Rule 7.

01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a

material fact in connection with his application for admission to the Bar.

This rule emphasizes aspiring lawyer’s duty of being advocates of truth and justice. It is the primary
responsibility of lawyers before his or her admission to the Bar. The first test of candor and fitness in
performing the duties of the noble legal profession. Reprehensible acts committed for one to violate this
rule are knowingly making false statements or suppressing material facts when one applies to be
admitted to the Bar. He or she must fully and truthfully comply to the basic requirements before one
can be admitted to the Bar.

In re Diao discussed the latter violation. One of the basic requirements to the admission to the Bar is the
educational attainment of having secondary education, college and degree, and graduating to a
reputable law school. Suppression of such material fact when applying to be admitted to the Bar
amounts to one’s reputation of being truthful, hence, a violation of this rule.

---

Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the Bar of any person known by
him to be unqualified in respect to character, education, or other relevant attribute.

As aspiring lawyers do have responsibility of being truthful on their own individual application to the
admission to the Bar, one is also responsible for preventing anyone who will violate the same. He or she
must not encourage or assist in making an individual be admitted to the Bar when the former personally
knows the latter is unqualified to be admitted to the Bar.

Best example of this rule is its direct applicability to the Bar Confidants and the officers of the Integrated
Bar. These agencies are the primary responsible of preventing immoral or fraudulent individuals from
being admitted to the Bar. Bar Confidants keeps the integrity of the Bar Examinations, the ultimate test
before one can be admitted. While, the Integrated Bar instills discipline to all lawyers in keeping the
tenets of good moral character.

---

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.

This rule connotes that the line between the lawyers’ private life as an individual and public life as an
officer of the court blurs or non-existent when the matter is one which would adversely reflect his
fitness to practice law. These includes his reproachable manner of his commitment to all the duties of
admittance to the Bar such as, but not limited to, continuing good moral character, payment of the IBP
dues, keeping abreast to the latest legal knowledge and principles, etc.

Among all other cases of immorality and unfaithfulness to the sanctity of marriage, the case of Guevarra
v. Eala illustrates that one’s private secrets would ultimately adversely affect his credibility to further
continue his admission to the Bar. Atty. Eala’s infidelity was discovered when Guevara observed his wife
of unfaithfulness and discovery of Eala’s love letter purported to be sent during their exchange of vows.
This scenario led to Eala’s disbarment for violating the very sanctity of marriage and not even caused by
malpractice of law.

---
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.

As it was expected from lawyers to perform their duties to the practice of law in a reproachable manner,
lawyers are also expected to provide utmost respect to the Bar and especially to the Courts. Basic
respect for lawyers to accord the Courts is through their language of communication reflected during
their appearances and their submitted pleadings. Moreover, any opinion of lawyers as to the manner of
administration of justice by any Judges or Justices must preferably be appealed within the Courts and
not through other means such as the media especially if it pertains to critique a certain subject matter
which could prejudice the proceedings. Contempt before the courts can be imposed if one does not
follow this very rule.

The Court amply warns counsels when they communicate, oral or written, with a sophisticated and
brash tone. It is commonly entrenched in case law, such as it was discussed in the case of Torres v.
Javier, that litigants and counsels should not be allowed to influence their conduct whatever the ill-
feeling existing between clients. The case of Barandon v. Ferrer best illustrates how not to appear and
deliver during appearances before the court. Atty. Ferrer’s evidently drunk state during trial and
unprecedented statements against the opposing counsel, Atty. Barandon, and also the undifnified
language used in his pleadings directed the court to discipline the former for a suspension of one year
from the practice of law.

---

Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of
another lawyer, however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and
assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

As respect to the courts is provided by the preceding rule, this rule specifically affords respect between
counsels so as not to directly or indirectly encroach upon their respective professional employment to
their clients. This basically means that a counsel’s employment to one client may not be taken or be
performed upon by another lawyer without due course. Otherwise, conflict of interest among parties
involved transpires. But this rule does not prevent clients to avail of other professional opinion so as to
prevent negligent practice of their incumbent counsels to the prejudice of their substantial rights.

Proper withdrawal of the incumbent counsel must be submitted before the court before another
counsel may be allowed to appear in behalf of the same client. Further, proper cause of action must be
efficiently stated to effect counsel’s dismissal to the service for the client. As illustrated in the case of
Camacho v. Pangulayan, actions of counsel without the proper knowledge of his or her client can be a
ground for a lawyer to be dismissed from the service of his or her client. While in Laput v. Remotique,
the operative act of accepting the last payment of the counsel’s fees succeeding the filing of withdrawal
as counsel determines that appearance of another counsel cannot be considered to be irregular and
does not reproach upon employment of the former counsel.

Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which
by law may only be performed by a member of the bar in good standing.

Lawyer’s responsibility to their clients can be exhaustive which can mean a lot of burden. Delegation of
legal work can be crucial for a lawyer to properly manage his or her work to effectively cater service
among his or her clients. Nonetheless, caution is necessary when delegating legal work since rules
dictate that certain legal work can only be done by a duly admitted individual before the Bar.

Though Cayetano v. Monsod dictates that the practice of law is any activity, in or out of court, which
requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience, simple legal tasks
can be mistakenly delegated to non-lawyers. Law practice is not limited per se to the drafting of
pleadings, appearance before the courts, providing legal advice to clients, etc. Hence, delegation of legal
tasks can also be cumbersome leading to serious mistakes since no line to be observed when doing so.
Best example among others is the conduct of Notary. It is the common mistake among lawyers since
they delegate the performance of it to their non-lawyer assistants since it only involves appearance of
parties involved in the document and stamping their appropriate copies thereof of the Notary Seal
together with their respective signatures, and also recording such conduct in the Notarial Register. Thus,
such simple mistake leads to disciplinary measures if not performed accordingly with the Notarial Rules.

Another example would be performance of those not allowed by law to practice law. Lawyers should be
well aware whether their current occupation within the government is allowed to perform private legal
practice. As illustrated in the case of OCA vs. Ladaga, a Branch Clerk of Court appeared as counsel for
and in behalf of his cousin in a criminal case. Due to the nature of being in a public office and also
expressly disallowed by law to perform private practice of law, Atty. Ladaga’s appearance before a court
as private counsel cannot be allowed which reprimanded by the court, fortunately.

Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not
licensed to practice law, except:

(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the latter's
death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to persons specified
in the agreement; or
(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; or
(c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan even if the plan
is based in whole or in part, on a profit sharing agreement.

This rule provides for the exclusivity of fees for legal services among licensed to practice law unless
provided in an agreement. Rule 9.02 is also consistent with Rule 8.02 for counsels not to benefit from
other counsel’s legal work. Exceptions to this rule provides that non-lawyers may also take a part of the
legal fees but such must be through an agreement or an undertaking between the lawyer and either of
the following: the former’s estate or persons specified in a pre-existing agreement (Rule 9.02 [a]);
another lawyer continuing the unfinished business of the former (Rule 9.02 [b]); and former’s
employees included in a retirement plan or on a profit-sharing agreement.