THE LAWYER’S OATH

I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain

allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I
will support the 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, or 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
these voluntary obligations without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
 CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
PREAMBLE
chan robles virtual law library
An honorable competent and independent judiciary exists to
administer justice and thus promote the unity of the
country, the stability of government, and the well-being of
the people.

CANON 1

A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY

AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIAR

chan robles virtual law library

RULE 1.01 - A judge should be the embodiment of competence,
integrity and independence.

RULE 1.02 - A judge should administer justice impartially

and without delay.

RULE 1.03. - A judge should be vigilant against any attempt

to subvert the independence of the judiciary and should
forthwith resist any pressure from whatever source intended
to influence the performance of official functions.

CANON 2

A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY

AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY
IN ALL ACTIVITIES

RULE 2.01 - A judge should so behave at all times as to

promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality
of the judiciary.chan robles virtual law library

RULE 2.02 - A judge should not seek publicity for personal

vainglory.

RULE 2.03 - A judge shall not allow family, social, or

other relationships to influence judicial conduct or
judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used
or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor
convey or permit others to convey the impression that they
are in a special position to influence the judge.

RULE 2.04 - A judge should refrain from influencing in any

manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before
another court or administrative agency.

CANON 3

A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL

DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH IMPARTIALITY
AND DILIGENCE

ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

RULE 3.01 - A judge shall be faithful to the law and

maintain professional competence.

RULE 3.02 - In every case, a judge shall endeavor

diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law
unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of
criticism.

RULE 3.03 - A judge shall maintain order and proper decorum

in the court.

RULE 3.04 - A judge should be patient, attentive, and

courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to
litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the
court. A judge should avoid unconsciously falling into the
attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the
courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.

RULE 3.05 - A judge shall dispose of the court's business

promptly and decide cases within the required periods.
RULE 3.06 - While a judge may, to promote justice, prevent
waste of time or clear up some obscurity, properly
intervene in the presentation of evidence during the trial,
it should always be borne in mind that undue interference
may prevent the proper presentation of the cause or the
ascertainment of truth.

RULE 3.07 - A judge should abstain from making public

comments on any pending or impending case and should
require similar restraint on the part of court personnel.

ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

RULE 3.08 - A judge should diligently discharge

administrative responsibilities, maintain professional
competence in court management, and facilitate the
performance of the administrative functions or other judges
and court personnel.

RULE 3.09 - A judge should organize and supervise the court

personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of
business, and require at all times the observance of high
standards of public service and fidelity.

RULE 3.10 - A judge should take or initiate appropriate

disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel
for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have
become aware.

RULE 3.11 - A judge should appoint commissioners,

receivers, trustees, guardians, administrators and others
strictly on the basis of merit and qualifications, avoiding
nepotism and favoritism. Unless otherwise allowed by law,
the same criteria should be observed in recommending
appointment of court personnel. Where the payment of
compensation is allowed, it should be reasonable and
commensurate with the fair value of services rendered.

DISQUALIFICATION

.
RULE 3.12 - A judge should take no part in a proceeding
where the judge's impartiality might reasonably be
questioned. These cases include among others, proceedings
where:
(a) the judge has personal knowledge of disputed
evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(b) the judge served as executor, administrator, guardian,

trustee or lawyer in the case or matter in controversy, or
a former associate of the judge served as counsel during
their association, or the judge or lawyer was a material
witness therein;

(c) the judge's ruling in a lower court is the subject of

review;

(d) the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a

party litigant within the sixth degree or to counsel within
the fourth degree;

(e) the judge knows the judge's spouse or child has a

financial interest, as heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary,
or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a
party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could
be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.

In every instance, the judge shall indicate the legal

reason for inhibition.

REMITTAL OF DISQUALIFICATION

RULE 3.13 - A judge disqualified by the terms of rule 3.12

may, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose
on the record the basis of disqualification. If, bases on
such disclosure, the parties and lawyers independently of
judge's participation, all agree in writing that the reason
for the inhibition is immaterial or insubstantial, the
judge may then participate in the proceeding. The
agreement, signed by all parties and lawyers, shall be
incorporated in the record of the proceeding.
 CANON 5

A JUDGE SHOULD REGULATE EXTRA-JUDICIAL

ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK
OF CONFLICT WITH JUDICIAL DUTIES

ADVOCATIONAL, CIVIC AND CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES

RULE 5.01 - A judge may engage in the following activities

provided that they do not interfere with the performance of
judicial duties or detract from the dignity of the court:

(a) write, teach and speak on non-legal subjects;

(b) engage in the arts, sports, and other special

recreational activities;

(c) participate in civic and charitable activities;

(d) serve as an officer, director, trustee, or non-legal

advisor of a non-profit or non-political educational,
religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization.

FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES

RULE 5.02 - A judge shall refrain from financial and

business dealing that tend to reflect adversely on the
court's impartiality, interfere with the proper performance
of judicial activities or increase involvement with lawyers
or persons likely to come before the court. A judge should
so manage investments and other financial interests as to
minimize the number of cases giving grounds for
disqualifications.

RULE 5.03 - Subject to the provisions of the proceeding

rule, a judge may hold and manage investments but should
not serve as officer, director, manager or advisor, or
employee of any business except as director of a family
business of the judge.

RULE 5.04 - A judge or any immediate member of the family

shall not accept a gift, bequest, factor or loan from any
one except as may be allowed by law.

RULE 5.05 - No information acquired in a judicial capacity

shall be sued or disclosed by a judge in any financial
dealing or for any other purpose not related to judicial
activities.

FIDUCIARY ACTIVITIES

RULE 5.06 - A judge should not serve as the executor,

administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary,
except for the estate, trusts, or person of a member of the
immediate family, and then only if such service will not
interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.
"Member of immediate family" shall be limited to the spouse
and relatives within the second degree of consanguinity. As
a family, a judge shall not:

(a) serve in proceedings that might come before the court

of said judge; or

(b) act as such contrary to rules 5.02 to 5.05.

PRACTICE OF LAW AND OTHER PROFESSION

RULE 5.07 - A judge shall not engage in the private

practice of law. Unless prohibited by the Constitution or
law, a judge may engage in the practice of any other
profession provided that such practice will not conflict or
tend to conflict with judicial functions.
 FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

RULE 5.08 - A judge shall make full financial disclosure as

required by law.
RULE 5.09 - A judge shall not accept appointment or
designation to any agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions.

POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

RULE 5.10 - A judge is entitled to entertain personal views

on political questions. But to avoid suspicion of political
partisanship, a judge shall not make political speeches,
contribute to party funds, publicly endorse candidates for
political office or participate in other partisan political
activities.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

All judges shall strictly comply with this Code.

DATE OF EFFECTIVITY

This Code, promulgated on 5 September 1989, shall take

effect on 20 October 1989
 DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS

Rule 137

Sec. 1. Disqualification of judges. - No judge or judicial

officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or
child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor
or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party
within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to
counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the
rules of the civil law, or in which he has been executor,
administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he
has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or
decision is the subject of review, without the written
consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and
entered upon the record.

A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion,

disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or
valid reasons other than those mentioned above.chan robles
virtual law library
.
Sec. 2. Objection that judge disqualified, how made and
effect. - If it be claimed that an official is disqualified
from sitting as above provided, the party objecting to his
competency may, in writing, file with the official his
objection, stating the grounds therefor, and the official
shall thereupon proceed with the trial, or withdraw
therefrom, in accordance with his determination of the
question of his disqualification. His decision shall be
forthwith made in writing and filed with the other papers
in the case, but no appeal or stay shall be allowed from,
or by reason of, his decision in favor of his own
competency, until after final judgment in the case.chan
robles virtual law li
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

A.M. No. 2200 July 19, 1990

BASILIO C. GUTIERREZ, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. LEONARDO N. ZULUETA respondent.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

This case pertains to disciplinary proceedings initiated by the herein complainant

Basilio C. Gutierrez against the herein respondent Atty. Leonardo N. Zulueta.

On October 13, 1980, the complainant filed with this Court a sworn letter-
complaint dated October 11, 1980 seeking the disbarment of the respondent
lawyer on the grounds of dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of
the legal profession.

The complainant alleges that the respondent lawyer was his counsel in two
cases, namely, a workmen's compensation case and a civil case filed with the
then Court of First Instance of Zamboanga Del Sur. The complaint concerns the
latter case.

The complainant filed the said civil case against his former employer, the Singer
Sewing Machine Company. The trial court ruled in his favor. On appeal to the
Court of Appeals, the said appellate court. reversed the decision of the trial court
and ruled in favor of the company. It is categorically stated in the said decision
that the complainant did not file a brief. Thus, he maintains that the case was
resolved against him primarily because his lawyer, the herein respondent, did not
file the required brief with the appellate court and such omission is attributable to

the dishonesty of the respondent lawyer. In support of his contention, the

complainant alleges that sometime in August 1976, the respondent lawyer, who
was then in Manila, wired him to send the amount of P400.00 to cover the
expenses in relation to the preparation and printing of the appellee's brief, and
upon receipt of the message, he sent the said amount to the respondent lawyer
through the Philippine National Bank. He also alleges that he sent a telegram to
the respondent lawyer for the purpose of informing the latter that the P400.00
can be obtained at the Sampaloc, Manila branch office of the same bank.i•t•c-
aüsl

It appears that sometime thereafter, the respondent lawyer assured the

complainant that the brief had already been filed in court and that a copy thereof
will be made available to the latter in due time.

It also appears that immediately after the complainant received a copy of the
decision of the Court of Appeals, he reported the matter to the provincial
governor inasmuch as the respondent lawyer is the provincial legal counsel. An
investigation ensued but the same failed to settle the problem.

As stated earlier, the complainant eventually brought the matter to the attention
of this Court. On April 20, 1981, the Court resolved to refer the matter to the
Office of the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.

In the investigation that ensued, the respondent lawyer testified that he received
the amount of P400.00 from the complainant for the purpose of preparing the
said brief and that he gave the said amount to his secretary to cover the
expenses to be incurred in such preparation. He also testified that he had to
leave for Pagadian City at that time and that he instructed his secretary to attend
to the filing of the brief. He likewise stated that sometime thereafter, his secretary
assured him that the brief had been filed already. He also said that he could not
furnish the complainant with a copy of the brief inasmuch as his secretary, for
undisclosed reasons, left the office, taking with her his records and his typewriter.
The respondent lawyer admits that he received the additional amount of P100.00
from the complainant for the purpose of securing a copy of the brief for the latter.
1

In due time, the Office of the Solicitor General filed its report recommending
therein that the respondent lawyer be found guilty of not having exercised the
due diligence required of a member of the legal profession in connection with his
duties to his clients and accordingly impose upon him the penalty of suspension
from the practice of law for a period of one year. 2

The record of the case undoubtedly discloses that the respondent lawyer failed to
exercise due diligence in protecting and attending to the interest of his client, the
herein complainant. The failure of the respondent lawyer to undertake the

necessary measures to submit the required brief certainly caused material

prejudice to the complainant inasmuch as the appellate court reversed the
decision of the trial court which was in favor of the latter.
The explanation given by the respondent lawyer to the effect that the failure is
attributable to the negligence of his secretary is devoid of merit. A responsible
lawyer is expected to supervise the work in his office with respect to all the
pleadings to be filed in court and he should not delegate this responsibility, lock,
stock and barrel, to his office secretary. If it were otherwise, irresponsible
members of the legal profession can avoid appropriate disciplinary action by
simply disavowing liability and attributing the problem to the fault or negligence of
the office secretary. Such situation will not be countenanced by this Court.

In sum, therefore, this Court is of the well-considered opinion that the respondent
lawyer failed to live up to the duties and responsibilities of a member of the legal
profession. His suspension from the practice of law is in order.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Leonardo N. Zulueta is hereby suspended from the practice

of law for a period of one (1) year effective from the date of his receipt of this
resolution. He is advised to henceforth exercise greater care and diligence in the
performance of his duties towards his clients. This decision is immediately
executory and no motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration
will be entertained. Let copies of this resolution be attached to his personal
record and circulated among the different courts.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano,

Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and
Regalado, JJ., concur.