Canon 7

In Re 1987 elections
The candidates and many of the participants in that election not only violated the By-Laws of the IBP
but also the ethics of the legal profession which imposes on all lawyers, as a corollary of their
obligation to obey and uphold the constitution and the laws, the duty to "promote respect for law and
legal processes" and to abstain from 'activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system" (Rule 1.02, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility).
Llamas
Rule 139-A provides:
Sec. 9. Membership dues. - Every member of the Integrated Bar shall
pay such annual dues as the Board of Governors shall determine with the
approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed sum equivalent to ten percent
(10%) of the collections from each Chapter shall be set aside as a
Welfare Fund for disabled members of the Chapter and the compulsory
heirs of deceased members thereof.
Sec. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. - Subject to the provisions of
Section 12 of this Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for six
months shall warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar,
and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the
removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of
Attorneys.
Letter of atty cecilio arevalo
A membership fee in the Bar association is an exaction for regulation, while tax
purpose of a tax is a revenue. If the judiciary has inherent power to regulate the Bar, it
follows that as an incident to regulation, it may impose a membership fee for that
purpose. It would not be possible to put on an integrated Bar program without means
to defray the expenses. The doctrine of implied powers necessarily carries with it the
power to impose such exaction.
The only limitation upon the States power to regulate the privilege of law is that the
regulation does not impose an unconstitutional burden. The public interest promoted
by the integration of the Bar far outweighs the slight inconvenience to a member
resulting from his required payment of the annual dues.

foodspehere
The above actuations of respondent are also in violation of Rule 13.03 of the Canon of Professional
Responsibilitywhich reads: "A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a
pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party."
In I.S. No. V.04-2917-2933, then pending before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City,
respondent filed his "Entry of Appearance with Highly Urgent Motion to Elevate These Cases To the
Department of Justice". In said pleading, respondent made the following statements:
The above language employed by respondent undoubtedly casts aspersions on the integrity of the
Office of the City Prosecutor and all the Prosecutors connected with said Office. Respondent clearly
assailed the impartiality and fairness of the said Office in handling cases filed before it and did not
even design to submit any evidence to substantiate said wild allegations. The use by respondent of
the above-quoted language in his pleadings is manifestly violative of Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides: "A lawyer [s]hall [o]bserve and [m]aintain [t]he [re]spect
[d]ue [t]o [t]he [c]ourts [a]nd [t]o [j]udicial [o]fficers [a]nd [s]hould [i]nsist [o]n [s]imilar [c]onduct [b]y
[o]thers."
By the above-recited acts, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which mandates lawyers to refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. For, as the IBP found, he engaged in deceitful conduct by, inter alia, taking
advantage of the complaint against CDO to advance his interest to obtain funds for his Batas
Foundation and seek sponsorships and advertisements for the tabloids and his television program.
For despite the pendency of the civil case against him and the issuance of a status quo order
restraining/enjoining further publishing, televising and broadcasting of any matter relative to the
complaint of CDO, respondent continued with his attacks against complainant and its products. At
the same time, respondent violated Canon 1 also of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
mandates lawyers to "uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law
and legal processes." For he defied said status quo order, despite his (respondents) oath as a
member of the legal profession to "obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities."
Further, respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which mandate, viz:
CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive
or otherwise improper, by using intemperate language.
the Court has reminded members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance
no fact prejudicial to the honor and reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of
the cause with which he is charged. In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyers
language even in his pleadings must be dignified.
39
(Underscoring supplied)
By failing to live up to his oath and to comply with the exacting standards of the legal profession,
respondent alsoviolated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs a lawyer
to "at all times uphold the integrity and the dignity of the legal profession
Young notice and hearing
Respondents filed their respective comments, declaring that on December 13, 2000,
upon learning that a warrant of arrest was issued against their client, they filed the
Manifestation with Motion for Bail with the trial court. Then they immediately fetched
the accused in Cavite and brought him to the NBI to voluntarily surrender. However,
due to heavy traffic, they arrived at the NBI at 2:00 a.m. the next day; hence, the
certificate of detention indicated that the accused surrendered on December 14,
2000. They argued that there was neither unethical conduct nor falsehood in the
subject pleading as their client has voluntarily surrendered and was detained at the
NBI. As regards the lack of notice of hearing, they contend that complainant, as
private prosecutor, was not entitled to any notice. Nevertheless, they furnished the
State and City prosecutors copies of the motion with notice of hearing
thereof. Moreover, the hearing of a motion on shorter notice is allowed under Rule
15, Sec. 4(2) of the Rules of Court.
In re parazzo
In support of if not in addition to the power granted by section 1 of Republic Act. No. 53 to this Court,
we have the inherent power of courts in general, specially of the Supreme Court as representative of
the Judicial Department, to adopt proper and adequate measures to preserve their integrity, and
render possible and facilitate the exercise of their functions, including, as in the present case, the
investigation of charges of error, abuse or misconduct of their officials and subordinates, including
lawyers, who are officers of the Court. (Province of Tarlac vs. Gale, 26 Phil., 350; 21 C.J.S. 41, 138.)
As we have previously stated, the revelation demanded of the respondent, of the identity of his
informants, is essential and necessary to the investigation of the charge contained in the publication
already mentioned.
Zaguirre
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
xxx xxx
xxx
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
xxx xxx
xxx
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Immoral conduct has been defined as:
xxx that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to
the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. Furthermore, such
conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt
as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the
common sense of decency.
[13]