2015 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS BLUE TIPS

Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

PRAYER FOR THE BAR EXAMINATIONS

O God, we come before You this day,

as we are preparing/studying for the bar examinations.

This is the most important event in our lives,

one full of consequences for our own future,
and for the hopes and expectations of many who love us and
are concerned for us: our parents and relatives, our friends,
our professors who have worked hard to prepare us for it.

We ask for help.

Make our memories ready to recall all the
knowledge we have stored in them by our study.
Help us to understand the full meaning of the questions and
to see the exact answers.
Give us the facility of expression to answer
clearly and accurately.
Give us peace of soul
that we may not get upset under the pressure of the task.

We do not ask this by our own merits.

We cannot point to our faithful service
in the past as deserving of this special help.
We have in fact been careless and disobedient.

We ask this from Your Fatherly mercy and compassion through

Your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Listen to our prayers through the intercession of our Blessed Mother,
patroness of our University and of St. Thomas More,
patron of our Law School.

Amen.

Page 1 of 17
 2015 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

LEGAL ETHICS

A. Practice of Law

Q1: State the Lawyers Oath.

I, __________________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines; I will support its 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 willingly nor wittingly 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 court as
to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligations without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

Appearance of non-lawyers

Q: C, a fourth year law student, sought to enter his appearance for and on his own behalf
as plaintiff in a civil case. Judge M, relying on the Law Student Practice Rule (Rule 138-A),
required C to secure a written permission from the Office of the Court Administrator before
he could be allowed to appear as counsel for himself. C argued that he, as the plaintiff,
should be allowed to personally litigate the case. Who is correct?
A: C is correct. A party may conduct his litigation personally or with the aid of an attorney, and his
appearance must either be personal or by a duly authorized member of the Bar. The individual
litigant may personally do everything in the course of proceedings from commencement to the
termination of the litigation.

Judge M was misled by the fact that Mr. C is a law student and must, therefore, be subject to the
conditions of the Law Student Practice Rule. It erred in applying Rule 138-A, when the basis of
the petitioner's claim is Section 34 of Rule 138. The former rule provides for conditions when a
law student may appear in courts, while the latter rule allows the appearance of a non-lawyer as
a party representing himself. (Cruz v. Mijares, G.R. No. 154464, 2008)

Lawyers authorized to represent the government

Q: Who are the lawyers authorized to represent GOCCs in court cases?

A: As a general rule, the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel represents all GOCCs in
court cases. However, the Office of the Solicitor General may be authorized by the President or
by the head of the office concerned to represent GOCCs instead. (Gumaru v. Quirino State
College, G.R. No. 164196, 2007)

Q: Atty. X, a former government lawyer, handled cases involving a GOCC. Subsequently,

Atty. X entered private practice, and represented Y against the same GOCC, albeit on a
different matter. Does the prohibition under Rule 6.03 of the CPR apply to Atty. X after she
left the government service?

A: The prohibition applies if the subsequent case involved a matter in which Atty. X had intervened
while in the government service. Intervention, to be a bar, means that one that is substantial and
significant as to influence the present proceedings. (PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 151809-
12, 12 April 2005)

Q: Can GOCCs hire private lawyers?

A: Yes. Under extraordinary or exceptional circumstances, the GOCC may hire the services of a
private counsel by securing the written conformity and acquiescence of the Solicitor General or
the Government Corporate Counsel, as the case maybe, and the written concurrence of the
Commission on Audit beforehand. (Laguesma v. COA, G.R. No. 185544, January 13, 2015)

Page 1 of 17
 2015 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

Q: The Court of Appeals directed the OSG to file a pleading on behalf of a municipality
(that was a party to a case). The OSG objected, and claimed that it had no authority to
represent LGUs in court cases. Who is correct?
A: The OSG is correct. Based on Section 481(b)(3)(i) of the Local Government Code, it is the
municipal legal officer, or in the absence of one, the provincial attorney, who must represent a
municipality in court cases. Being a special law on the issue of representation in court that is
exclusively made applicable to LGUs, the LGC must prevail over the provisions of the
Administrative Code (defining the duties and responsibilities of the OSG). (OSG v. The Honorable
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 199027, 2014)

B. Qualifications

Q: M passed the bar examinations in 1979. He took the Attorneys Oath thereafter, and
was scheduled to sign the Roll of Attorneys but failed to do so because he misplaced the
Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. Several years later, he found such notice and realized
he never signed the Roll. Is he guilty of unauthorized practice of law?
A: Yes. While an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from legal
consequences of his acts, a mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because
everyone is presumed to know the law and its consequences. Knowingly engaging in
unauthorized practice of law transgresses Canon 9 of the CPR. (In Re: Petition to Sign in the Roll
of Attorneys, B.M. No. 2540, 2013)

Q: A Filipino lawyer became a citizen of another country and later reacquired Filipino
citizenship under RA 9225. Does he remain a member of the Philippine Bar?
A: Yes, RA 9225 provides that a person reacquiring Filipino citizenship, who intends to practice
law in the Philippines, must apply with the Office of the Bar Confidant for a license or permit to
engage in such practice. The following is a complete list of requirements that the applicant must
submit:
a. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;
b. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship);
c. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
d. Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of Immigration;
e. Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP;
f. Certification from the IBP indicating updated payments of annual membership dues;
g. Proof of payment of professional tax; and
h. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office.
(In re: Dacanay, BM No. 2112, 2012)

Note: Since M is not yet a full-fledged lawyer, he cannot be suspend from the practice of law but
given a penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one (1) year
after receipt of the SCs Resolution.

C. Duties and responsibilities of a lawyer

Q: When is an attorney-client relationship established?

A: An attorney-client relationship is established when the advice and assistance of the attorney
is sought and received, in matters pertinent to his profession. An acceptance of the relation is
implied on the part of the attorney from his acting in behalf of his client in pursuance of a request
by the latter.
It is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged. Neither is it
material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the
consultation was sought. If a person, in respect to his business affairs or troubles of any kind,
consults with his attorney in his professional capacity with the view to obtaining professional
advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation, then
the professional employment must be regarded as established. (Hilado v. David, G.R. No. L-961,
1949)

Q: Atty. F strongly advised his client to abandon the appeal and to consider the other
available remedies. Citing his duty to prevent the prosecution of baseless suits and not to
misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice, F filed an urgent motion to
withdraw the appeal. Was this action proper?

Page 2 of 17
 2015 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

A: No. If Atty. F honestly disagreed with the client and believed he could no longer represent him
effectively, F should have withdrawn as counsel and allowed his client to retain another lawyer.
(Abay v. Montesino, A.C. No. 5718, 2003). Moreover, Canon 17 provides that a lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him.

Q: When can a lawyer refuse to represent an indigent client?

A: When:
a) He is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or competently; or
b) There is a conflict of interest between him and the prospective client, or between a present
client and the prospective client. (CPR, Rule 14.03)

Q: Four lawyers formed a law firm which was named St. Thomas More Law Advocates.
Supposing the four are able to have the said name registered as a service name with the
relevant local government where their office will be located, can they go ahead with the
said name? Secondly, will your answer be the same if they append their surnames to the
said name?
A: No, on both counts. Under Rule 3.02, CPR, no false, misleading, or assumed name shall be
used. Further, under Rule 3.01, no misleading, deceptive, undignified, or self-laudatory statement
or claim regarding ones qualifications or legal services is allowed. The monicker gives the law
firm an unwarranted religious or spiritual tone, which can mislead clients or the public. It can also
denote a form of ethical superiority smacking of self-laudation. (CPR, Rule 3)

Q: In the matter of fixing attorneys fees, what must the lawyer always bear in mind?
A: As counselled in the Code of Legal Ethics, in fixing fees it should never be forgotten that the
profession is a branch of the administration of justice and not a mere money-making trade (Jayme
v. Bualan, 58 Phil. 422 (1933).

Q: SMC engaged Atty. B for the potential filing of cases against several of its employees.
To assist in the case, SMC turned over to Atty. B material documents. Due to financial
constraints, SMC terminated Atty. Bs services. More than 1 year after SMCs termination
of his services, Atty. B assisted SMCs employees in filing several cases against the
company. SMC filed a disbarment case against Atty. B. Will the case prosper?
A: Yes. Atty. B violated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests when he
accepted the cases filed against SMC by its employees, notwithstanding the fact that he was
previously the retained counsel of SMC, and that the company consulted him on the possibility of
filing complaints against its erring employees and had access to documents material to their
prosecution.
The termination of the attorney-client relationship does not allow a lawyer to represent an interest
adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client except where the former client expressly
consents. Atty. B was suspended from the practice of law for 6 months. (Senior Marketing Corp.
v. Bolinas, A.C. No. 6740, 2014)

May a lawyer appear as a witness in the same case he or she is handling?

A: GENERAL RULE: No. Although there is no statutory restriction to be an advocate and witness
for a client in a case, the canons of the profession forbid him from acting in that double capacity
as he/she will find it difficult to disassociate the relation to the client as a lawyer and the relation
to the litigant as a witness.

EXCEPTION: Merely formal matters, such as the attestation or custody of an instrument, and
when essential to the ends of justice. (PNB v. Uy Teng Piao, G.R. No. L-35252, October 21, 1932)

Q: May a lawyer divide fees with non-lawyers?

A: GENERAL RULE: No. A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services
with a person not licensed to practice law. (CPR, Rule 9.02)

EXCEPTIONS:

Page 3 of 17
 2015 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

(1) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the latters
death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to persons specified
in the agreement.
(2) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer.
(3) 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 arrangement. (Id.)

Q: Atty. C engaged in a fist-fight with his children inside the chambers of a judge during a
conference conducted in connection with a case. Atty. Cs children then filed a disbarment
case against him. During one of the hearings conducted by the Commission on Bar
Discipline, Atty. C expressed his doubt that X, one of the complainants, was not his
biological son. Did Atty. C violate the Code of Professional Responsibility?
A: Yes. Atty. C engaged 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." (Canon 7, Rule 7.03)

What Atty. C did was to engage in a brawl with no less than his own children inside the chamber
of a judge. Misbehavior within or around the vicinity of the courtroom diminishes its sanctity and
dignity. Although his children were not entirely faultless, a higher level of decorum and restraint
was then expected from Atty. C, whose conduct failed to show due respect for the court and lend
credit to the nobility of the practitioners of the legal profession.

The Court also viewed with disfavor Atty. Cs statement that he doubts X to be his biological son.
As a lawyer, Atty. C is presumably aware that ascribing illegitimacy to X in a proceeding not
instituted for that specific purpose is nothing short of defamation. (Campos v. Campos, A.C. No.
8644, 2014)

Q: Atty. B filed a pleading which he knew was signed by his non-lawyer secretary. Did
Atty. B violate the Code of Professional Responsibility?
A: Yes. Atty. B violated Canon 9, which prohibits lawyers from assisting in the unauthorized
practice of law, by allowing a non-lawyer to affix his signature to a pleading. The preparation and
signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving the practice of law, which is reserved
exclusively for members of the legal profession. Atty. B's authority and duty to sign a pleading are
personal to him. Although he may delegate the signing of a pleading to another lawyer, he may
not delegate it to a non-lawyer. (Tapay v. Bancolo, A.C. No. 9604, 2013)

Q: Does the preparation of an extrajudicial settlement of estate by a court stenographer

for another party constitute practice of law?
A: Yes. The practice of law means any activity in and out of court which requires the application
of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. The stenographer is guilty of simple
misconduct. (Arienda v, Minilla, A.M. No. 112980, 2013)

Q: Lawyer X was suspended from the practice of law. X continued to hold a position in the
government requiring the authority to practice law. Was this proper?

A: No. When a court orders a lawyer suspended from the practice of law, the lawyer must desist
from performing all functions requiring the application of legal knowledge within the period of
suspension. (Lingan vs. Atty. Calubaquib and Jimmy F. Baliga, A.C. No. 5377, 2014).

Q: What are the consequences of non-payment of IBP membership dues?

A: Default in the payment of annual dues for 6 months shall warrant suspension of membership
in the IBP.
Default in such payment for 1 year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the delinquent
member from the Roll of Attorneys (Buehs v. Bacatan, A.C. No. 6674, 2009)
Note: Check the title of the case and the wordings

Q: Distinguish the ordinary versus the extraordinary concepts of attorneys fees.

A: In its ordinary concept, an attorney's fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by
his client for the legal services the former renders; compensation is paid for the cost and/or results
of legal services per agreement or as may be assessed.

Page 4 of 17
 2015 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

In its extraordinary concept, attorney's fees are deemed indemnity for damages ordered by the
court to be paid by the losing party to the winning party. The instances when these may be
awarded are enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, and are payable not to the lawyer but
to the client, unless the client and his lawyer have agreed that the award shall accrue to the lawyer
as additional or part of compensation. (Tangga-an v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., G.R.
No. 180636, 2013)

Q: Are attorneys fees generally awarded in favor of the winning party?

A:
GENERAL RULE: No, attorneys fees are not awarded as a matter of course every time a party
wins as the Supreme Court does not put a premium on the right to litigate.

EXCEPTION: Attorneys fees are awarded under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, namely:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third
persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the
plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim;
(6) In actions for legal support;
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws;
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
(11)In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation should be recovered. (Philippine National Construction Corporation v.
APAC Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 190957, 2013)

Q: Atty. L represented the Spouses C in a series of cases involving one parcel of land. Atty.
L and the Spouses C agreed that Atty. L would assume the litigation expenses, without
providing for reimbursement, in exchange for a contingency fee consisting of one-half of
the subject lot. However, Atty. L acquired the one-half portion of the lot even while the
Spouses Cs case was pending. Is the agreement between Atty. L and the Spouses C
valid?
A: The agreement is void for two reasons: first, because it is a champertous contract; and second,
because it violates Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code.

First. The agreement is a champertous contract, and is therefore void. Any agreement by a
lawyer to "conduct the litigation in his own account, to pay the expenses thereof or to save his
client therefrom and to receive as his fee a portion of the proceeds of the judgment is obnoxious
to the law." This prohibition is designed to prevent the lawyer from acquiring an interest between
him and his client, and is meant to avoid a situation where a lawyer acquires an additional stake
in the outcome of the action which might lead him to consider his own recovery rather than that
of his client, or to accept a settlement which might take care of his interest in the verdict to the
sacrifice of that of his client.

Second. The agreement is also void because it violates Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, which
forbids lawyers from acquiring, by purchase or assignment, the property that has been the subject
of litigation in which they have taken part by virtue of their profession.

While contingent fee agreements are recognized as a valid exception to the prohibitions under
Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, this exception does not apply here. In this case, the transfer or
assignment of the disputed one-half portion to Atty. L took place while the subject lot was still
under litigation and the lawyer-client relationship still existed between him and the Spouses
C. Thus, the general prohibition provided under Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, rather than the
exception provided in jurisprudence, applies. (Conjugal Partnership of the Spouses Cadavedo v.
Lacaya, G.R. No. 173188, 2014)

Q: What is the difference between a Retaining Lien and a Charging Lien?

A:

Page 5 of 17
 2015 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

Retaining Lien Charging Lien

The right of an attorney to retain the funds,
documents and papers of a client which have
lawfully come into his possession until his
lawful fees and disbursements have been paid
and to apply such funds to the satisfaction
thereof.
Requisites for validity:
(a) Attorney-client relationship
(b) Lawful possession by the lawyer of the
clients funds, documents and papers in
his professional capacity
(c) Unsatisfied claim for attorneys fees or
disbursements.
The right which the attorney has on upon all
judgments for the payment of money and
executions issued in pursuance thereof,
secured in favor of the client.
Requisites for validity:
(a) Attorney-client relationship
(b) The attorney has rendered services.
(c) A money judgment favorable to the client
has been secured in the action.
(d) The attorney has a claim for attorneys
fees or advances.
(e) A statement of his claim has been duly
recorded in the case with notice thereof
served upon the client / adverse party.

Q: A and B had a contract, which B breached. A then engaged the services of Atty. C to
file and prosecute a case against B. A grew weary of the slow pace of litigation, and
decided to accept Bs settlement offer. A then withdrew the case that he, with the
assistance of Atty. C, filed against B. Atty. C opposed the withdrawal of the case and filed
a Motion for Recording of Attorneys Charging Lien. A then filed a disbarment case against
Atty. C. Will the disbarment case prosper?
A: No. Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court allows an attorney to intervene in a case to
protect his rights concerning the payment of his compensation. According to the discretion of the
court, the attorney shall have a lien upon all judgments for the payment of money rendered in a
case in which his services have been retained by the client. An attorney is entitled to be paid
reasonable compensation for his services. That he had pursued its payment in the appropriate
venue does not make him liable for disciplinary action. (Baltazar v. Baez, A.C. No. 9091, 2013)

Q: A was a detainee in the Antipolo City Jail. He alleged that Atty. M, a lawyer from the
PAO, visited the jail and called all detainees with pending cases before the RTC of Antipolo.
A claimed that Atty. M stated basically that the detainees should give her money so that
she can give it to a certain judge and fiscal, and that the women detainees should cry and
plead with the judge as the latter had a soft heart.

A failed to present any credible evidence to support his claims against Atty. M. However,
Atty. M admitted that she advised her clients to approach the judge and plead for
compassion so that their motions would be granted.

(a) Did Atty. M violate the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Yes. It is the mandate of Rule 1.02 that "a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at
defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system." Rule 15.07 states that "a
lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness." Atty.
M's improper advice only lessens the confidence of the public in our legal system. Judges must
be free to judge, without pressure or influence from external forces or factors according to the
merits of a case. Atty. M's careless remark is uncalled for. (Areola v. Mendoza, A.C. No. 10135,
2014)

D. Suspension, disbarment, and discipline of lawyers

Q: Can disbarment cases be filed only by real parties in interest?

A: No, this requirement does not apply in disbarment cases. The complainant in disbarment
cases "is in no sense a party, and generally has no interest in the outcome." Moreover, the right
to institute disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person
complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. (Figueras v. Jimenez, A.C. No. 9116,
2014)

Page 6 of 17
 2015 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

Q: B filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. P for deceit, malpractice, conduct
unbecoming a member of the Bar and violation of his duties and oath as a lawyer. Atty. P
claims that because the complaint was filed more than two (2) years from the alleged
misconduct, it should have been dismissed outright. Is Atty. P's contention that the claim
has prescribed correct?
A: The Court has held that administrative cases against lawyers do not prescribe. The lapse of
considerable time from the commission of the offending act to the institution of the administrative
complaint will not erase the administrative culpability of a lawyer. (Sps. Bengco v. Atty. Bernardo,
A.C. No. 6368, June 13, 2012)

Q: May the Supreme Court in disciplinary proceedings order the guilty lawyer to pay
amounts he owes to the complaining party?
A: GENERAL RULE: No. In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether
the lawyer is still fit to continue as a member of the Bar. The Courts only concern is the
determination of administrative liability. The Courts findings have no material bearing on other
judicial action which the parties may choose to file against each other. (The Flight Shop, Inc. v.
Barican, G.R. No. 9950, 2014)

EXCEPTION: When a lawyer receives money from a client for a particular purpose intimately
linked to a lawyer-client relationship. In these cases, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting
to the client showing that the money was spent for that particular purpose. If the lawyer does not
use the money for the intended purpose, he must return the money to his client. (Navarro v.
Solidum, A.C. No. 9872, 2014)

Q: Francisco was recently granted an absolute pardon by the President in connection with
a crime involving moral turpitude and for which the former was disbarred. Saying that the
pardon blots out the crime committed, and offering to pay what should have accrued as
IBP dues for several years, and to make up for all lost Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) cycles, can Francisco be automatically reinstated as a member of the
Bar?
A: No, Francisco must be able to show the Supreme Court independently of the absolute pardon,
that he has indeed the good moral character needed to be a member of the Bar. Being a member
of the Bar is essentially a privilege, and thus evidence of reformation must be presented. (In Re
Quinciano Vailoces, A.M. No. 439, 1982)

Q: Atty. Q filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. F for continuously delaying the
proceedings in the Ampatuan massacre case. She distributed copies of the disbarment
complaint to the media. While the disbarment case was pending, F filed a petition for
contempt against Q, and the different media personnel involved, claiming that the latter
violated Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court (confidential nature of disbarment proceedings).
F alleged that participating in media interviews and publishing articles concerning his
actions in different newspapers violated such rule. Was such an action proper?
A: GENERAL RULE: Disbarment proceedings are confidential in nature until their final resolution
and the final decision of this Court.

EXCEPTION: When the filing of a disbarment complaint against petitioner is itself a matter of
public concern. Since petitioner is a public figure or has become a public figure because he is
representing a matter of public concern, and because the event itself that led to the filing of the
disbarment case against petitioner is a matter of public concern, the media has the right to report
the filing of the disbarment case as legitimate news.

However, Atty. Q is guilty of indirect contempt. As a lawyer and an officer of the Court, she is
familiar with the confidential nature of disbarment proceedings. However, instead of preserving
its confidentiality, she disseminated copies of the disbarment complaint against F to members of
the media which act constitutes contempt of court. She was ordered to pay a fine of 20,000.
(Fortun v. Quinsayas, G.R. No. 194578, 2013)

Q: May a member of the Philippine Bar, who is concomitantly an attorney in a foreign

jurisdiction and who was suspended from the practice of law in said foreign jurisdiction,

Page 7 of 17
 2015 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

be meted the same sanction as member of the Philippine Bar for the same infraction
committed in the foreign jurisdiction?
A: No. It does not automatically result in his suspension or disbarment in the Philippines unless
the basis of his suspension is likewise a ground for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction.
The judgment of the foreign court merely constitutes prima facie evidence of unethical acts as a
lawyer as provided under the Rules of Court (In re: Maquera, B.M. No. 793, 2004).

Q: Is there any difference as to the punishment of married lawyers who had illicit sexual
relations with another as against those who are unmarried?
A: Yes because while it is has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations
between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit
behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. Even if not all forms of
extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside marriage is
considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage
and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws (Guevarra v. Eala,
A.C. No. 7136, 2007).

E. Readmission to the Bar

Q: What are the applicable guidelines for resolving requests regarding judicial clemency
or readmission to the bar?
A: The guidelines are as follows:

1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be
limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent members of the community with proven
integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar
misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of
reform.
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead
of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.
4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen
or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and
other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.

Moreover, to be reinstated to the practice of law, the applicant must, like any other candidate for
admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character. (Macarubbo
v. Macarubbo, A.C. No. 6148, 2013)

Q: A Filipino lawyer became a citizen of another country and later reacquired Filipino
citizenship under RA 9225. Does he remain a member of the Philippine Bar?
A: Yes, as long as he undergoes the procedure under law in order to validly practice again, as
the right to resume the practice of law is not automatic. RA 9225 provides that a person
reacquiring Filipino citizenship, who intends to practice law in the Philippines, must apply with the
Office of the Bar Confidant for a license or permit to engage in such practice. (BM No. 2112, 2012)

Q: Is the penalty of indefinite suspension cruel, degrading, or inhuman?

A: No. The key to the restoration of his rights and privileges as a lawyer is in his own hands. That
sanction has the effect of giving him the chance to purge himself in his own good time of his
misconduct by acknowledging that misconduct, exhibiting appropriate repentance, and
demonstrating his willingness and capacity to live up to the exacting standards demanded of a
lawyer. (Dumadag v. Lumaya, A.C. 2614, 2000).

F. Mandatory Continuing Legal Education

Q: What are the consequences of a lawyers failure to indicate in his pleadings his MCLE
Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption?
A: The consequences are as follows:

Page 8 of 17
 2015 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

(a) The lawyer will be subject to penalties and disciplinary sanctions;

(b) The lawyer will be fined P2,000.00 for the first offense, P3,000.00 for the second offense
and P4,000.00 for the third offense;
(c) The lawyer may be listed as a delinquent member of the Bar; and
(d) The non-compliant lawyer shall be discharged from the case and the client/s shall be
allowed to secure the services of a new counsel with the concomitant right to demand the
return of fees already paid to the non-compliant lawyer.

Note that the failure to indicate the MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption in
pleadings will no longer cause the dismissal of the case or the expunction of pleadings from the
records. (OCA Circular No. 79-14, 2014)

G. Notarial Practice

Q: What are the qualifications of a notary public?

A: 1. Filipino citizen;
2. Over twenty-one (21) years of age;
3. A resident in the Philippines for at least one (1) year and maintains a regular place of work or
business in the city or province where the commission is to be issued;
4. A member of the Philippine Bar in good standing with clearances from the Office of the Bar
Confidant of the Supreme Court and the IBP; and
5. Must not have been convicted in the first instance of any crime involving moral turpitude.
(Notarial Rules, Rule III, Section 1)

Q: What is the effect of a defective notarization?

A: A defective notarization will strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private
instrument, and the evidentiary standard of its validity shall be based on preponderance of
evidence. (The Heirs of Sarili v. Lagrosa, G.R. No. 193517, 2014)

In a case where the law requires notarization as a requirement for the validity of the document,
(as in the case of attested wills), which must be acknowledged before a notary public, a defective
notarization will render the will VOID. (Azuela v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122880, 2006)

Q: What is the effect of a notary publics failure to comply with the requirements for signing
a document on behalf of another, who is physically unable to do so, and likewise notarizing
the document?
A: He becomes a party to the instrument, and is disqualified from notarizing it. The act of
notarizing a deed to which a notary public is a party is a violation of the Notarial Rules and is a
ground for the imposition of disciplinary sanctions. (Nevada v. Casuga, A.C. No. 7591, 2012)

Q: Since it is the last day to file a pleading, Atty. J signed the verification portion as
attorney-in-fact for his clients who were abroad. Atty. J happens to be a notary public. Can
he proceed to notarize the verification?
A: No. The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral
arrangements. This will be defeated if he or she were one of the signatories to the instrument. In
such a case, he will be interested in sustaining the validity of his or her own act. (Villarin, et al. v.
Sabate, A.C. No. 3324, 2000)

Q: A appeared before Notary Public B to have a Verification and Certification of Non-Forum

Shopping notarized. Because A was not personally known to Notary Public B, the latter
required A to present competent evidence of his identity. A presented his senior citizens
card. Notary Public B proceeded to notarize the document, but failed to attach a photocopy
of the senior citizens card to the notarized Verification and Certification of Non-Forum
Shopping.

(a) Is a senior citizens card competent evidence of identity?

A: Yes. Competent evidence of identity includes at least one current identification document
issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, such as but
not limited to, passport, driver's license, Professional Regulations Commission ID, National
Bureau of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter's ID, Barangay certification,
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS) card,

Page 9 of 17
 2015 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

PhilHealth card, senior citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID,
OFW ID, seaman's book, alien certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of registration,
government office ID, certificate from the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons
(NCWDP), or Department of Social Welfare and Development certification. (Notarial Rules,
Section 12a)

(b) Did Notary Public B violate the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice by failing to attach
a copy of the senior citizens card to the Verification and Certification of Non-
Forum Shopping?
A: No. The attachment of a photocopy of the identification card in the document is not required
by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. (Zaulda v. Zaulda, G.R. No. 201234, 2014)

(c) Assume that A has no identification documents. May Notary Public B still
notarize the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping?
A: Yes. Competent evidence of identity also includes: (i) the oath or affirmation of one credible
witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notary
public and who personally knows the individual; or (ii) the oath or affirmation of two credible
witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each
personally knows the individual and shows to the notary documentary identification. (Notarial
Rules, Section 12b)

Q: Atty. R notarized a complaint-affidavit executed by A, his sister-in-law. Atty. R did not

require A to present any competent evidence of identity.

(a) Did Atty. R violate the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice by failing to require A to
present competent evidence of identity?
A: No, he did not. If the notary public knows the affiants personally, he need not require them to
show their valid identification cards. However, the notary public must still state in the jurat that the
affiant is personally known to him.

(b) Did Atty. R commit any violation of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice?
A: Yes, by notarizing a document for a relative within the fourth civil degree of affinity (i.e., his
sister-in-law). Rule IV, Section 3 of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice prohibits a notary public
from performing notarial acts if he is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or
relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree. (Jandoquile v.
Revilla, Jr., A.C. No. 9514, 2013)

Q: MTC Judge R notarized affidavits of cohabitation and issued them to parties who had
been living together as husband and wife for at least five years without any legal
impediment to marry each other. He notarized these affidavits on the same day that he
solemnized the parties marriages. The parties did not present any competent evidence of
identity. Based on the foregoing, Mr. T filed an administrative case against Judge R for
violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct and for gross ignorance of the law.

(a) May MTC judges notarize documents?

A: MTC judges may notarize documents (in their capacity as notaries public ex officio) but only if
the documents are connected with their official functions and duties. As a general rule, they may
not notarize private documents (those that are not connected with their official functions and
duties).

However, MTC and MCTC judges assigned to municipalities or circuits with no lawyers or notaries
public may, in the capacity as notaries public ex officio, perform any act within the competency of
a regular notary public, provided that: (1) all notarial fees charged be for the account of the
Government and turned over to the municipal treasurer; and, (2) certification be made in the
notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or
circuit. (Supreme Court Circular 1-90)

(b) Judge R argued that the affidavits of cohabitation were connected to his official
duty to solemnize marriages. Is this argument correct?
A: No. Judges cannot notarize the affidavits of cohabitation of the parties whose marriage they
will solemnize. Affidavits of cohabitation are documents not connected with the judge's official

Page 10 of 17
 2015 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

function and duty to solemnize marriages. Notarizing affidavits of cohabitation is inconsistent with
the duty to examine the parties' requirements for marriage. If the solemnizing officer notarized the
affidavit of cohabitation, he cannot objectively examine and review the affidavit's statements
before performing the marriage ceremony.

(c) Judge R admitted that he did not require the parties to present competent
evidence of identity. However, he asserted that he personally knew the parties
because he interviewed them before notarizing their affidavits of cohabitation.
Is Judge Rs defense meritorious?
A: No, it is not. That the parties appeared before Judge R and that he interviewed them do not
make the parties personally known to him. To personally know the parties, the notary public must
at least be acquainted with them. (Tupal v. Rojo, A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842, 2014)

Q: Atty. A, a commissioned notary public, was suspended from the practice of law for
allowing his secretary to notarize documents in his stead. Thereafter, the Commission on
Human Rights also suspended him from his position as Director/Attorney VI of its Regional
Office inasmuch as his suspension from the practice of law prevented him from assuming
his post as such for want of eligibility in the meantime that his authority to practice law is
suspended. Atty. A argued that his suspension from the practice of law did not include his
suspension from public office. Is his contention correct?

A: No. When a lawyer is suspended from the practice of law, he must desist from performing all
functions requiring the application of legal knowledge within the period of suspension. This
includes desisting from holding a position in government requiring the authority to practice law.
Work in government that requires the use of legal knowledge is considered practice.of law. (Victor
C. Lingan v. Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy P. Baliga, A.C. No. 5277, 2014)

Q: Where may notaries public perform notarial acts?

A:
GENERAL RULE: Generally, a notary public may perform notarial acts in his regular place of
work or business, which must be within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court.
EXCEPTION: A notary public may perform a notarial act outside his place of work or business in
any of the following sites located within his territorial jurisdiction:

1. Public offices, convention halls and similar places where oaths of office may be
administered;
2. Public function areas in hotels and similar places for the signing of instruments or
documents requiring notarization;
3. Hospitals and other medical institutions where a party to an instrument or
document is confined for treatment; and
4. Any place where a party to an instrument or document requiring notarization is
under detention. (Nasayao v. Unay, A.C. No. 9504, 2013)

The act of notarizing documents in a place outside of or beyond the territory granted by the notarial
commission partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. (Almazan, Sr. v. Suerte-Felipe, A.C.
No. 7184, 2014)

Q: Mr. X was commissioned as a notary public on December 15, 2013. When will Mr. Xs
term of office as a notary public expire?
A: Mr. Xs term of office will expire on December 31, 2014. This is because the term of office of a
notary public is 2 years starting from the first day of January of the year in which the commission
was issued. Therefore, the first year of the notary publics commission expired on December 31,
2013 (first year: January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013) and the second year of the notary publics
commission will expire on December 31, 2014 (second year: January 1, 2014 to December 31,
2014). (Notarial Rules, Rule III, Section 11)

Q: Is Ms. A, a notary public, who was still single when she obtained her notarial license,
still able to notarize documents if she thereafter gets married and takes the name of her
husband?
A:

Page 11 of 17
 2015 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

GENERAL RULE: No. Within ten (10) days after the change of name of the notary public by court
order or by marriage, or after ceasing to maintain the regular place of work or business, the notary
public shall submit a signed and dated notice of such fact to the Executive Judge.

The notary public may not validly notarize until: (a) she receives from the Executive Judge a
confirmation of the new name of the notary public and/or change of regular place of work or
business; and (b) a new seal bearing the new name has been obtained.

EXCEPTION: Until the aforementioned steps have been completed, the notary public may
continue to use the former name or regular place of work or business in performing notarial acts
for three (3) months from the date of the change, which may be extended once for valid and just
cause by the Executive Judge for another period not exceeding three (3) months. (Notarial Rules,
Rule X, Section 1)

Q: When are the instances a Notary Public may refuse to notarize a document?
A: A notary public may refuse to notarize a document if:
(a) He knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or
immoral;
(b) The signatory shows a demeanor which engenders in the mind of the notary public
reasonable doubt as to the former's knowledge of the consequences of the transaction
requiring a notarial act; and
(c) In his judgment, the signatory is not acting of his or her own free will. (Caalim-Verzonilla
v. Pascua, A.C. No. 6655, 2011).

JUDICIAL ETHICS
A. Qualities
Q: What are the qualities expected of a judge? (The 4 Is & 4 Es)
A:
1. Independence
2. Integrity
3. Impartiality
4. Intelligence
5. Excellence
6. Ethics
7. Effectiveness
8. Expeditiousness
(OCA v. Espaol, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1872, 2004)

B. Discipline of Members of the Judiciary

Q: Ms. A was charged before the Sandiganbayan concerning a controversy involving

Kevlar helmets. Justice X was accused of gross misconduct, partiality, corruption and
bribery after the acquittal. It was alleged that during the pendency of the Kevlar case,
Justice X was the contact of Ms. A in the Sandiganbayan. A news website also showed
a photo of Justice X together with Ms. A, and other people involved in the Pork Barrel
controversy. Justice X also failed to disclose in his letter to the Chief Justice (sent prior
the administrative proceedings) that he actually visited Ms. A, despite his denial that he
socialized with her.

(a) Is direct evidence of wrongdoing required in an administrative case for gross

misconduct?
A: No. In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence is required. Justice Xs actions
during and after the pendency of the trial constitute gross misconduct, notwithstanding absence
of direct evidence of corruption and bribery.

(b) Justice X raised the defense that he was not the ponente of the decision acquitting
Ms. A. Is his argument meritorious?
A: No, by the mere act of going to Ms. As office, Justice X exposed himself to the suspicion of
partiality. The suspicion of partiality was not abolished, notwithstanding the fact that the decision
was promulgated as part of a collegial body.

Page 12 of 17
 2015 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

(c) May a judge meet with litigants in pending cases before him or her?
A: No, such acts are grossly improper and violate Section 1, Canon 4 (Propriety) of the New Code
of Judicial Conduct. A judge must be impartial, and fraternizing with litigants tarnishes this
appearance.

(d) Is the rule on propriety limited only to pending or prospective litigation?

A: No. It covers all times, because judges must be beyond reproach and should avoid the mere
suggestion of partiality and impropriety. Because magistrates are under constant public scrutiny,
the termination of a case will not deter public criticisms for acts which may cast suspicion on its
disposition or resolution.

(e) Is there any liability for failing to disclose that Justice X met with Ms. A prior to the
initiation of the administrative proceedings?
A: Being untruthful on crucial matters amounts to dishonesty, a violation of Canon 3 (Integrity) of
the New Code of Judicial Ethics. Dishonesty, being a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty
of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits,
and with perpetual disqualification from re- employment in government service. (Re: Allegations
made under oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing held on September 26, 2013
Against Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, Sandiganbayan, A.M. No. SB-14-21-J. 2014).
Note: The justice was dismissed from judicial service and his retirement benefits were forfeited.

Q: Atty. J was nominated to a vacant seat in the SC. During the JBC deliberations, the Chief
Justice manifested that she was invoking the unanimity rule under the JBC Rules, i.e.
when the integrity of the applicant not otherwise disqualified is questioned, then the
affirmative vote of all the members of the JBC is needed for a favorable consideration of
his nomination. Atty. J garnered enough votes, but was excluded by the invocation of the
unanimity rule. Atty. J filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus to compel his inclusion.

(a) Does the SC have jurisdiction?

A: Yes, the SC has supervisory authority over the JBC. It has the duty to see to it that rules are
followed, and may order the work done or redone. However, the SC cannot grant mandamus
directing the JBC to include Atty. J in the JBC shortlist because the duty to nominate is
discretionary.

(b) Is there a valid question on integrity when the accusation is based on facts or
matters calling for professional judgment?
A: No, a disagreement in legal opinion is normal in the legal community. To question ones
integrity, there must be an act linked to the moral character, and not to his judgment as a
professional.

(c) Is there a demandable right to due process in the JBC proceedings?

A: Yes. The fact that the proceedings are sui generis and impressed with discretion does not take
away the applicants entitlement to due process.

(d) Atty. J was invited by the JBC to attend a meeting to explain his side. However,
he declined, stating that he wished to have a sworn statement of the allegations
against him, and to cross examine the Chief Justice in a public hearing. The JBC
convened without Atty. J and proceeded to decide the nominees in the shortlist.
Atty. J claims a violation of due process. Decide.
A: His right to be informed and defend himself was violated when the JBC failed to inform him of
the specific charges against him, because he was merely asked to appear in a meeting where he
would be, right there and then, subjected to an inquiry. (Jardeleza v. Sereno, G.R. No. 213181,
2014)

Q: Judge X was the father of Atty. Y, and the latter represented Dr. Z in an administrative
hearing. Judge X never entered his appearance to represent Dr. Z, and during the hearing,
he sat beside Atty. Y, and manifested that he was the counsel of the latter, reasoning that
Atty. Y recently passed the bar. When questioned, he shouted So what?! I am only sitting
and assisting my daughter! A complaint was filed against Judge X for conduct
unbecoming a judge. Will it prosper?

Page 13 of 17
 2015 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

A: Yes. Section 35 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court expressly prohibits sitting judges like Judge
X from engaging in the private practice of law or giving professional advice to clients. Section 11,
Canon 4 (Propriety), of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct reiterate the prohibition from engaging in the private practice of law or giving professional
advice to clients. (Decena v. Malanyaon, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2217, 2013)

Q: Is it proper for a judge to visit jails to confer with inmates having pending cases before
her?
A: No. The Court has consistently enjoined judges to avoid not just impropriety in their conduct
but even the mere appearance of impropriety. The appearance of bias or prejudice can be
damaging as actual bias or prejudice to the publics confidence on the Judiciarys role in the
administration of justice. (Prosecutors Casar, et al. v. Soluren, A.M. No. RTJ-12-2333, 2012)

Q: A judge was accused of partiality. During the administrative hearings, the complainants
failed to present evidence that the judge in fact acted with partiality. Will this be enough to
exculpate him from the charges?
A: No. The failure of the petitioners to present evidence that the respondent acted with partiality
and malice can only negate the allegation of impropriety, but not the appearance of impropriety.
The standard of morality and decency required is exacting so much so that a judge should avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities. (Angping vs. Ros, 687 SCRA
390, 2012)

Q: While a case involving a certain property was pending before a judge, he conducted an
ex parte investigation of the property, without notice or presence of the parties in the case,
who only heard about the inspection through their neighbors. The defendants in the civil
case filed a motion for inhibition and accused him of impropriety. The judge argues that
he was there only to make a mere assessment of the property for his personal satisfaction,
in all good faith and without fraud, dishonesty, or malicious intent. Is the judge guilty of
impropriety?
A: Yes. It has been previously ruled that an ocular inspection without notice to nor presence of
the parties is highly improper. Good and noble intentions notwithstanding, the judges actuations
gave an appearance of impropriety. (Vizcayno vs. Dacanay, 687 SCRA 1, 2012)

Q: May anonymous complaints be filed against judges?

A: Yes, but they must be supported by public records of indubitable integrity. Courts have acted
in such instances needing no corroboration by evidence to be offered by the complainant. Thus,
for anonymous complaints, the burden of proof in administrative proceedings, which usually rests
with the complainant, must be buttressed by indubitable public records and by what is sufficiently
proven during the investigation. If the burden of proof is not overcome, the respondent is under
no obligation to prove his defense. (Rule 140, Section 1)

Q: Should a judge mingle with those who engage in cockfighting?

A: No. While rearing fighting cocks is not illegal, a judge should avoid mingling with a crowd of
cockfighting enthusiasts and bettors as it undoubtedly impairs the respect due him. As a judge,
he must impose upon himself personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the
ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. (Anonymous v. Judge Rio C. Achas, A.M.
No. MTJ-11-1801, 2013).

Q: A judge knowingly allowed detailed employees to solicit commissions from bonding

companies, but did not do anything to discipline them. Did he commit a violation of the
Code of Judicial Conduct?
A: Yes. The CJC imposes on him the duty to take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures
against court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which he would have become aware. (Office
of the Court Administrator v. Judge Edwin C. Larida Jr., RTC Branch 18, Tagaytay City, A.M. No.
RTJ-08-2151, 2014)

Q: A was charged with qualified trafficking, punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of
not less than 2 million pesos. By reason of the penalty prescribed by law, the grant of bail
is a matter of discretion for the judge. Judge B who heard the case, granted bail even if A
did not file a motion for bail, and without a hearing. Is Judge B liable?

Page 14 of 17
 2015 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

A: Yes. A motion for application of bail, as well as a hearing are mandatory, even if bail is
discretionary on the Judge. Judge Bs acts are not mere deficiency in prudence and discretion on
his part, but a patent disregard of well-known rules. When an error is so gross and patent, such
error produces an inference of bad faith, making the judge liable for gross ignorance of the law.
(City Prosecutors Office of Tacloban City v. Judge Crisologo S. Bitas et al., A.M. No. RTJ-14-
2376, 2014)

Q: What is the rule when a Judge plans to extend an already approved leave/authority to
travel?
A: OCA Circular No. 49-2003 requires that a request be made for an extension of the period to
travel/stay abroad, and that the request be received by the OCA ten working days before the
expiration of the original travel authority. Failure to do so would make the absence beyond the
original period unauthorized. (Re: Unauthorized Travel Abroad of Judge Cleto R. Villacorta III,
A.M. No. 11-9-167-RTC, 2013)

Q: R.A. No. 10154 requires retiring government employees to secure a prior clearance of
pendency/non-pendency of administrative cases from the CSC.

(a) Does this apply to the employees of the Judiciary?

A: No. To deem it otherwise would disregard the Supreme Courts constitutionally-enshrined

power of administrative supervision over its personnel. Retiring court personnel are only required
to secure a prior clearance from the Court itself.

(b) Would your answer be different if instead what was required was clearance of
pendency/non-pendency of criminal cases?

A: Yes. The Constitution only accords the Judiciary administrative supervision over its personnel.
A different treatment of the clearance requirement obtains with respect to criminal cases. As such,
a clearance requirement which pertains to criminal cases may be imposed by the appropriate
government agency such as the Ombudsman. (Re: Request for guidance/clarification on Section
7, Rule III of R.A. No. 10154, A.M. No. 13-09-8-SC, 2013)

Q: Is the filing of an administrative complaint the proper remedy for correcting the actions
of a judge perceived to have gone beyond the norms of propriety?
A: No. Administrative actions are not the proper course of action where a sufficient remedy exists.
The actions against judges should not be considered as complementary to, supplementary to, or
substitute for, the judicial remedies which can be availed of by a party in a case. (Ma. Regina
Peralta v. Judge OmelloI, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2259, 2013)

Q: N was the Branch Clerk of Court under Judge B. A failed to maintain a general docket
book to keep track of cases. N also repeatedly submitted inaccurate reports as to the actual
number of cases pending with their court. Is Judge B liable in any way?
A: Yes. Although the duty of keeping a docket book was vested with N, it is the duty of Judge B
to make sure that the members of her staff perform their duties. Judge B also failed to adopt a
system of monitoring cases. In doing so, she is guilty of violating Supreme Court rules, directives,
and circulars for her failure to comply with her duty to provide an efficient court management
system, which includes preparation and use of docket inventory and monthly report of cases as
tools thereof. (Office of Court Administratior v. Hon. Rosabella M. Tormis, A.M. No. MTJ-12-1818,
2013)

Q: An administrative case was instituted against Judge G based on the result of a judicial
audit conducted after his retirement. Does the SC have jurisdiction over his administrative
case?
A: No. Judge Gs retirement effectively barred the Court from pursuing the administrative
proceeding. For the Supreme Court to acquire jurisdiction over an administrative proceeding, the
complaint must be filed during the incumbency of the respondent public official or employee.
(Office of the Court Administrator v. Jesus L. Grageda, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2235, 2013).

Q: May the ponente of a decision in the Court of Appeals by himself act upon the urgent
motion of a litigant?

Page 15 of 17
 2015 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

A: Yes. The ponente, if present, can act upon the urgent motion alone or with another member
present, provided that the action or resolution is submitted on the next working day to the absent
member or members of the Division for ratification, modification, or recall. In this case, the justice
acted upon an urgent motion to issue a writ of preliminary injunction. (Fernandez et al. v. Court of
Appeals Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-201-CA-J, 2013)

Q: May a judge be disciplined for failure to pay a debt arising out of a private transaction?
A: Yes. Rule 140, Sec. 8 of the Rules of Court holds its officials and employees administratively
liable in unpaid debt situations, and considers willful failure to pay a just debt as a ground for
disciplinary action against judges and justices. The phrase just debts refer to (1) claims
adjudicated by a court of law; or (2) claims, the existence and justness of which are admitted by
the debtor. (Manlapaz v. Judge Sabillo, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1771, 2013)

Q: What are the rules for awarding costs of suit?

A: The rules are as follows:

GROUND RULE LEGAL

BASIS
IN GENERAL The costs incurred by the prevailing party will be borne Rule 142,
by the losing party. Nevertheless, courts retain the Section 1
discretion to divide the costs of suit, as may be
equitable. However, no costs shall be allowed against
the Republic of the Philippines, unless otherwise
provided by law.
When the action or Rule 142,
appeal is dismissed The court may still award costs, as justice may require. Section 2
for want of jurisdiction
or otherwise
For filing frivolous Double or treble costs may be imposed on the plaintiff Rule 142,
actions or appeals or appellant, which shall be paid by his attorney, if Section 3
ordered by the court
For knowingly making A litigant who knowingly makes false allegations in a Rule 142,
false allegations pleading shall pay such reasonable expenses as may Section 4
have been necessarily incurred by the other party by
reason of such untrue pleading.
For non-appearance The costs of the warrant of arrest and of the arrest of Rule 142,
of a witness the witness shall be borne by the witness if the court Section
determines that his failure to appear was willful or without 10
just excuse.

Page 16 of 17