UPDATES IN LEGAL ETHICS

Atty. Cecilio D. Duka, Ed.D.

Associate Dean, College of Law
San Sebastian College, Manila
Professor, College of Law
Arellano University, Manila
Legal Ethics
It is the embodiment of all principles of morality and refinement that should
govern the conduct of every member of the Bar. It is embodied in the Constitution,
Rules of Court, Code of Professional Responsibility, jurisprudence, moral laws and
special laws.

Supervision of Lawyers

The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: …

Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of
law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. (Sec. 5(5), Article
VIII, 1987 Constitution)

Lawyer’s Oath

I, ______________________ of ___________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain

allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its 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, nor give aid nor consent to the
same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the
courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

Dick the Butcher - Henry VI by Shakespeare

Few people are unfamiliar with the phrase The first thing we do, let's kill all the
lawyers.
Rueful, mocking, it often expresses the ordinary person's frustration with the
complexity of law.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers
Contrary to popular belief, the proposal was not designed to restore sanity to
commercial life.
Rather, it was intended to eliminate those who might stand in the way of a
contemplated revolution -- thus underscoring the important role that lawyers can play in
society.

1
 The surest way to chaos and tyranny even then was to remove the guardians of
independent thinking – the lawyers.
Thus this line is really intended as a praise of the lawyer's role.

The importance of ethics

Why are ethical principles important for any profession?
They are the basis for the rules of the profession.
Without an ethical yardstick, it is impossible to set standards that regulate the
exercise of a profession and distinguish it from amateurism or quackery.

The importance of ethics the 21st Century

Will the 21st century be an era of free market forces and laissez-faire?
This is quite likely and is not all bad, when looking at the damage excessive
regulation has done in the past.
However, a free and unregulated economy can work to the benefit of all only if it
is guided by principles of ethics.
Where the search for profit and indeed greed is allowed to reign supreme, the
majority will always suffer.
What would cause people to act more ethically in the 21st century?
Would even an apocalypse change the nature of mankind or would we become
even more savage?
If governments created machines that grew enough food and built enough homes
and made enough clothes for the whole world cheaply enough to give away freely to
everyone; would we become better people?
If a way was discovered to download all human knowledge directly into a persons
brain so that we all had the same level of knowledge; would we be any more inclined to
agree with each other than we are now?
If we can't even agree on what constitutes ethical behavior, it would seem that
our hopes of acting more ethically towards each other would seem to go down as the
number of ethical challenges rise.

Love, Ethics and Profit

For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?
Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matthew 16:26)
Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
(Romans 13:10)

But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many
foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition.
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed
from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
(1 Timothy 6:10)

Lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not merchants.

Law advocacy is not capital that yields profits.
The returns it births are simple rewards for a job done or service rendered.
2
 It is a calling that, unlike mercantile pursuits which enjoy a greater deal of
freedom from governmental interference, is impressed with a public interest, for which it
is subject to state regulation. (Sesbreno vs. CA, April 16, 2008)

Khan vs. Simbillo, August 19, 2003

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.

Santos v. Llamas, January 20,2000

The exemption granted by R.A. 7432 to senior citizens from paying individual
income tax does not exempt lawyers who are likewise senior citizens from paying IBP
dues and privilege tax

Reyes vs. Atty. Vitan, A.C. No. 5835. April 15, 2005
A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence and never neglect
a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
him liable.
Indeed, it is his sworn duty not to delay any man for money or malice; and to
conduct himself in a proper manner not only to his client, but also to the court, the legal
profession and society at large.
The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling
complainant’s case and subsequently failing to render such services is a clear violation
of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer
shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
More specifically, Rule 18.03 states:
“Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.”
Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan is hereby declared guilty of violation of Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of six (6) months effective upon notice of this Decision.
He is ordered to return to complainant within five (5) days from notice the sum of
P17,000.00 with interest of 12% per annum from the date of the promulgation of this
Decision until the full amount shall have been returned.

BM 1992, Jan. 14, 2014

3
 AMEND the June 3, 2008 resolution by repealing the phrase "Failure to disclose
the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of
the pleadings from the records" and replacing it with "Failure to disclose the required
information would subject the counsel to appropriate penalty and disciplinary action”

Fine
i) The lawyer shall be imposed a fine of P2,000.00 for the first offense, P3,000.00
for the second offense and P4,000.00 for the third offense;
(ii) In addition to the fine, counsel may be listed as a delinquent member of the
Bar pursuant to Section 2, Rule 13 of Bar Matter No. 850 and its implementing rules and
regulations; and
(iii) The non-compliant lawyer shall be discharged from the case and the client/s
shall be allowed to secure the services of a new counsel with the concomitant right to
demand the return of fees already paid to the non-compliant lawyer.

Mapalad vs. Echanez, June 6, 2017

First. It was clearly established that respondent violated Bar Matter No. 85020.
No less than the MCLE Office had issued a certification stating that respondent had not
complied with the first and second compliance period of the MCLE.
Second. Despite such non-compliance, respondent repeatedly indicated a false
MCLE compliance number in his pleadings before the trial courts. In indicating patently
false information in pleadings filed before the courts of law, not only once but four times,
as per records, the respondent acted in manifest bad faith, dishonesty, and deceit. In so
doing, he indeed misled the courts, litigants -his own clients · included -professional
colleagues, and all others who may have relied on such pleadings containing false
information. Respondent's act of filing pleadings that he fully knew to contain false
information is a mockery of the courts, especially this Court, considering that it is this
Court that authored the rules and regulations that the respondent violated.
In using a false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings, respondent also put
his own clients at risk. Such deficiency in pleadings can be fatal to the client's cause as
pleadings with such false information produce no legal effect. In so doing, respondent
violated his duty to his clients.26 Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR.
WHEREFORE, respondent Anselmo S. Echanez is hereby DISBARRED from the
practice of law, and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN FROM THE ROLL OF
ATTORNEYS. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in his record as a member of the
Bar; and let notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and
on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country

Arnado vs. Adaza, August 26, 2015

The Case This is an administrative case against Atty. Homobono A. Adaza
(respondent) for his failure to comply with the requirements of the Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education (MCLE) under Bar Matter No. 850. In a letter, dated 15 March 2013,
Atty. Samuel B. Amado (complainant) called the attention of this Court to the practice of
respondent of indicating "MCLE application for exemption under process" in his
pleadings filed in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, and "MCLE Application for Exemption for
Reconsideration" in a pleading filed in 2012.”
4
 The OBC recommended that respondent be declared a delinquent member
of the Bar and guilty of non-compliance with the MCLE requirements. The OBC
further recommended respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for six months
with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt
with more severely. The OBC also recommended that respondent be directed to
comply with the requirements set forth by the MCLE Governing Board.
Bar Matter No. 850 requires members of the IBP to undergo continuing
legal education “to ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and
jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the
practice of law.”
The First Compliance Period was from 15 April 2001 to 14 April 2004
Second Compliance Period was from 15 April 2004 to 14 April 2007
Third Compliance Period was from 15 April 2007 to 14 April 2010
Fourth Compliance Period from 15 April 2010 to 14 April 2013

The records of the MCLE Office showed that respondent failed to comply
with the four compliance periods. The records also showed that respondent filed
an application for exemption only on 5 January 2009. According to the MCLE
Governing Board, respondent’s application for exemption covered the First and
Second Compliance Periods. Respondent did not apply for exemption for the Third
Compliance Period.
The MCLE Governing Board denied respondent’s application for exemption
on 14 January 2009 on the ground that the application did not meet the
requirements of expertise in law under Section 3, Rule 7 of Bar Matter No. 850.
REMIND the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Office to promptly act on
matters that require its immediate attention, such as but not limited to applications for
exemptions, and to communicate its action to the interested parties within a reasonable
period; DENY the prayer of Atty. Homobono A. Adaza to be exempted from MCLE
compliance as the matter had already been denied with finality by the MCLE Governing
Board on 28 November 2013;
DECLARE Atty. Homobono A. Adaza as a delinquent member of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and SUSPEND him from the practice of law for SIX MONTHS, or
until he has fully complied with the MCLE requirements for the First, Second, Third, and
Fourth Compliance Periods, whichever is later, and he has fully paid the required non-
compliance and reinstatement fees.

Dalisay vs. Mauricio, A.C. No. 5655, April 22, 2005

In her complaint, Dalisay alleged that she was impressed by the pro-poor and
pro-justice advocacy of respondent, a media personality.
So she engaged his services as her counsel in Civil Case No. 00-44, wherein
she is the defendant, in a case pending before the Municipal Trial Court of Binangonan,
Rizal.
After consulting with respondent, she handed to him all the pertinent documents.
In turn, respondent demanded P25,000.00 as acceptance fee which she paid.
Then respondent asked her to pay P8,000.00 as filing fee. She paid the amount
although she knew that Civil Case No. 00-44 was already filed with the court.
5
 After a month, complainant approached respondent to follow–up her case.
Respondent demanded additional acceptance fee, or a total of P90,000.00, with
the explanation that he can give a discount should she pay in cash.
Respondent also asked her to pay him P3,000.00 as appearance fee.
Complainant raised an additional amount and paid respondent the total sum of
P48,000.00.
Adding to this amount P8,000.00 filing fee, her total payment was P56,000.00.
Complainant further alleged that notwithstanding her payments, respondent
never rendered any legal service for her in Civil Case No. 00-044.
As a result, she terminated their attorney-client relationship and demanded the
return of her money and documents. However, he refused to do so.
In his comment, respondent denied complainant’s charge. He claimed that Atty.
Oliver Lozano referred her to him to defend her in Civil Case No. 00-044.
He explained to her that she is not covered by the free legal services being
rendered by his office.
Thus, she would be treated as a regular client.
Accordingly, his acceptance fee would be One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00)
Pesos.
In addition, she would be charged for any pleading and paper filed with the court,
plus an appearance fee of P3,000.00.
However, there is nothing in the records to show that respondent entered his
appearance as counsel of record for complainant in Civil Case No. 00-044. He did not
even follow-up the case which remained pending up to the time she terminated his
services.
As to the P8,000.00, allegedly as docket fees for other cases, paid to respondent
by complainant, the Investigating Commissioner found that “there was no evidence nor
any pleadings submitted to show that respondent filed any case considering that the
filing fee had to be paid simultaneously with the filing of a case.”
Also, respondent’s Attorney’s Oath declares that respondent shall impose upon
himself the sacred duty, among others, that he will not delay any man for money or
malice, and will conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity to courts as well as to his clients.
A member of the legal profession owes his client entire devotion to his genuine
interest and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights.
An attorney is expected to exert his best efforts and ability to protect his client’s
case, for his unwavering loyalty to his client likewise serves the ends of justice.
Indeed, the entrusted privilege of every lawyer to practice law carries with it his
corresponding duties, not only to his client, but also to the court, to the bar and to the
public.
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, above-quoted, is a basic
postulate in legal ethics.
Verily, when a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise
due diligence in protecting his rights.
The failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention makes such lawyer
unworthy of the trust reposed in him by his client and makes him answerable not just to
his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society.
6
 Respondent insists that he is entitled to attorney’s fees since he gave legal
advice and opinions to complainant on her problems and those of her family.
Just like any other professional, a lawyer is entitled to collect fees for his
services.
However, he should charge only a reasonable amount of fees.
Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that “A lawyer
shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.”
There is, however, no hard and fast rule which will serve as guide in determining
what is or what is not a reasonable fee.
That must be determined from the facts of each case.
The power to determine the reasonableness or the unconscionable character of
a lawyer’s fee is a matter falling within the regulatory prerogative of the Court.
It is now clear to us that since respondent did not take any step to assist
complainant in her case, charging P56,000.00 is improper.
While giving legal advice and opinion on complainant’s problems and those of
her family constitutes legal service, however, the attorney’s fee must be reasonable.
Obviously, P56,000.00 is exorbitant.
We cannot understand why respondent initially demanded P8,000.00 as filing fee
from complainant when he very well knew that the docket fee for Civil Case No. 00-044
had been paid.
If it was intended as a docket fee for another case, why did he not file the
corresponding complaint?
Respondent Atty. Mauricio, Jr. is hereby found GUILTY of malpractice and gross
misconduct for violating Canons 17, 18, Rule 18.03 and 20 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath.
He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period for six (6) months
effective from notice, and STERNLY WARNED that any similar infraction in the future
will be dealt with more severely.
He is further ordered to RETURN, within ten (10) days, also from notice, the sum
of P56,000.00 to complainant Valeriana U. Dalisay and submit to this Court proof of his
compliance within three (3) days thereform.

Navarro vs. Atty. Solidum, January 28, 2014

On 4 April 2006, respondent signed a retainer agreement with Presbitero to
follow up the release of the payment for the latter’s 2.7-hectare property located in
Bacolod which was the subject of a Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) to the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR).
On 25 May 2006, respondent obtained a loan of P1,000,000 from Navarro to
finance his sugar trading business. Respondent and Navarro executed a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) and agreed that the loan (a) shall be for a period of one year; (b)
shall earn interest at the rate of 10% per month; and (c) shall be secured by a real
estate mortgage over a property located in Barangay Alijis, Bacolod City, covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 304688. They also agreed that respondent shall issue
postdated checks to cover the principal amount of the loan as well as the interest
thereon. Respondent delivered the checks to Navarro, drawn against an account in
Metrobank, Bacolod City Branch, and signed them in the presence of Navarro.
7
 In June 2006, respondent obtained an additional loan of P1,000,000 from
Navarro, covered by a second MOA with the same terms and conditions as the first
MOA. Respondent sent Navarro, through a messenger, postdated checks drawn
against an account in Bank of Commerce, Bacolod City Branch. Respondent likewise
discussed with Navarro about securing a "Tolling Agreement" with Victorias Milling
Company, Inc. but no agreement was signed.
At the same time, respondent obtained a loan of P1,000,000 from Presbitero
covered by a third MOA, except that the real estate mortgage was over a 263-square-
meter property located in Barangay Taculing, Bacolod City. Respondent sent Presbitero
postdated checks drawn against an account in Metrobank, Bacolod City Branch.
Presbitero was dissatisfied with the value of the 263-square-meter property mortgaged
under the third MOA, and respondent promised to execute a real estate mortgage over
a 1,000-square-meter parcel of land adjacent to the 4,000-square-meter property he
mortgaged to Navarro.
However, respondent did not execute a deed for the additional security.
Respondent paid the loan interest for the first few months. He was able to pay
complainants a total of P900,000. Thereafter, he failed to pay either the principal
amount or the interest thereon. In September 2006, the checks issued by respondent to
complainants could no longer be negotiated because the accounts against which they
were drawn were already closed. When complainants called respondent’s attention, he
promised to pay the agreed interest for September and October 2006 but asked for a
reduction of the interest to 7% for the succeeding months.
In November 2006, respondent withdrew as counsel for Yulo. On the other hand,
Presbitero terminated the services of respondent as counsel. Complainants then filed
petitions for the judicial foreclosure of the mortgages executed by respondent in their
favor. Respondent countered that the 10% monthly interest on the loan was usurious
and illegal. Complainants also filed cases for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 against respondent.
Complainants alleged that respondent induced them to grant him loans by
offering very high interest rates. He also prepared and signed the checks which turned
out to be drawn against his son’s accounts. Complainants further alleged that
respondent deceived them regarding the identity and value of the property he
mortgaged because he showed them a different property from that which he owned.
Presbitero further alleged that respondent mortgaged his 263-square-meter property to
her for P1,000,000 but he later sold it for only P150,000.
After conducting a hearing and considering the position papers submitted by the
parties, the IBP-CBD found that respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be meted the penalty of
disbarment. The records show that respondent violated at least four provisions of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. In this case, the loan agreements with Navarro
were done in respondent’s private capacity. A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct
committed either in his professional or private capacity.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Ivan M. Solidum, Jr. GUILTY of violating Rule
1.01, Canon 16, Rule 16.01, and Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, the Court DISBARS him from the practice of law effective immediately
upon his receipt of this Decision.
8
Guevarra vs. Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007
Joselano Guevarra (complainant) filed on March 4, 2002 a Complaint for
Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar
Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Eala (respondent) for "grossly immoral conduct and
unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath."
He first met respondent in January 2000 when his (complainant's) then-fiancee
Irene Moje (Irene) introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to
Marianne (sometimes spelled "Mary Ann") Tantoco with whom he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, complainant noticed that from
January to March 2001, Irene had been receiving from respondent cellphone calls, as
well as messages some of which read "I love you," "I miss you," or "Meet you at
Megamall."
Complainant also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or
early in the morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go home from work.
On February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and respondent together on two
occasions.
On the second occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned
the conjugal house.
April 22, 2001, complainant went uninvited to Irene's birthday celebration at
which he saw her and respondent celebrating with her family and friends.
Out of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately.
Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off all her
personal belongings, pieces of furniture, and her share of the household appliances.
Complainant later found, in the master's bedroom, a folded social card bearing
the words "I Love You" on its face, which card when unfolded contained a handwritten
letter dated October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding to Irene.
Complainant soon saw respondent's car and that of Irene constantly parked at
No. 71-B 11th Street, New Manila where, as he was to later learn sometime in April
2001, Irene was already residing.
He also learned still later that when his friends saw Irene on or about January 18,
2002 together with respondent during a concert, she was pregnant.
In his ANSWER, respondent admitted having sent the I LOVE YOU card on
which the above-quoted letter was handwritten.
Indeed, from respondent's Answer, he does not deny carrying on an adulterous
relationship with Irene, "adultery" being defined under Art. 333 of the Revised Penal
Code as that "committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with
a man not her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her, knowing her
to be married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared void.“
What respondent denies is having flaunted such relationship, he maintaining that
it was "low profile and known only to the immediate members of their respective
families."
In other words, respondent's denial is a negative pregnant.

Negative Pregnant

9
 A denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading
responded to which are not squarely denied. It was in effect an admission of the
averments it was directed at.
Stated otherwise, a negative pregnant is a form of negative expression which
carries with it in affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the
adverse party.
It is a denial pregnant with an admission of the substantial facts alleged in the
pleading.
Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the words of
the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied, it has been held that the
qualifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is admitted.
The records custodian of St. Luke's Medical Center, in his January 29, 2003
Affidavit which he identified at the witness stand, declared that Irene gave the
information in the Certificate of Live Birth that the child's father is "Jose Emmanuel
Masacaet Eala," who was 38 years old and a lawyer.
Without doubt, the adulterous relationship between respondent and Irene has
been sufficiently proven by more than clearly preponderant evidence that evidence
adduced by one party which is more conclusive and credible than that of the other party
and, therefore, has greater weight than the other which is the quantum of evidence
needed in an administrative case against a lawyer.
ART. 334. Concubinage. - Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal
dwelling, or, shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a
woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be
punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
An element of the crime of concubinage when a married man has sexual
intercourse with a woman elsewhere.
"Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the
benefit of marriage should be characterized as 'grossly immoral conduct' depends on
the surrounding circumstances."
The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married
woman who is not his wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out discreetly.
Respondent, Atty. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his
oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
Author:
1. Public International Law Simplified, Rex Bookstore, 2017
2. Labor Laws and Social Legislations: A Barrister’s
Companion, Rex Bookstore, 2008, 2011, 2016
3. Constitutional Law: A Barrister’s Companion, Rex Bookstore,
2010
4. Introduction to Sociology, Anvil Publishing, 2014
5. Rizal, His Legacy to the Philippine Society, Anvil Publishing,
2010
6. The Struggle for Freedom: A Textbook on Philippine History,
Rex Bookstore, 2008

10
7. The Law and the Teaching Profession in the Philippines, C
and E Publishing, 2008
8. Introduction to Asia: History, Culture and Civilization, Rex
Bookstore, 2005
9. Reviewer for the Civil Service Examination, Manila Review
Institute, Inc. 2001,2015
10. World Geography, Rex Bookstore, Manila, 2001, 2006
11. Philosophy of Education, Rex Bookstore, Manila, 1999
12. Reviewer for the Licensure Examination for Teachers,
Manila Review Institute Inc. 1998,2003,2016
13. Historical, Philosophical and Legal Foundations of
Education, Phoenix Publishing House, 1997

11