CHAPTER 3 – LAWYERS DUTY TO SOCIETY

A.UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND (obey)THE LAW

 §3.01. Duty to uphold Constitution and obey the law.

-maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the constitution and obey the laws of the land.

Lee v. Tambago case – Will considered void. Notaries public must observe with utmost care[32] and utmost fidelity the
basic requirements in the performance of their duties, otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of notarized
deeds will be undermined.

-Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed by law render the entire will invalid. This
carelessness cannot be taken lightly in view of the importance and delicate nature of a will, considering that
the testator and the witnesses, as in this case, are no longer alive to identify the instrument and to confirm its
contents.[34] Accordingly, respondent must be held accountable for his acts. The validity of the will was
seriously compromised as a consequence of his breach of duty.

Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed by law render the entire will invalid. This carelessness cannot be
taken lightly in view of the importance and delicate nature of a will, considering that the testator and the witnesses, as in
this case, are no longer alive to identify the instrument and to confirm its contents.[34] Accordingly, respondent must be
held accountable for his acts. The validity of the will was seriously compromised as a consequence of his breach of duty.

“A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the
legal system.”6 His responsibilities are greater than those of a private citizen.

 3.02 Duty not to engage in unlawful conduct.

The lawyer’s duty to obey the laws and promote respect for law and legal processes, negatively put, demands
that he “shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”11 An unlawful conduct is
an act or omission which is against the law.12 A dishonest act is an act of lying or cheating.13 An immoral or
deceitful conduct is one that involves moral turpitude

 §3.03. Duty not to counsel illegal activities.

Rule 1.02 of the Code accordingly requires that “A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at
defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal profession.” Nor should he subvert the law by
counseling or assisting in activities which are in defiance of the law.

§3.04. Duty not to encourage lawsuits.

A lawyer owes to society and to the court the duty not to stir up litigation. Rule 1.03 of the Code provides
that a “lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding.” To stir
up litigation is a crime known as maintenance at common law.

Among the unprofessional acts which come within the prohibition include the lawyer’s (a) volunteering
advice to bring lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it his duty

1|Page
 to do so; (b) hunting up defects in titles or other causes of action and informing thereof in order to be
employed to bring suit or collect judgment, or to breed litigation by seeking out those claims for
personal injuries or those having any other grounds of action in order to secure them as clients; (c)
employing agents or runners for like purposes; (d) paying reward, directly or indirectly, to those who
bring or influence the bringing of such cases to his office; (e) remunerating policemen, court or prison
officials, physicians, hospital attaches or others who may succeed, under the guise of giving
disinterested friendly advice, in influencing the criminal, the sick and the injured, the ignorant or
others, to seek professional services;22 (f) searching for unknown heirs and soliciting their
employment of him;23 (g) initiating a meeting of the members of club and inducing them to organize
and contest legislation under his guidance;24 (h) purchasing notes to collect them by litigation at a
profit;25 (i) furnishing credit reports in expectation of possible employment;26 and (j) agreeing with a
purchaser of future interests to invest therein in consideration of his services

The purpose of the prohibition is to prevent ambulance chasing, which refers to solicitation of almost any
kind of legal business by laymen employed by an attorney for the purpose or by the attorney himself.

§3.05. Duty to encourage amicable settlement.

The useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it where possible, by
advising settlement or withholding suit. a lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.” Rule 1.04 of the Code requires that “a lawyer shall
encourage his client to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.”

B. MAKING LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE

§3.06. Generally.
“A lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficient and convenient manner compatible with the
independence, integrity and effectiveness of the profession.

A lawyer who accepts professional employment should be in a position to render efficient and
effective legal assistance, otherwise he should help find another lawyer who is qualified and able to do
so. And a lawyer who is qualified to provide efficient legal services should make available such services to
those who are in need thereof. This is an obligation a lawyer assumes when he took his oath of office.

Canon 2 and its implementing Rules make such duty clear and specific. The IBP Committee that drafted the
Code explained: “A person in need of legal services should be able to find a lawyer who is qualified to
provide them. It is the responsibility of the bar to make such services available.

A wide gap exists between the need and its satisfaction. This has been ascribed mainly to two reasons: first is
poverty and the consequent inability to pay, and second, ignorance not only of the need of legal services
but also of where to find a competent and dependable lawyer.

§3.07. A lawyer shall not reject the cause of the defenseless.

2|Page
 The rule that “A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the
oppressed.

Even in those instances in which he may not, for valid reasons, accept the case, the lawyer “shall not refuse to
render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter’s rights.

§3.08. A lawyer shall not refuse to render legal advice.

A lawyer may refuse to accept the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed for valid reasons, such as when
he is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or competently. Nonetheless, Rule 2.02 of the Code
requires that “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 extend necessary to safeguard the latter’s interests,” such as
advising him what preliminary steps to take, until he shall have secured the services of counsel. He should,
however, refrain from giving such legal advice if the reason for not accepting the case is that he labors under
a conflict of interests between him and a prospective client or between a present client and a prospective
client.

§3.09. Participating in legal development.

A lawyer must broaden out and continue to grow in knowledge and competence in order to be able to make the law
socially responsive.

§3.10. Lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments

Canon 5 provides that “A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing
legal education programs, support efforts to achieve highest standards in law schools as well as in the
practical training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and
jurisprudence.”

Legal education should be a continuing concern. After admis- sion to practice, a lawyer incurs a three-fold
obligation. First, he owes it to himself to continue improving his knowledge of the law; second, he owes it to
his profession to take an active interest in the maintenance of high standards of legal obligation; and third,
he owes it to the lay public to make the law a part of its social consciousness. In the discharge of such duties,
a lawyer should however see to it that his activities may not develop into solicitation of legal business or
popularity-hunting

§3.11. Mandatory continuing legal education.

Continuing legal education is required of members of the 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. To achieve such purpose, 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,

3|Page
 with appropriate penalties for failure to do so, in accordance with the Rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education

C. APPLICABILITY OF CODE TO GOVERNMENT LAWYERS

§3.12. Code is applicable to government lawyers.

Canon 6 makes the Code of Professional Responsibility appli- cable “to lawyers in government service in the
discharge of their of- ficial duties.” The reason for the rule is that a lawyer does not shed his professional
obligations upon his assuming public office.

A government lawyer may thus be held administratively liable for breach of the canons and rules of the Code
of Professional Responsibility or the lawyer’s oath in the discharge of official duties.67 It is however one
thing in taking disciplinary action against him and another thing in protecting vital government interests
which should not be jeopardized through neglect of the lawyer appearing for it when this can be done
without adverse results to the private party.

§3.13. A prosecutor shall see to it that justice is done.

Rule 6.01 provides that “The primary duty of a lawyer in public prosecution is not to convict but to see
that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing
the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.”

A pubic prosecutor should not hesitate to recommend to the court the accused’s acquittal if the evidence in
his possession shows that the accused is innocent. If on appeal by the accused from a conviction by the trial
court he finds no legal basis to sustain the conviction, he should not also hesitate to recommend that the
accused be acquitted

In Dimatulac v. Villon,67 the Supreme Court summed up the role of a public prosecutor in the prosecution of
criminal actions: …

“Prosecutors are charged with the defense of the community aggrieved by a crime, and are expected
to prosecute the public action with such zeal and vigor as if they were the ones personally aggrieved, but
at all times cautious that they refrain from improper methods designed to secure a wrongful
conviction. With them lies the duty to lay before the court the pertinent

facts at the judge’s disposal with strict attention to punctilious, thereby clarifying contradictions and sealing
all gaps with evidence, with a view to erasing all doubt from the court’s mind as to the accused’s innocence
or guilt.

§3.14. Restrictions on the functions of public prosecutor.

Public prosecutors should not allow, and should avoid, giving the impression that their noble
office is being used or prostituted, wittingly or unwittingly, for political ends or other

4|Page
 purposes alien to, or subversive of, the basic and fundamental objective of serving the
interests of justice evenhandedly, without fear or favor to any and all litigants alike, whether rich
or poor, weak or strong, powerless or mighty

He should not offer as proof of the accused’s guilt illegally seized or acquired evidence,71 nor
suppress facts or conceal witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused.72 Neither
should he consent to any undue delay in the prosecution of the action73 because it is also his duty
to see to it that a person on trial is not deprived of his statutory or legal rights.74 He may not
assert his personal knowledge of a crime unless he withdraws as prosecutor and takes the
witness stand, to give the defense counsel opportunity to cross-examine him.

It is improper for a public prosecutor to assist in the escape of a prisoner, institute a criminal action
to force a settlement of a case,76 agree to refrain from prosecuting a person in consideration of
some reward

In appeals, the Solicitor General has control.

The Solicitor General shall represent the People in criminal actions brought to the Court of Appeals
and the Supreme Court. However, the Court sometimes overlooks this procedural lapse and
proceeds to resolve the case on its merit, even when the case is filed by a prosecutor

§3.16. Role of private prosecutor.

Section 16 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that unless the offended party has waived the civil
action or expressly reserved the right to institute it separately from the criminal action, and subject to
the provision of Section 5 hereof, which gives to the public prosecutor the direction and control of the
prosecution.

… In other words, a private prosecutor on behalf of the offended party is allowed to intervene in the
prosecution of a crime only where from the nature of the offense or the law defining and punishing the
offense charged civil liability is deemed instituted with the criminal action. Absent any of these
requisites, an offended party or private prosecutor cannot intervene in the prosecution of the offense

§3.17. Intervention by private lawyer is subject to prosecu- tor’s control.

The intervention of the private prosecutor in the criminal prosecution is always subject to the
direction and control of the public prosecutor, who is duty bound to take charge of the prosecution
until its termination.

5|Page
 conduct of the trial, where the civil action arising from the crime is deemed instituted in the criminal
action, his duty to direct and control the prosecution of criminal cases requires that he must be
present during the proceedings and must at any time take over the conduct of the trial from the
private prosecutor. For this reason, where the prosecutor has turned over the active conduct of
the trial to the private prosecutor who presented testimonial evidence even when the public
prosecutor was absent during the trial, the evidence presented could not be considered valid
evidence of the People of the Philippines.

However, the rule that the evidence presented by the private prosecutor at a hearing, at which
neither the prosecutor or his assistant or authorized special counsel was present, cannot be
considered as evidence for the People of the Philippines, applies only to courts which are
provided by law with their own prosecutors, and not to municipal courts which have no trial
prosecutors.

§3.18. When public prosecutor should take over handling of case.

There is nothing objectionable in allowing a private prosecutor to participate in the

proceedings and in turning over to him the active conduct of the case, as long as the
public prosecutor is always present at every hearing.

A public prosecutor should not however allow the trial in the hands of a private
prosecutor to degenerate into a private persecution. The administration of criminal law
should never be the vehicle of oppression for the gratification of private malice or the
accomplishment of private gain or advantage

§3.19. A lawyer shall not use his public position to promote his private interest.

Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that “a lawyer in government
service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests nor allow
the latter to interfere with his public duties.”

A public official should see to it that his private activity does not interfere with the discharge
of his official functions.

(1) “own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, employee, consultant, counsel,
broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or
licensed by their office unless expressly allowed by law”; (2) “engage in the private
practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that
such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions”; (3)
“recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise which has a regular or
pending official transaction with their office”; and (4) “use or divulge confidential or
classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not available
to the public either” “to further their private interests, or give undue advantage to anyone,
or” “to prejudice the public interest.

6|Page
§3.20. Former official may not accept certain employment.

Rule 6.03 of the Code requires that a “lawyer shall not, after leaving the government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said
service.” The qualifying words or phrases that define the prohibition are (1) “any matter,” and (2) “he had
intervened” thereon while he was in the government service.

The Court in PCGG v. Sandiganbayan and Mendoza,109 discussed in detail the basis, meaning and scope of
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In said case, the PCGG seeks to disqualify Atty. Estelito Mendoza as counsel for the Lucio
Group of companies in the suit involving the sequestration of shares of stock of the Lucio
Group of Companies as alleged ill-gotten wealth, on the ground that as former Solicitor
General. He intervened in the matter of the liquidation of Genbank which was eventually
purchased and taken over by the Lucio Group of Companies.
The key issue is whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to
respondent Mendoza. The prohibition states: “A lawyer shall not, after leaving government
service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in the said service.”
The Court ruled that Atty. Mendoza could not be disqualified from representing the Lucio
Tan group of companies. The Court explained:
The key to unlock Rule 6.03 lies in comprehending first, the meaning of “matter” referred
to in the rule and, second, the metes and bounds of the “intervention” made by the former
government lawyer on the “matter.” The American Bar Association in its Formal Opinion
342, defined “matter” as any discrete, isolatable act as well as identifiable transaction or
conduct involving a particular situation and specific party, and not merely an act of
drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws,
or briefing abstract principles of law.
Beyond doubt, therefore, the “matter” or the act of respondent Mendoza as Solicitor
General involved in the case at bar is “advising the Central Bank, on how to proceed with
the said bank’s liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation with the CFI of
Manila.”

the concept of “matter” under Rule 6.03. The procedure of liquidation is given in black and
white in Republic Act No. 265, section 29, viz:
We hold that this advice given by respondent Mendoza on the procedure to liquidate
GENBANK is not the “matter” contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 is clear as daylight in stressing that the
“drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations
or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law” are acts which do not fall within the
scope of the term “matter” and cannot disqualify.

7|Page
…the danger that confidential official information might be divulged is nil,
if not inexistent. To be sure, there are no inconsistent “sides” to be bothered about
in the case at bar. For there is no question that in lawyering for respondents Tan,
et al., respondent Mendoza is not working against the interest of Central
Bank. On the contrary, he is indirectly defending the validity of the action
of Central Bank in liquidating GENBANK and selling it later to Allied
Bank.

8|Page