CHAPTER V

Lawyer’s duties to Courts

CHAPTER III. THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS

CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT.

Florido vs. Florido , AC no. 5624, 1/20/04

A. Candor, fairness and good faith to courts

- Lawyers are first and foremost an officer of the court

- Duties to the court are more significant than those which he owes his client (Salcedo vs.
Hernandez, 61 Phil 724 [1935] Conn-Perez vs. Latin 24 SCRA 291 [1968])

- His first duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice; client’s success is
wholly subordinate

- A lawyer is an instrument to advance the ends of justice

- Should there be conflict between his duty to his client and that to the court, he should
resolve conflict against the former and in favour of the latter, his primary responsibility
being to uphold the cause of justice. (cobb-perez)

- No act involving disrespect to judicial office (Lualhati vs. Albert 57 Phil 87 [1932])

- Adoption of legal proposition not honestly debatable (pp vs. young 83 phil 702 [1949])

o There be no doubt as to the guilty of the accused, since he himself, in his testimony
before the trial court, admitted his participation in the murder of Alfonso Ang
Liongto in consideration of a promise of reward of P50,000, of which he claimed
to have received only P10,300 at the time of the trial.

In support of his third assignment of error counsel for the appellant presents the
startling argument that his client was a poor man who had never owned a thousand
pesos and that "a cold fifty thousand bucks in exchange of a man's life" was too
great a temptation for him to resist. We quote counsel's own words just to show to
what extent one's moral sense seems to have atrophied:

The accused since birth was a poor man and a son of a poor farmer, that since his
boyhood he has never owned a thousand pesos in his own name. Now, here comes
a change for him. A cold fifty thousand bucks in exchange of a man's life. A
simple job. Perhaps a question of seconds' work and that would transform him into
a new man. Once in a small nipa shack, now in a palatial mansion? This poor
ignorant man blinded by the promises of wealth, protection and stability was given
to do the forbidden deed.

Such a plea is a disgrace to the bar and an affront to the court.

- Artifice or false statement of fact or law to mislead the court (occena vs. marquez 60
SCRA 38 [1974])

- Unlawful conspiracy w/ his client, a third person or a judge tending to frustrate or delay
the administration of justice or to secure for his client that which is not legally or justly
due him. (Langen vs. Bokowski 188 Wis 277, 43 ALR 622 [1925])

- Utmost good faith

A lawyer should be candid and truthful

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court;
nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
- Conduct characterized by truthfulness, frankness, candor and fairness (Albert vs. CFI 23
SCRA 948 [1968]; Pangan vs. Ramos 93 SCRA 87 [1979])

- Should not suppress material and vital facts which bear on the merit or lack of merit of a
complaint or petition (Orbit Transportation Co. vs. WCC 58 SCRA 78 [1976]; Santos vs.
Paguio 277 SCRA 1 [1993])

- Should volunteer to the court any development rendering case moot and academic & thus
help in its prompt disposition & avoid wasting the time of the court.

- Disclose to the court any decision adverse to his position, of which opposing counsel is
ignorant, & which court is obviously considering in deciding the case (may challenge
soundness of the decision)
A lawyer should do no falsehood
Maligaya vs. Doronilla, 9/15/06

Civil Case No. Q-99-38778 was an action for damages filed by complainant Renato M.
Maligaya, a doctor and retired colonel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, against
several military officers for whom Atty. Doronilla stood as counsel. At one point during
the February 19, 2002 hearing of the case, Atty. Doronilla said:

And another matter, Your Honor. I was appearing in other cases he [complainant
Maligaya] filed before against the same defendants. We had an agreement that if we
withdraw the case against him, he will also withdraw all the cases. So, with that
understanding, he even retired and he is now receiving pension.

SC quoted Rule 10.01

Atty. Doronilla's offense is within the ambit of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, which in part declares:

A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit x x x or for any violation of the oath which he is required
to take before admission to practice x x x.

Que vs. Revilla A.C. NO. 7054 : December 4, 2009

Respondent charged for committing the following violations of the provisions of

the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:

(1) The respondent's abuse of court remedies and processes by filing a petition
for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), two petitions for annulment of title before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a petition for annulment of judgment before the RTC and
lastly, a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC (collectively, subject cases) to assail
and overturn the final judgments of the Metropolitan Trial Court 2 (MeTC) and RTC3 in the
unlawful detainer case rendered against the respondent's clients. The respondent in this
regard, repeatedly raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction by the MeTC and RTC knowing
fully-well that these courts have jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case. The
respondent also repeatedly attacked the complainant's and his siblings' titles over the
property subject of the unlawful detainer case;

(2) The respondent's commission of forum-shopping by filing the subject cases in

order to impede, obstruct, and frustrate the efficient administration of justice for his own
personal gain and to defeat the right of the complainant and his siblings to execute the
MeTC and RTC judgments in the unlawful detainer case;

(3) The respondent's lack of candor and respect towards his adversary and the
courts by resorting to falsehood and deception to misguide, obstruct and impede the due
 administration of justice. The respondent asserted falsehood in the motion for
reconsideration of the dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment by fabricating an
imaginary order issued by the presiding judge in open court which allegedly denied the
motion to dismiss filed by the respondents in the said case. The complainant alleged that
the respondent did this to cover up his lack of preparation; the respondent also deceived his
clients (who were all squatters) in supporting the above falsehood. 4

(4) The respondent's willful and revolting falsehood that unjustly maligned and
defamed the good name and reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico (Atty. Catolico),
the previous counsel of the respondent's clients. (respondent attacked the name and
reputation of the late Atty. Catolico and accused him of deliberate neglect, corrupt motives
and connivance with the counsel for the adverse party.)

(5) The respondent's deliberate, fraudulent and unauthorized appearances in court

in the petition for annulment of judgment for 15 litigants, three of whom are already
deceased;

(6) The respondent's willful and fraudulent appearance in the second petition for
annulment of title as counsel for the Republic of the Philippines without being authorized
to do so.

Additionally, the complaint accused the respondent of representing fifty-two (52)

litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762 when no such authority was ever given to him.

Ruling: all meritorious, except last charge.

While an attorney admittedly has the solemn duty to defend and protect the cause and
rights of his client with all the fervor and energy within his command, yet, it is equally true that
it is the primary duty of the lawyer to defend the dignity, authority and majesty of the law and
the courts which enforce it. A lawyer is not at liberty to maintain and defend the cause of his
clients thru means, inconsistent with truth and honor. He may not and must not encourage
multiplicity of suits or brazenly engage in forum-shopping.

- Par. D of Duties of a Lawyer

o to employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means
only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge
or  any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;

- In the conduct of a case, he should employ such means as are consistent with truth and
honor

- Should not conceal the truth/mislead

- Duties to client should yield to his duties to the court

- Chavez vs. Viola, 196 SCRA 10 [1991]

o The lawyer alleged in a complaint that his clients are lessees of a parcel of land
and alleged in an application for registration of land that his clients are owners,
one pleading is false

- It is improper for a lawyer to ask a client to plead guilty to an offense which counsel
knows his client did not commit (Nueno vs. Santos, 58 Phil 557 [1933]

- It is improper to make a complaining witness believe that he is working for him and
advice him not to appear in court so that the case may be dismissed against his client.
(Cantorme vs. Ducasin 57 Phil 23 [1932])

A lawyer should not misquote or misrepresent

Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a
paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or
authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or
amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. Employees Assn. vs. Insular Life Assurance Co. Inc. 37 SCRA
244, 279-280 (1971)
- Lawyer should quote decisions word for word, punctuation mark by punctuation mark

o Art. 8, Civil Code – Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Phils.

o If not faithfully and exactly quoted, discussions and rulings of the court may lose
their proper and correct meaning, to the detriment of the other courts, lawyers and
public who may be misled.

o Lawyer’s duty to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case
and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct decisions. (Pangan vs. Ramos
93 SCRA 87 [1979]

A lawyer should not misuse rules of procedure

Conrado Que vs. Atty. Revilla, AC 7054 12/04/09
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
- Should not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice

- Rules of procedure – not as opportunities and means for delay

- Procedural rules are instruments in the speedy and efficient administration of justice
- Ie. Multiple petitions regarding the same subject matter

- Rule on forum shopping (Lim vs. Atty. Montano, AC No. 5653, 2/27/06
o Lawyer guilty of forum shopping

o By his own admission, he was aware that Civil Case No. C-14542 was already
final and executory when he filed the second case (Civil Case No. C-19928). His
allegation that he "was not the original counsel of his clients" and that "when he
filed the subsequent case for nullity of TCT, his motive was to protect the rights
of his clients whom he believed were not properly addressed in the prior case for
reformation and quieting of title," deserves scant consideration. As a responsible
member of the bar, he should have explained the effect of such final and
executory decision on his clients' rights, instead of encouraging them to file
another case involving the same property and asserting the same rights.

- Related cases:
o In re: Senator Vicente Sotto, 182 Phil 595, 602 (1949)
 Lawyer/newspaperman
 Extortion, libellous insinuations

o In re: Letter of Atty. Noel Sorreda, No. L-22979, 6/26/67

 Wrote a letter: Mr. Chief Justice, I believe the manner the
Court comported itself in the aforesaid case is totally
execrable and atrocious, entirely unworthy of the majesty
and office of the highest tribunal of the land. It is the action
not of men of reason or those who believe in the rule of law,
but rather of bullies and tyrants from whom 'might is right.
I say, shame on the High Court, for shoving down a hapless
suitor's throat a ruling which, from all appearances, it could
not justify.
 Violation of Canon 11
 o In re: Atty. Francisco B. Lopez, GR No. 159286, 4/5/05
o Tacardon vs. Ang, G.R. No. 159286.  April 5, 2005

- a lawyer should not abuse his right of recourse to the courts for the purpose of arguing a
cause that has been repeatedly rebuffed and not use legal knowledge to harass a party nor
misuse judicial processes (serious transgression of the CPR)

- Garcia vs. Francisco, 220 SCRA 512 (1993)

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.

OBSERVANCE OF THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS

Respect due to the courts

Pobre vs. Santiago, AC 7399, 8/25/09

- A lawyer should conduct himself toward judges with that courtesy all have a right to
expect (PP vs. Carillo, 77 Phil 572 (1946); Paragas vs. Cruz, 14 SCRA 809 (1965)

- A lawyer owes the court the duty to observe & maintain a respectful attitude not for the
sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office but for the maintenance of its
supreme importance. (PP vs. Estebia 27 SCRA 106 [1969]), Rep of the Phils vs. Ferrer,
20 SCRA 441 [1967]

- Respect of courts helps build the high esteem and regard toward them which is essential
to the proper administration of justice

- Devolves not only upon lawyers but only upon those who will choose to enter the
profession

- Ie.
o 1) threatening judge to file administrative case if motion is not granted
o 2) berating the court researcher in his pleading is disrespectful to the court itself
o 3) lawyer defied TRO of CA – disrespect

Obeying court orders

- Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders

- Lawyers should stand foremost in complying w/ the court’s directives or instructions

- Respect & consideration given to judges & judicial branch of govt

- Disrespect to judicial incumbents is disrespect to that branch of the govt to which they
belong, as well as to the State which has instituted the judicial system.

- Discipline & self-restraint under adverse conditions

o Ie. Counsel possesses greater knowledge of the law than the judge
 Judge may grossly err in his decisions

- Wilful disregard of the lawful court order may subject the lawyer to punishment for
contempt or disciplinary sanction as an officer of the court
 o Wilful – unsatisfactory explanation or simply ignores it

Punctuality & proper attire

Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.

Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.

- Paredes-Garcia vs. Hon. Cruz, GR No. 120654, 9/11/96

- Owes to the client, to the court & to the Republic
o Subject to disciplinary action & prejudicial to client

Proper language & behaviour before the courts

Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.

- Language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but disrespectful as befitting an

advocate and in keeping w/ the dignity of the legal prof (Surigao Mineral Reservation
Board vs. Cloribel, 31 SCRA 1 [1970])

- His arguments, written or oral, should be gracious to both the court & opposing counsel
& be of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman to another. (Romero
vs. Valle, 147 SCRA 197 [1987])

- Abusive language by counsel against opposing counsel – disrespect to the dignity of the
court

- “impassioned language in pleading often creates more heat than light”

- A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive & menacing language or behaviour
before the courts

- May use strong language to drive home a point, to be assiduous & zealous, even
tenacious in the defense of his client, courageous enough to point out errors, arbitrariness
& injustice

- BUT A LAWYER PLEADS, DOES NOT DICTATE

Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or
have no materiality to the case.

- He should not assail the personal integrity of a judge and accuse him of misfeasance in an
attempt to hide his own inadequacies and omission to escape criticism of his client (Rodil
vs. Garcia, 104 SCRA 362 [1981])

- Constitutes direct contempt in face curiae & in violation of the lawyer’s oath and a
transgression of the canons of professional ethics

- A lawyer may think highly of his intellectual endowment. That is his privilege. And he
may suffer frustration at what he feels is other’s lack of it. That is his misfortune. Some
such frame of mind, however, should not be allowed to harden into belief that he may
attack a court’s decision in words calculated to jettison the time-honored doctrine
aphorism that courts are the temple of right. He should give allowance to the fact that
judges are but men; and men are encompassed by error, fettered by fallibility. (Salcedo
vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-42992 August 8, 1935)
 - A lawyer who uses intemperate, abusive, abrasive or threatening language betrays
disrespect to the court, disgraces the bar and invites the exercise by the court of its
disciplinary power. (Zaldivar vs. Gonzales, 166 SCRA 316[1988])

Upholding court’s authority & dignity

- Not promote distrust in the administration of justice

- He should seek to prevent faith in the courts & help build & not destroy the high esteem
& regard toward them

Obeying court orders

- Lawyers should stand foremost in complying w/ court’s directives or instructions

- Respect to judges – because of the authority vested upon them; disrespect to that branch
of govt to which they belong & State

Defending judges from unjust criticism

Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities
only.

- Atty’s duty as an officer of the court to defend a judge from unfounded criticism or
groundless personal attack (In re: Almacen 31 SCRA 562)

- Refrain from wild & groundless accusation & discourage other people to do and come to
his defense

- In special civil actions or proceedings, a judge whose decision or order is under attack in
a higher court is merely a nominal party

o So that a judge may not be distracted from his main function of trying &
adjudicating cases in court

o The burden of defending his challenged action falls on private respondent; lawyer
disciplined if he fails to discharge the task (Taroma vs. Sayao 67 SCRA 508
[1975])

o Does not preclude lawyers from filing admin complaints against erring judges or
from acting as counsel for clients who have legitimate grievances against them –
but only before proper authorities & after proper circumspection & w/o use of
disrespectful language & offensive personalities; otherwise, lawyer may be
disciplined (Urbina vs. Maceren, 57 SCRA 403 [1974])

ASSISTING IN SPEEDY & EFFICIENT ADMINSITRATION OF JUSTICE

CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT

HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE.

- As an officer of the court, a lawyer is part of the machinery in the administration of

justice

Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared
himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the order of
its proferrence. He should also be ready with the original documents for comparison
with the copies.
 - A lawyer should come to court adequately prepared
Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.

- A lawyer should not misuse legal processes nor resort to forum shopping

o Improper practice of going from one court to another in the hope of securing a
favourable relief in one court w/c another court has denied or the filing of
repetitious suits or proceedings in different courts concerning substantially the
same subject matter

o As a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favourable opinion

in another forum

o Principle applies not only w/ respect to suits filed in courts but also in connection
w/ litigations commenced in courts while administrative proceeding is pending in
order to defeat admin processes & in anticipation of an unfavourable admin ruling
& favourable court ruling (Buan vs. Lopez, 145 SCRA 34 [1986]; Minister of
Natural Resources vs. Heirs of Huges, 155 SCRA 566 [1987]; Pacquing vs. CA,
115 SCRA 117 [1982]; Villanueva VS. Adre, 172 SCRA 876 [1989])

o As the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one
forum, of seeking another (other than by appeal or the special civil action of
certiorari) or of instituting two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the
same cause on the supposition that one or the other would make a favorable
disposition. (Chemphil Export & Import Corp. vs. CA, 251 SCRA 257, [1995])

o Test whether a party has violated the rule is whether the elements of litis
pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res
judicate in the other (First Phil. Intl. Bank vs. CA, 252 SCRA 259 [1996] – if a
party pursues the same cause of action, involving the same issues, parties &
subject matter, in two different fora, a lawyer may be guilty of forum shopping
(Benguet Electric Coop. Inc. vs. National Electrification Admin., 193 SCRA 250
[1991])

 Litis pendentia – ground for dismissal; refers to the situation where

another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of
action, such that the second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious.

 Elements of litis pendentia:

 Identity of parties
 Identity of rights and reliefs
 Identity of cases; judgment in one, res judicata in the other

 Res Judicata – refers to the rule that a final judgment or decree on the
merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of
the parties or their privies in all later suits, on all points and matters
determined in the former suit.
 Elements of Res Judicata –
 Former judgment/order is final
 Former judgment/order on the merits
 Rendered by court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and
parties
 Identity of parties, subject matter & cause of action

o Different facts, circumstances & causes of action – no forum shopping

 o Impleaded additional parties in a 2nd case – forum shopping
o Forum shopping wreaks havoc to the rule on orderly procedure; obstructs admin
of justice, impedes speedy & orderly disposition of cases, unduly burdens the
courts & embarrasses the adverse party.

o A lawyer who resorts to forum shopping puts in doubt his fitness to practice law
& subjects him to disciplinary action by the courts. (Ramos vs. Potenciano 74
SCRA 345 [1976]; Tan vs. CA 199 SCRA 212 [1991])

- Section 5, Rule 7, Rules of Court –

a. Certify under oath or initiatory pleading that the same issues in any court,
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency & to the best of his (personal) knowledge (and
based on authentic documents) no such other action or claim is pending therein;

b. If there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the status
thereof;

c. if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been
filed or is pending, he shall report that fact w/in 5 days therefrom.

- Failure – cause for dismissal of case w/o prejudice

- False certification – contempt of court (plus crim/admin case)
- Wilful & deliberate forum shopping – dismissal w/ prejudice & direct contempt (plus
crim/admin case)

Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an
explanation for his failure to do so.

- a lawyer shall file his pleadings w/in the period; otherwise, breach of duty to court and
client
- offer an explanation; otherwise, deemed discourtesy
- if late, file a motion or for leave to admit, EXPLAINING the reasons for the delay

Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse Court processes

- A lawyer should not delay a case

o A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of judgment or
misuse court processes

o “to delay no man for money or malice” (Renata vs. Javier, 37 Phil 669 [1918]);
Artiaga vs. Villanueva, 175 SCRA 237 [1989]

o Par. G, duties

- Lawyer to temper client’s propensity to litigate

o Unlike in crim action, lawyer to decline to conduct a civil case or make a defense
in a civil suit intended to harass or injure the opposite party or to work oppression
or wrong

o Advise client to discontinue action or to confess judgment (Pajares vs. Abad

Santos 30 SCRA 748 [1969]); if he insists, ask that he be relieved of professional
responsibility
 - Lawyer to discourage appellate review
o If action is futile

- It is the lawyer’s duty to inform the court of his client’s death and change of counsel’s
address

o So that proper substitution shall be made

o If no notice, court will proceed as if the party is alive and the decision shall be
binding upon his heirs

o Duty not to delay or impede the execution of judgement

Treatment of witnesses & litigants

Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a break or recess in
the trial, while the witness is still under examination.

- Refrain from talking to his witness during a break or recess in the trial, while the witness
is still under examination – to avoid any suspicion that he is coaching the witness what to
say during the resumption of the examination

Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to
impersonate another.

- Lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself or impersonate

another; may interview witness in advance but not to influence

Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly
inconvenience him.

- Treat witness w/ fairness & due consideration; advance no fact prejudicial to their honor
or reputation unless required by the justice of the cause w/ which he is charged.

Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except:chan
roblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument, and
the like; or
(b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in
which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another counsel

- Jomar Santiago vs. Atty. Edison Rafanan, AC No. 6252, 10/5/04

- A lawyer should refrain from testifying for his client

o Question on propriety rather than competence – violative of the rule on
professional conduct, except:
 On formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an
instrument and the like
 On substantial matters, where his testimony is essential to the ends of
justice – must entrust the trial to another counsel (ie. Improper – attack
testimony of partner; knows he would be a material witness)
 Reason – acting in dual capacity lies in the difference between the
function of a witness & that of an advocate
 Witness – to tell the facts; impartial
  Advocate – partisan
 Lawyer will find it hard to dissociate his relation to his client as an atty &
his relation to the party as a witness
 Dual relationship would invite embarrassing criticism

CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND
REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES
THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT.

- Avoid impropriety that tends to influence the court

- Lawyer should only rely on the merits of the case
- Improper acts would lessen the confidence of the public in the impartial admin of justice
and should be avoided

Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek
opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges.

- May subject both judge and lawyer to suspicion

o Godfathers – avoided
o A lawyer should avoid marked attention & unusual hospitality to a judge
o Judge should not fraternize w/ lawyers or litigants – both lawyer & judge may be
subjected to disciplinary sanction & misconceptions of motives
- A self-respecting independence in the discharge of professional duty, w/o denial or
diminution of the courtesy & respect due to the judge’s station, is the only proper
foundation for cordial, personal & official relations between bench and bar.
- Not incumbent on a lawyer to refuse professional employment in a case because it may
be heard by a judge who is his relative, compadre or former colleague in the office.
- The responsibility is on the judge not to sit in a case unless he is both free from bias &
from appearance of bias.

Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending
case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.

- A lawyer shall not publicly discuss pending cases

- In Re: suspension of Atty. Rogelio Bagabuyo, former State Pros, AC 7006, 10/9/07
- May interfere w/ a fair trial
- May not prohibit issuance of statements by officials charged with duty of prosecuting or
defending actions in court but should avoid statement of fact likely to create adverse
attitude in the public mind
- Picketing – form of public expression
o Should not be held to influence the court or pressure – contemptuous