, and for using intemperate language in his pleadings.
The Investigating Judge recommended that Atty. Flores be suspended from
the practice of law for one year.
 The OBC adopted the findings and recommendation of the Investigating
Judge.
ISSUE: WON respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for failing to
comply with the MCLE requirement and using intemperate language in his
pleadings
RULING: No, but respondent Atty. Rodolfo Flores is FINED in the amount of
P5,000.00 with STERN WARNING that the repetition of a similar offense shall be
dealt with more severely.
RATIO: There is no doubt that Atty. Flores failed to obey the trial court's order to
submit proof of his MCLE compliance notwithstanding the several opportunities
given him. "Court orders are to be respected not because the judges who issue
them should be respected, but because of the respect and consideration that
should be extended to the judicial branch of the Government. This is absolutely
essential if our Government is to be a government of laws and not of men. Respect
must be had not because of the incumbents to the positions, but because of the
authority that vests in them. Disrespect to judicial incumbents is disrespect to that
branch of the Government to which they belong, as well as to the State which has
instituted the judicial system."
Atty. Flores also employed intemperate language in his pleadings. As an officer of
the court, Atty. Flores is expected to be circumspect in his language. Rule 11.03,
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins all attorneys to abstain
from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
Atty. Flores failed in this respect.
At this juncture, it is well to remind respondent that:
While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client, he must do so
only within the bounds of law. A lawyer is entitled to voice his criticism within the
context of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech which must be
exercised responsibly. Freedom is not freedom from responsibility, but freedom
with responsibility.

Court finds the recommended penalty too harsh and not commensurate with the
infractions committed by the respondent. It appears that this is the first infraction
committed by respondent. Also, we are not prepared to impose on the respondent
the penalty of one-year suspension for humanitarian reasons. Respondent
manifested before this Court that he has been in the practice of law for half a
century. Thus, he is already in his twilight years.

LAWS / PROVISIONS:
Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE
COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY
OTHERS.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language
or behavior before the Courts.