Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
ETHICS
Bangalore Draft:
 Discipline of determining what is good
vs. bad or right vs. wrong
 We consider something as RIGHT or
GOOD if it conforms with what he/she
ought to do
 Presupposes, a standard of conduct.
 Set of rules that should be conformed by
every lawyer.
Legal Ethics
 Science treating on what an attorney
what to do in relation to the: (4-fold duty
of the lawyer)
a) Court; b) Client; c) Colleagues; and d)
The Public
Judicial Ethics
 Branch of moral science which treats of
the right and proper conduct to be
observed by Judges in administering
justice.
 Legal and moral mechanism that keeps
the trust and confidence of the people in
the judicial system
JUDICIAL ETHICS
Purpose of Code of Ethics in Judicial Ethics
 to uphold and maintain public
confidence in the judiciary
 In the new code, appearance is just
as important as to the actual
attribute itself.
 Judges must not only be impartial
but must appear to be impartial.
Importance of Judicial Ethics to Lawyers
Q: Can the courts function without lawyers?
A: No. Under the present set-up of the Rules of
Court, who can appear before the courts – are
lawyers. >
 Lawyers should know code of conduct
of judicial ethics because the
administration of justice is a joint
responsibility of the judge and lawyer.
 In the same way, Judges expect from
lawyers the most ethical discharge of
duties. The lawyer can also demand
from judges the same standard of
conduct.
NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR
THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY took effect on
June 1, 2004.
Page 1
 Instrument embodying the Universal
Declaration for Ethical Conduct of
Judges. All State signatories to this draft
adhere to the Universal Declaration.
 There are many participating States.
Chief Justices all over the globe had a
round table conference in Hague and
they made the Bangalore Draft.
 Philippine Supreme Court was then
represented by former Chief Justice
Davide and Senior State Justice Puno
who also later on became a Chief
Justice.
 The Philippines being a signatory
thereto saw a need to promulgate a
New Code for the Philippine Judiciary.
The Code of Judicial Conduct is the old
code.
T.N: The New code as based from the
Bangalore Draft is somewhat similar to the
Old Code but there are new provisions. This
new Code does not supersede the old Code.
There is nothing in the New Code which
repeals the Old Code. In fact, they stand
side by side. In recent jurisprudence, the
Supreme Court still even cites the Old Code.
Q: How to know if New Code or Old Code?
A: From the Title:
1. New Code: New Code of Judicial Conduct
for the Philippine Judiciary
2. Old Code: Code of Judicial Conduct
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
PREAMBLE
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.
 All of these attributes must be observed
not only by the judiciary as an institution
but also by individual judges and
justices.
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR
THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY
PREAMBLE
WHEREAS, at the Round Table Meeting of
Chief Justices held at the Peace Palace.
The Hague, on 25–26 November 2002, at
which the Philippine Supreme Court was
represented by the Chief Justice and
Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, the
BangaloreDraft of the Code of Judicial
Conduct ado pted by the Judicial Group
Strengthening Judicial Integrity was
deliberated upon and approved after
incorporating therein several amendments;
WHEREAS, the Bangalore Draft, as
amended, is intended to be the Universal
Declaration of Judicial Standards applicable
in all judiciaries;|
WHEREAS, the Bangalore Draft is founded
upon a universal recognition that a
competent, independent and impartial
judiciary is essential if the courts are to fulfill
their role in upholding constitutionalism and
the rule of law; that public confidence in the
judicial system and in the moral authority
and integrity of the judiciary is of utmost
importance in a modem democratic society;
and, that it is essential that judges,
individually and collectively, respect and
honor judicial office as a public trust and
strive to enhance and maintain confidence in
the judicial system;
WHEREAS, the adoption of the universal
declaration of standards for ethical conduct
of judges embodied in the Bangalore Draft
as revised at the Round Table Conference
of Chief Justices at The Hague is imperative
not only to update and correlate the code of
Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial
Ethics adopted for the Philippines, but also
to stress the Philippines’ solidarity with the
universal clamor for a universal code of
judicial ethics.
 It updates and correlates the Code of
Judicial Conduct and the Canons of
Judicial Ethics.
 So, even the Canons of Judicial Ethics
which is even an older law than the
Code of Judicial Conduct is still alive.
 Thus:
Page 2
1. Competent, independent and
impartial judiciary
2. Public confidence in the judicial
system and in the moral authority is of
utmost
importance.
 Judges individually and collectively must
respect and honor judicial office.
Seven Cardinal Values in the Judiciary:
1. Independence
2. Integrity
3. Impartiality
4. Propriety
5. Equality
6. Competence
7. Diligence
 Must be observed by judges and
justices.
 A Code of Ethics does not necessarily
translate to ethical judges.
 Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera, a
retired justice, referring to the New
Code, said: A Code of Judicial Conduct
no matter how wisely crafted does not
necessary translate to an ethical
conduct on the part of the magistrates
and the officers of the Law. It is however
certain that without a Code of Conduct,
a judge will find it difficult to navigate
ethically through the mind waters of
professional conduct and even in their
everyday life as a judge. Prudence is
certainly a necessary virtue but the grey
areas are many and questions may
raise difficult. The Supreme Court has
done its job, it has promulgated the New
Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary. What remains to be
done is the important thing. To make the
Code a living reality in the honorable,
decent and respectable and inspiring
conduct of our judges, justices and
judicial officials. No code can ever
achieve the disposition and the decision
to conduct oneself ethically. But the
direction one must go, the guide post
when one choses to conduct oneself
with honor and to hold oneself out to the
public as the Republic’s credible agent
for the administration of justice is one
the code of Conduct fundamentally is.
 This is very well seen in the CJ Corona
Case wherein no one is exempt not
even the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court.
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
 Ethics will help your job,
 Ethics will help you keep your livelihood.
CANON 1
INDEPENDENCE
Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the
rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair
trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and
exemplify judicial independence in both its
individual and institutional aspects.
 Independence in both individual, the
judge, and institutional, the judiciary as
an institution. Ø Individual judicial
independence: It focuses on each
particular judge and seeks to ensure
his/her ability to decide cases with
autonomy.
 Institutional Judicial Independence:
Focuses on the independence of the
judiciary as a branch of government and
protects judges as a class.
SECTION 1. Judges shall exercise the
judicial function independently on the basis
of their assessment of the facts and in
accordance with a conscientious
understanding of the law, free of any
extraneous influence, inducement, pressure,
threat or interference, direct or indirect, from
any quarter or for any reason.
 The basis of the decision should only be
facts and law.
 Thus, when you become a judge, you
must insulate yourself from all external
sources of influences.
 Ex: Your aunt visits you in your
chambers as say: Dong, dai, akong
amiga is a litigant in the court, maluoy
ka ani akong amiga, wa jud ni siya’y
sala, etc.
 It’s not easy to be a judge, there are
even at times when your life may be at
risk.
 Code of Ethics tells us that it is
important to be independent.
Possible Sources of Influence:
Internal – biases, prejudices, preconceived
notions
External – political, social, familial
Ex. Judge dismissed criminal case on vague
grounds, upon his receipt of death threat
Page 3
Rameriz Case
Facts: The judge admitted that she rendered
ruling based on directives of a government
official. But, she justified herself in saying that
this a revolutionary government anyway. And I
heeded the instruction of this government
official.
Held: SC denounced the judge’s acts as patent
betrayal of public trust and revelation of weak
moral character. Thus, judges should not allow
government officials, local, or national, to
influence their decisions and actions in judicial
proceedings before them
Libarios vs. Dabalos
Facts: Judges should not be influenced by
overwhelming public opinion. A judge issued a
warrant of arrest, and fixed the bail of the
accused without the required hearing, The
reason was, outside his courtroom, on account
of a rally conducted by his supporters of the
complainant, was disciplined.
Held: Sc said that there was unjust haste in the
actions on the part of the judge. The judge is
expected to endeavor to intelligently ascertain
the facts and applicable law, not persuaded by
partisan and personal interest.
SECTION 2. In performing judicial duties,
Judges shall be independent from judicial
colleagues in respect of decisions which the
judge is obliged to make independently.
 Judges should not tell other judges that
this is how s/he should decide a case.
They must be free from influence of their
peers.
 Q:Can they consult one another?
A: Of course! But at the end of the day
they should decide independently.
 Q: Does this rule apply to collegiate
courts?
A: It is applicable. Though they are the
same division they decide
independently. That is why in the SCRA
you can read concurring and dissenting
opinions. Even if they are collegiate
courts they have the right to maintain
independence
T.N.: Collegiate courts: Agencies or tribunals or
courts that render decisions or orders by division
or en banc. It’s not a single judge or justice but a
division or en banc.
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
If judges should not allow themselves from being
influenced, they should likewise prevent
themselves from influencing in any manner the
outcome of litigation or dispute pending before
another court or administrative agency. So it
goes both ways. They should not be influenced
and they should not influence.
CASE NO. 3 (citations needed)
Facts: The judge, a party in this case, entering
his appearance in a court representing himself
but signing the pleading wherein he indicated
that he is the presiding judge of RTC Branch 73
Malabon City and appending to the pleading a
copy of his oath with a picture of his oath taking.
Thus he is trying to influence and put pressure in
a fellow judge.
SEC. 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing
in any manner the outcome of litigation or
dispute pending before another court or
administrative agency.
- The prohibition in Sec. 2 is extended by
the prohibition to wield influence upon
other courts, quasi-judicial and
administrative agencies.
Ex. The judge wrote to the NLRC
Commissioners to tell them that his wife’s
allegations are untrue.
 Judges should brace themselves,
knowing that by their assumption to
judicial office, people close to them
might in the future, seek favors or intend
to influence them. Judges should be
prepared to handle these situations, and
must already be ready to maintain their
independence in the midst of all these
external influences.
Duty to Disclose to the JBC and Appointing
Authority
 Disclose all disciplinary, criminal and
civil cases
Sec. 4. Judges 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.
SEC. 5. Judges shall not only be free from
inappropriate connections
Page 4
 The point of this section is to maintain
independence of a judge. How can a
Judge be independent from any
influence? The judge can be
independent by not allowing family,
social or other relationship to influence
judicial conduct or judgment.
 It goes with the territory of the judicial
office that some people will try to gain
influence. Some people will, with or
without the judge knowing, make it
appear that they have influence over the
judge, or even sell the judge out making
the apparent influence as leverage.
Example: For instance, when a judge
renders a decision, a certain person in
charge in the records section or the
judge’s secretary, who knows the nature
of the decision, may call on the counsel
of the winning party regarding the nature
of decision and entice the counsel to
give something as a consideration for a
favorable judgment. Even though the
party is winning in the case, the court
personnel may make it appear that there
is no judgment yet and that giving a
consideration may induce a favorable
judgment. The counsel may or may not
take the bait, but in case he does, the
judge’s independence is already tainted
with the appearance that the judge can
be influenced by a certain person or
group of persons. And, of course, word
will surely pass from one person to
another, until such time when the
judge’s image and reputation as one
who can be bribed is almost common
knowledge to lawyers. Unfortunately for
the judge, this may happen, without or
without his/her knowledge and/or
consent.
 There are people in the judge’s circle of
friends and acquaintances that would try
to peddle influence.
Q: What then could the judge do to
prevent this danger?
A: The answer is in Sec. 4. Judges shall
not allow family, social and other
relationships to influence judicial
conduct or judgment.
with, and
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
influence by, the executive and legislative
branches of government, but must also
appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable
observer.
Case: Judge who makes it a point to invite
sangguniang members to his chambers for a
quick chat
SEC. 6. Judges shall be independent in
relation to society in general and in relation
to the particular parties to a dispute which he
or she has to adjudicate.
SEC. 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold
safeguards for the discharge of judicial
duties in order to maintain and enhance the
institutional and operational independence
of the judiciary.
SEC. 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote
high standards of judicial conduct in order to
reinforce public confidence in the judiciary,
which is fundamental to the maintenance of
judicial independence.
CANON 2
INTEGRITY
SEC. 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is
their conduct above reproach, but that it is
perceived to be so in the view of a
reasonable observer.
 Judges have been disciplined for lack of
good moral character, both in their
public and private capacities
 Accepting bribes; going to cockpits,
casinos, racetracks to bet on horses;
fraternizing with litigants and their
lawyers; delay in rendering decisions,
ignorance of law
 Case: A judge was spotted in the
casino. His defense was: he was just
accompanying his wife who enjoys
plaing in the casino. He did not even
play. SC said it is not a proper
defense.The facts that there is the
appearance of lack of integrity
 Ignorance of the law- it is a mark of lack
of incompetence. It is also a mark of
lack of integrity, when the law is so
elementary. WHY? It is either the judge
is too incompetent and undeserving of
the title that he holds or he is too vivious
Page 5
that the oversight was deliberately done
resulting to the travesty of justice.
 Other examples” judges who misapplied
indeterminate sentence law, imprisoning
a person in a civil case
SEC. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges
must reaffirm the people’s faith in the
integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not
merely be done but must also be seen to be
done.
 Judges must not only render just,
correct and impartial decisions, but must
do so in a manner free of any suspicion
as to their fairness, impartiality and
integrity.
 A magistrate of the law must comport
himself at all times in such manner that
his conduct, official or otherwise, can
bear the most searching scrutiny of
public that looks up to him as the
epitome of integrity and justice. (Lachica
v. Flordeliza, 254 SCRA 278)
SEC. 3. Judges should take or initiate
appropriate disciplinary measures against
lawyers or court personnel for
unprofessional conduct of which the judge
may have become aware.
 Judges are administrators and
protectors of the administration of
justice. Their vigilance should go
beyond themselves, but also to their
staff, subordinates, and to the lawyers
who are officers of the court.
 A judge should only render a just,
correct and impartial decision but should
do so in such a manner as to be free
from any suspicion as to its fairness and
impartiality and as to his integrity.
CANON 3
IMPARTIALITY
SECTION 1. Judges shall perform their
judicial duties without favor, bias or
prejudice.
What is required of judges is OBJECTIVITY. An
independent judiciary does not mean that judges
can resolve specific disputes entirely as they
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
please. These are limits to judges’ adjudication.
They cannot innovate at pleasure. A judge is not
a knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his
own idea of beauty or goodness. He is not to
yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and
unregulated benevolence. And although a
speedy determination of an action implies a
speedy trial, speed is not the chief objective of a
trial. (State Prosecutors v. Muro, 251 SCRA
111)
SECTION 2. Judges shall ensure that his or
her conduct, both in and out of court,
maintains and enhances the confidence of
the public, the legal profession and litigants
in the impartiality of the judge and of the
judiciary.
 There is a high price in exchange of the
judge’s exalted judicial position.
 Judges should be like Caesar’s wife,
should be above suspicion
 Family, social and other relationships
should not influence the judge
Demeanor in social functions
A judge’s inebriated demeanor and
incoherent behavior during festivities is
reprehensible. A judge who yields to the
strength of the “spirits” and acts like an
uninhibited drunkard in a public place demeans
his judicial office, strips himself of his dignity as
a man and disrobes the court of the respect of
the people it serves. (Lachica v. Flordeliza, 254
SCRA 278)
SECTION 3. Judges shall, so far as is
reasonable, so conduct themselves as to
minimize the occasions on which it will be
necessary for them to be disqualified from
hearing or deciding cases.
 Judges should regulate their business,
social and other extra-judicial activities
to avoid possible disqualification from
hearing cases.
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1452 April 6, 2005
The judge acted as broker together with the
complainant in the sale of lots to the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Inc.
“By allowing himself to act as agent in the sale
of the subject property, respondent judge has
increased the possibility of his disqualification to
Page 6
act as an impartial judge in the event that a
dispute involving the said contract of sale arises.
Also, the possibility that the parties to the sale
might plead before his court is not remote and
his business dealings with them might not only
create suspicion as to his fairness but also to his
ability to render it in a manner that is free from
any suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality
and also as to the judge’s integrity.”
SECTION 4. Judges shall not knowingly,
while a proceeding is before, or could come
before, make any comment that might
reasonably be expected to affect the
outcome of such proceeding or impair the
manifest fairness of the process. Nor shall
judges make any comment in public or
otherwise that might affect the fair trial of
any person or issue.
 Judges should avoid publicity for
personal vainglory
 Trial by publicity: There must be
allegation and proof that the court has
been unduly influenced by the barrage
of publicity.

In every litigation, the manner and attitude of a
judge are crucial to everyone concerned. He
should, in the performance of his functions,
avoid side remarks, hasty conclusions, loose
statements or gratuitous utterances that could
form the basis for erroneous impressions in the
mind of those who hear them and who may
conclude that he is prejudging the case or the
issues that come before him. (Castillo v. Juan,
62 SCRA 124)
SECTION 5. Judges shall disqualify
themselves from participating in any
proceedings in which they are unable to
decide the matter impartially or in which it
may appear in a reasonable observer that
they are unable to decide the matter
impartially. Such proceedings include, but
are not limited to instances where:
(a) The judge has actual bias or prejudice
concerning a party or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceedings;
(b) The judge previously served as a lawyer
or was a material witness in the matter in
controversy;
(c) The judge, or a member of his or her
family, has an economic interest in the
outcome of the matter in controversy;
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
st
 1 par., Sec. 1, Rule 137: mandatory
disqualification
 2nd par., Sec. 2, Rule 137: voluntary
inhibition
- Strictly a matter of conscience
- Standard to be followed by judge:
Whether a losing party could entertain a
reasonable belief that the judge was
partial to the prevailing party. It is not
whether the judge was actually partial or
not.
- Examples: utang na loob, the counsel is
also the judge’s counsel in a separate
case, analogous instances
- Not grounds for voluntary inhibition:
counsel for a party has filed an
administrative case against the judge,
mere friendship, counsel is a class mate
of the judge
- Voluntary inhibition cannot be compelled
by mandamus
GR: Voluntary inhibition cannot be compelled by
mandamus.
Exc: While, ordinarily, mandamus will not
prosper to compel a discretionary act, the writ
shall issue in instances of gross abuse of
discretion, manifest injustice or palpable excess
of authority, equivalent to denial of a settled right
to which petitioner is entitled; and when there is
no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
This Court has recognized that “[a] judge’s
decision to refuse to act on account of some
disqualification is not conclusive, and his
competency may be determined on an
application for mandamus to compel him to act.”
(Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning
Inc., G.R. No. 160966. October 11, 2005.)
 The judges’ right, however, must be
weighed against their duty to decide
cases without fear of repression. Verily,
the second paragraph of Section 1 of
Rule 137 does not give judges the
unfettered discretion to decide whether
to desist from hearing a case. The
inhibition must be for just and valid
causes. The mere imputation of bias or
partiality is not enough ground for them
to inhibit, especially when the charge is
without basis. (Pagoda Philippines, Inc.
v. Universal Canning Inc., G.R. No.
160966. October 11, 2005.)
Page 7
 In his questioned Order of Inhibition,
Judge Eugenio himself satisfactorily
clarified his actuations and the
circumstances leading to the issuance
of the questioned injunction and Oder of
dismissal. Obviously not believing that
he had been motivated by bias or
prejudice, he nonetheless granted
petitioner’s Motion to Inhibit.
Understandably, he did so with the
intention to uphold the integrity of the
judiciary as an institution worthy of
public trust and confidence. Under the
circumstances, however, to affirm his
Order of Inhibition would open the
floodgates to a form of forum-shopping,
in which litigants would be allowed to
shop for a judge more sympathetic to
their cause. Such action would be
antithetical to the speedy and fair
administration of justice. Pagoda
Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning
Inc., G.R. No. 160966. October 11,
2005.)
Barnes v. Reyes, et. Al., G.R. No. 179583.
September 3, 2009.
 In the case at bar, petitioner, aside from
his bare allegations, has not shown that
Judge Quijano-Padilla had been biased
and partial against a particular party in
the proceedings in Civil Case No. Q-99-
37219.
 The judge even acknowledged in the
inhibitory order that the motion for her
disqualification contained no statement
of specific act or acts that would show
her partiality or bias in the treatment of
the case.
 Her voluntary inhibition was only on
account of dispelling any doubt and
perception of bias on the part of
petitioner. Clearly, therefore, no just and
valid reason supports the inhibition of
Judge Quijano-Padilla.
 The fact that Judge Quijano-Padilla
ruled adversely against petitioner, is not
enough reason, absent any extrinsic
evidence of malice or bad faith, to
conclude that the judge was biased a nd
partial against petitioner. As this Court
has emphasized in Webb v. People, the
remedy of erroneous interlocutory
rulings in the course of a trial is not the
outright disqualification of a judge, for
there is yet to come a judge with the
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
omniscience to issue rulings that are
always infallible. The courts will close
shop if we disqualify judges who err, for
we all err.
Martinez v. Gironella G.R. No. L-37635. July 22.
1975.
In a judgment acquitting the accused as
an accessory to a murder case, respondent
judge expressed the conclusion that it was
petitioner, the principal accused, who committed
the offense. He was led to do so, as pointed out,
in view of evidence presented at the former trial
where petitioner, who had not been
apprehended at the time, was unable to confront
the witnesses or to submit evidence in his
behalf. In the trial of petitioner, the judge
entertains no doubt that he could decide the
case fairly, uninfluenced by his previous explicit
declaration attributing the offense to him.
SECTION 6. A judge disqualified as stated
above may, instead of withdrawing from the
proceeding, disclose on the records the
basis of disqualification. If, based on such
disclosure, the parties and lawyers
independently of the judge’s participation, all
agree in writing that the reason for the
inhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial, the
judge may then participate in the proceeding.
The agreement, signed by all parties and
lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record
of the proceedings.
Requisites for Remittal of Disqualification
 Parties and their lawyers agree
independently of the judge’s
participation
 Reason for inhibition is immaterial or
unsubstantial
 Agreement reduced to writing, signed by
parties and lawyers, entered upon the
records of the case
CANON 4
PROPRIETY
SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety
and the appearance of impropriety in all their
activities.
Examples:
 Photos of Judge and subordinate going
out of hotel.
 Judge heard a motion while on vacation,
in his room, wearing a polo jacket.
Page 8
 Judge privately met litigant in a resort.
 Judge held office and conducted
hearings at his residence.
 Judge held hand of his interpreter
(distant relative), kissed by her lips, as
he missed it for she wiggled out.
SECTION 2. As a subject of constant public
scrutiny, judges must accept personal
restrictions that might be viewed as
burdensome by the ordinary citizen and
should do so freely and willingly. In
particular, judges conduct themselves in a
way that is consistent with the dignity of the
judicial office.
Ex. Use of intemperate language, getting drunk
in a party, judge who confronted former
boyfriend and the latter’s female companion in a
restaurant
A judge should regulate his activities to minimize
the risk of conflict with judicial duties (Canon 5,
CJC)
 Extrajudicial activities:
 Vocational, civic and charitable
activities
 Financial activities
 Fiduciary activities
 Practice of law and other
profession
 Extra-judicial appointments
 Political activities
Vocational, Civic and Charitable Activities
 Write, lecture, teach, speak on non-legal
subjects
 Engage in sports, arts and other
recreational activities
 Officer, director, trustee, or non-legal
advisor of a non-profit, non-political,
educational, religious, charitable,
fraternal, civic organization
 Must not conflict or degrade judicial
functions
Financial Activities
 Refrain from business dealings that will
affect partiality, or interfere with the
performance of judicial functions, or
increase involvement with lawyers or
persons likely to come before the court
 Should not server as officer, director,
manager, advisor, or employee of any
business EXCEPT AS DIRECTOR OF
A FAMILY BUSINESS
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
 Should not use judicial information for
business
 Should not acquire property or rights in
litigation (Art. 1491, CC)
 Must make full financial disclosure
Fiduciary Activities
 Judge may serve as executor,
administrator, trustee, guardian or other
fiduciary ONLY FOR THE ESTATE,
TRUST OR PERSON of a member of
the immediate family, and when only if
such service will not interfere with the
proper performance of judicial duties
 Immediate family – spouse and relatives
within the second civil degree of
consanguinity (Rule 5.06, old CJC)
Practice of Law or Other Profession
 No private practice of law
 Other professions, unless prohibited by
the Constitution or law PROVIDED that
such will not conflict with judicial
functions
 MTC judge as notary public?
Notary Public Ex Officio
 Engage in the notarization of documents
connected with the exercise of their
official functions
 In far-flung municipalities where there
are no lawyers or notaries public, MTC
Judge can perform any act within the
competence of a regular Notary Public
as long as:
 All notarial fees shall be for the
Government and turned over to
the Municipal Treasurer; and
 Certification be made in the
notarized documents attesting
to the lack of any lawyer/NP in
such locality.
Non-judicial Appointments
 Judges cannot accept appointment or
designation to any agency performing
quasi-judicial or administrative functions
 In Re Designation of Judge Manzano:
The SC did not allow judge’s
membership in the Ilocos Norte
Provincial Committee on Justice, which
was an administrative body.
Political Activities
 Judge should not make political
speeches, contribute to party funds,
Page 9
publicly endorse candidates for political
office or participate in other partisan
political activities.
SECTION 3. Judges shall, in their personal
relations with individual members of the
legal profession who practice regularly in
their court, avoid situations which might
reasonably give rise to the suspicion or
appearance of favoritism or partiality.
Ex. Judge who has coffee with Sanggunian
members who appear before his sala; asking for
aircon, tables or chairs
SECTION 4. Judges shall not participate in
the determination of a case in which any
member of their family represents a litigant
or is associated in any manner with the case.
Family – sixth civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity, or person who is a companion or
employee of the judge and who lives in the
judge’s household
SECTION 6. Judges, like any other citizen,
are entitled to freedom of expression, belief,
association and assembly, but in exercising
such rights, they shall always conduct
themselves in such a manner as to preserve
the dignity of the judicial office and the
impartiality and independence of the
judiciary.
Ex. Order: respondent is a self-ordained public
tyrant, with a contaminated mind and assuming
the position of a crocodile
SECTION 8. Judges shall not use or lend the
prestige of the judicial office to advance their
private interests, or those of a member of
their family or of anyone else, nor shall they
convey or permit others to convey the
impression that anyone is in a special
position improperly to influence them in the
performance of judicial duties
.
 Ex. Judge filed a case for estafa in his
own sala, and then issued a warrant of
arrest against the accused; Judge
posted advertisements for restaurant
personnel, interviewing in court
(improper use of court facilities for
promotion of business interests)
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
SEC. 9. Confidential information acquired by
judges in their judicial capacity shall not be
used or disclosed for any other purpose
related to their judicial duties.
Ex. Releasing or leaking draft decisions;
Releasing court orders not thru the proper
dockets; Allowing spouse to read case files
SEC. 11. Judges shall not practice law whilst
the holder of judicial office.
SEC. 12. Judges may form or join
associations of judges or participate in other
organizations representing the interests of
judges.
SEC. 13. Judges and members of their
families shall neither ask for, nor accept, any
gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to
anything done or to be done or omitted to be
done by him or her in connection with the
performance of judicial duties.
Cf.: direct bribery; indirect bribery, RA 3019, RA
6713
SEC. 14. Judges shall not knowingly permit
court staff or others subject to their
influence, direction or authority, to ask for,
or accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in
relation to anything done or to be done or
omitted to be done in connection with their
duties or functions.
SEC. 15. Subject to law and to any legal
requirements of public disclosure, judges
may receive a token gift, award or benefit as
appropriate to the occasion on which it is
made, provided that such gift, award or
benefit might not reasonably be perceived as
intended to influence the judge in the
performance of judicial duties or otherwise
give rise to an appearance of partiality.
Sec. 7 (d), RA 6713. Solicitation or acceptance
of gifts. - Public officials and employees shall not
solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift,
gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of
monetary value from any person in the course of
their official duties or in connection with any
operation being regulated by, or any transaction
which may be affected by the functions of their
office.
Ex. A judge accepted free use, for a year, of a
car, and availed for free of battery recharging
Page
10
services of the shop of a litigant who has a
pending case before him (Capuno vs. Jaramillo,
Jr. 234 SCRA 212)
CANON 5
EQUALITY
SEC. 1. Judges shall be aware of, and
understand, diversity in society and
differences arising from various sources,
including but not limited to race, color, sex,
religion, national origin, caste, disability,
age, marital status, sexual orientation, social
and economic status and other like causes.
 There is no prohibition against
differentiation. What is prohibited is
differentiation on improper or irrelevant
grounds.
 Differentiation on the basis of Sex:
Right to vote?
Right to education?
Practice of Profession?
Maternity Leave/Paternity Leave
 Differentiation on the basis of Religion:
Flag raising and lowering ceremonies
Christian and Muslim holidays
 Differentiation on he basis of Marital
Status:
Solo Parents’ Leave
 Differentiation on the basis of Age:
Juvenile Justice Welfare Act
Senior Citizens’ Act
 Differentiation on the basis of Disabilty
Magna Carta Act for Disabled Persons
 Can body size be a cause for
termination of employment?
Yrasuegui vs. PAL: 217 lb flight
attendant
 Flight safety is crucial in the airline
business. Cabin attendants must
maintain agility at all times to inspire
passenger confidence.
 Passenger safety goes to the core
of the job of a cabin attendant. On
board an aircraft, the body weight
and size of a cabin attendant are
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
important factors to consider in case
of emergency.
 Aircrafts have constricted cabin
space, and narrow aisles and exit
doors.
 The biggest problem with an
overweight cabin attendant is the
possibility of impeding passengers
from evacuating the aircraft, should
the occasion call for it. The job of a
cabin attendant during emergencies
is to speedily get the passengers
out of the aircraft safely. Being
overweight necessarily impedes
mobility. Indeed, in an emergency
situation, seconds are what cabin
attendants are dealing with, not
minutes. Three lost seconds can
translate into three lost
lives. Evacuation might slow down
just because a wide-bodied cabin
attendant is blocking the narrow
aisles. These possibilities are not
remote.
SEC. 2. Judges shall not, in the performance
of judicial duties, by words or conduct,
manifest bias or prejudice towards any
person or group on irrelevant grounds.
 Gender sensitivity
 ICCs and IPs
SEC. 3. Judges shall carry out judicial duties
with appropriate consideration for all
persons, such as the parties, witnesses,
lawyers, court staff and judicial colleagues,
without differentiation on any irrelevant
ground, immaterial to the proper
performance of such duties.
 Judges should treat everyone fairly.
They should not fall into the mindframe
that litigants are made for the courts,
rather than the courts are made for the
litigants.
 Judges should treat witnesses fairly,
especially child witnesses
Are judges allowed to treat new lawyers
differently?
 A judge should be courteous to counsel,
especially to those who are young and
inexperienced xxx. (Canon 10, Canons
of Judicial Ethics)
Page
11
 A judge should be patient, attentive and
courteous ro lawyers, especially the
inexperienced, xxx (Rule 3.04, Canons
of Judicial Conduct)
SEC. 4. Judges shall not knowingly permit
court staff or others subject to his or her
influence, direction or control to differentiate
between persons concerned, in a matter
before the judge, on any irrelevant ground.
SEC. 5. Judges shall require lawyers in
proceedings before the court to refrain from
manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or
prejudice based on irrelevant grounds,
except such as are legally relevant to an
issue in proceedings and may be the subject
of legitimate advocacy.
 Sexist and racist comments in a
pleading
 Making a mockery of a woman’s good
looks and body parts
 Making jokes during wedding ceremony
CANON 6
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
SEC. 1. The judicial duties of a judge take
precedence over all other activities.
SEC. 2. Judges shall devote their
professional activity to judicial duties, which
include not only the performance of judicial
functions and responsibilities in court and
the making of decisions, but also other tasks
relevant to the judicial office or the court’s
operations.
 Administrative functions (e.g. file and
record-keeping, supervision of court
personnel)
 Judge was disciplined for lost case
records and missing case exhibits.
SEC. 3. Judges shall take reasonable steps
to maintain and enhance their knowledge,
skills and personal qualities necessary for
the proper performance of judicial duties,
taking advantage for this purpose of the
training and other facilities which should be
made available, under judicial control, to
judges.
 Judges should keep abreast of law and
jurisprudence
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
 In deciding cases, it is the judge’s duty
to follow the doctrines and rulings of the
Supreme Court, Any deviation from this
rules may have detrimental
consequence beyond the immediate
controversy. (Canon 18, CJE)
 Thus, if he feels that a law or doctrine
enunciated by the SC is against his way
of reasoning or his conscience, he may
state his personal opinion on the matter
but should decide the case in
accordance with the law or doctrine and
not with his personal views.
 Judges should not allow their personal
beliefs and convictions prevail over
settled jurisprudence.
 2006 case (JFF)
 rendering decisions pursuant to the
directions of dwarves named Luis,
Armand and Angel
 having healing sessions in his
courtroom,
 writing decisions while in a trance
 changing color of his robes to
recharge his psychic powers
 Ignorance of the law is the mainspring of
injustice, as well as corruptions;
disrespect and loss of confidence on the
courts will result if judges are ignorant
(Those who wield the judicial gavel have
the duty to study our laws and their
latest wrinkles.)
 CF to pertinent RPC provisions:
Knowingly rendering unjust judgment;
Judgment rendered through negligence;
Unjust interlocutory order; Malicious
delay in the administration of justice
 However, judge is not disciplined for
mere error. To be liable, such error must
constitute gross ignorance of the law,
bad faith, dishonesty, hatred, or some
other like motive. (DOCTRINE OF
JUDICIAL IMMUNITY)
SEC. 4. Judges shall keep themselves
informed about relevant developments of
international law, including international
conventions and other instruments
establishing human rights norms.
 Generally accepted principles of
international law are part of the law of
the land
SEC. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial
duties, including the delivery of reserved
Page
12
decisions, efficiently, fairly and with
reasonable promptness.
 This includes the utilization or pre-trial
and discovery procedures
 Period to render decisions: SC- 24
months; lower collegiate courts- 12
months; other lower courts- 3 months
 If for some valid reason a judge cannot
decide a case within the period, he must
request the SC for an extension of time
to resolve it. (Report on the Spot
Judicial Audit Conducted in the MTC, Br
40, Quezon City, 331 SCRA 627)
 Certificate of Service- “no pending
cases which have not been resolved
after 90 days”
- Pre-requisite to receiving salary
 A judge who fails to decide who falls to
decide cases within the required period
and continues to collect his salaries
upon his certification that he has no
pending matter to resolve beyond the
required period transgresses the
constitutional right of the people of the
people to a speedy disposition of cases
 Good faith and lack of malicious intent
to commit an infraction does not
completely free a judge from liability
 Penalties range from reprimand to
dismissal depending upon the
environmental circumstances.
 Most of the dismissals were the result of
gross and inexcusable negligence or
because of the use of falsified
certificates of service to camouflage the
delay in disposition of cases.
 Excuses for delay NOT given credence:
 Clogged dockets (judges should ask
for extension of time)
 Delay in the transcription of
stenographic notes
 Inefficiency or mismanagement od
court personnal
 Should express clearly and distinctly
the facts and the laws on which they are
based
Rationale: to show full understanding of
the case, avoid suspicion, promote
confidence in the judge’s intellectual
integrity ad contribute useful precedent
to the growth of the law
SEC. 6. Judges shall maintain order and
decorum in all proceedings before the court
and be patient, dignified and courteous in
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and
others with whom the judge deals in an
official capacity. Judges shall require similar
conduct of legal representatives, court staff
and others subject to their influence,
direction or control.
 Judges should not resort to
tempestuous means to maintain order in
the court (e.g. wielding firearms,
compelling witness to swallow chewing
gum, shouting)
 In the administration of his court, a
judge should insist on proper conduct
and performance of functions by his
clerks, staff and subordinates.
SEC. 7. Judges shall not engage in conduct
incompatible with the diligent discharge of
judicial duties.
Ex. Holding hearings only on Mondays-
Wednesdays, then going home the rest of the
week (Home: Paranaque; Court: Balanga
Bataan)
Having Wednesday declared as “midweek
pause” (no hearing for this day)
ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY OF JUDGES
The administrative cases against judges are
classified into 3: a) Serious b) Less Serious and
c) Slight
Q: Why do we have such classification? A: The
imposable penalty will differ.
 Sec. 2, Art XI, Constitution
 Culpable Violation of the
Constitution
 Treason
 Bribery
 Graft and Corruption
 Other High Crimes
 Betrayal of Public Trust
Via IMPEACHMENT
SEC. 8, R140. Serious charges. - Serious
charges include:
1. Bribery, direct or indirect;
2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A.
No. 3019);
3. Gross misconduct constituting
violations of the Code of Judicial
Conduct;
Page
13
4. Knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment or order as determined by a
competent court in an appropriate
proceeding;
5. Conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude;
6. Willful failure to pay a just debt;
7. Borrowing money or property from
lawyers and litigants in a case pending
before the court;
8. Immorality;
9. Gross ignorance of the law or
procedure;
10. Partisan political activities; and
11. Alcoholism and/or vicious habits.
Take Note of No. 1 and 2. Aside of being
administrative charged it can also be the basis
of criminal liability because if all the element of
the crime are there. Then the judge will also be
criminally liable.
Bribery
 Judge caught in an entrapment
receiving bribe money. DISMISSED.
(NBI vs Reyes, 326 SCRA 109)
 False testimony by a judge in a judicial
proceeding
 False testimony in application to
judiciary that he has no pending case
Q: Do we have to wait for a conviction in
a bribery case? A: No need because
there is different quantum of proof in
criminal and administrative cases. It is
possible for a judge to be acquitted in
criminal case but found guilty in
administrative case.
Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order
 There must be a prior final finding or
determination by the appellate court that
the judge has indeed committed the
proscribed act in an appeal from the
judgment or special civil action
challenging the order.
 It is premature to file an administrative
complaint when the appeal or special
civil action is still pending resolution by
the reviewing court
Gross Misconduct
 The misconduct must be serious, that is,
weighty, momentous, and not trifling.
For serious misconduct to exist, there
must be reliable evidence showing that
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
the judicial acts complained of were
corrupt or inspired by an intention to
violate the law, or were in persistent
disregard of well-known legal rules. (In
Re Horilleno, 43 Phil. 212)
Q: What if the misconduct is just simple? Is the
judge of the hook?
A: Not really because simple misconduct is a
less serious charge but it is not classified as a
serious charge.
2 kind of misconduct: Gross misconduct and
simple misconduct
Both involve violation of well-entrenched rules,
they involve unlawful behavior etc.
Q: What sets them apart?
A: Gross misconduct is that the act must be
tainted with malice, ill motives, corruption and
other unlawful motives. Without such then it can
be consider as a simple misconduct.
Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude
 Conviction shows that the judge is unfit
to discharge his judicial functions , or
that he is no longer of good moral
character.
Q: What is the effect of Moral turpitude?
A: May carry with it the penalty of civil
interdiction.
Q: What is the effect of civil interdiction?
A: You cannot manage your property, cannot
enter into a contracts. Aside from the obvious
lack of good moral character. This may carry
with the accessory penalty of civil interdiction.
Examples of Serious/ Grave Misconduct:
 Misappropriation of cash bail bond
 Decision not personally prepared by the
judge
 Immorality
 Voyeurism
 Having a jeep n custodial egis
repainted, which was evidence in a
robbery case in his sale and changed its
color and used it for personal benefit
Gross Inefficiency:
 Unfamiliarity with procedure
 Lost records and exhibits
Gross Ignorance of the Law/ Procedure
 Issuing warrant of arrest in a civil case
Page
14
 Misapplication of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law
Q: How was this proven in this case? A:
They just compiled random judgments
of the judge in criminal cases. It is
proven that he really does not know
Indeterminate Sentence Law. Hence,
gross ignorance of the law.
 Granting bail in non-bailable offense
 Looking for proof of malice in a
prosecution for offense which is malum
prohibitum
 Fixing a ridiculously small amount bail
which enabled accused to escape
Sec.9, R140. Less Serious Charges. - Less
serious charges include:
1. Undue delay in rendering a decision
or order, or in transmitting the records of
a case;
2. Frequently and unjustified absences
without leave or habitual tardiness;
3. Unauthorized practice of law;
4. Violation of Supreme Court rules,
directives, and circulars;
5. Receiving additional or double
compensation unless specifically
authorized by law;
6. Untruthful statements in the certificate
of service; and
7. Simple Misconduct.
SEC. 10. Light Charges. – Light charges
include:
1. Vulgar and unbecoming conduct;
2. Gambling in public;
3. Fraternizing with lawyers and litigants with
pending case/cases in his court; and
4. Undue delay in the submission of monthly
reports.
Q: What are the penalties?
Section 11, Rule 140. SEC. 11. Sanctions. –
A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge,
any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or
part of the benefits as the Court may determine,
and disqualification from reinstatement or
appointment to any public office, including
government-owned or controlled corporations.
Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits
shall in no case include accrued leave credits; 2.
Suspension from office without salary and other
benefits for more than three (3) but not
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
exceeding six (6) months; or 3. A fine of more
than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00
B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious
charge, any of the following sanctions shall be
imposed:
1. Suspension from office without salary and
other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more
than three (3) months; or 2. A fine of more than
P10,000.00 but not exceeding
P20,000.00.cralaw
C. If the respondent is guilty of a light charge,
any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
1. A fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not
exceeding P10,000.00 and/or
2. Censure;
3. Reprimand;
4. Admonition with warning.
Confidentiality of Proceedings
 Sec.12, R140. Proceedings shall be
confidential but a copy of the decision or
resolution by the Court shall be attached
to the record of the respondents in the
Office of the Court Administrator
The proceedings are confidential.
Q: If it is confidential, why are we reading it in
the SCRA, why is it being published?
A: Only the proceedings are confidential, but the
decisions are promulgated.
Q:What is the reason behind the confidentiality
of proceeding?
A: This is to protect the name of the respondent
judge. Because there is an acknowledgment are
there for harassment and other causes. If you
allow the proceeding to be in public, it can
tarnish the reputation of the judge. It does not
matter if the judge is absolved or what the
outcome is, there is already on the part of judge.
That is why only the decision is being published
because it includes the facts, issues and
decisions of the court
Erroneous action per se is not a ground for
administrative liability.
Q: What is the remedy against erroneous
action?
A: Appeal, Motion for reconsideration, Petition
for review or certiorari BUT not administrative
liability. For there to be a case of administrative
Page
15
liability, the erroneous decision must be
accompanied by gross ignorance of the law,
corruption, dishonesty, fraud and etc. Without
those evil motives, judges cannot be found
administratively liable based on erroneous
decision.
Quantum of Proof / Burden of Proof
In administrative proceedings, the
quantum of proof required to establish a
respondents malfeasance is not proof
beyond reasonable doubt but
substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of
relevant evidence that a reasonable
mine might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion, is required. More
importantly, in administrative
proceedings, the complainant has the
burden of proving by substantial
evidence to the contrary, the
presumption that the respondent has
regularly performed his duties will
prevail. Indeed, if a respondent judge or
a court employee should be disciplined
for a grave offense, the evidence
against him should be competent and
derived from direct knowledge. Charges
based on mere suspicion and
speculation cannot be given credence.
(Planas vs. Judge Reyes, A.M. RTJ-05-
1905. February 23, 2005)
Res Ipsa Loquitur
 Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur,
the Court may impose its authority upon
eering judges whose actuations, on their
face, woud show gross incompetence,
ignorance of the law or misconduct.
(Macalintal vs. Judge The, A.M. No.
RTJ-97-1375)
SC ADM. CIRCULAR NO. 1, JANUARY 28,
1988
 All judges are reminded that the
Supreme Court has applied the “Res
Ipsa Loquitur” rule in the removal of
judges even without any formal
investigation whenever a decision, on its
face, indicates gross incompetence or
gross ignorance of the law or gross
misconduct.( See people vs.
Valenzuela, 135 SCRA 712; Cathay
Pacific Airways Vs. Romillo, Jr.,142
SCRA 262; In re Laureta, 149)
RTC, Sandiganbayan, CTA, CA Justices
– removed from the judiciary
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
membership in the bar is an essential
qualification
 On SC Justices – cannot be removed
via disbarment proceedings. A contrary
rule would allow an indirect violation of
the Constitutional provision that SC
Justices are removable only by
impeachment.
A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, 1 Oct 2002 AUTOMATIC
CONVERSION
 Some administrative cases are
based on grounds which are
likewise grounds for the disciplinary
action of members of the Bar for
violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, the
Code of Professional Responsibility;
and the Canons of Professional
Ethics, or for such other forms of
breaches of conduct that have been
traditionally recognized as grounds
for the discipline of lawyers.
 In any of the foregoing instances,
the administrative case shall also be
considered a disciplinary action
against the respondent justice,
judge or court official concerned as
a member of the Bar. The
respondent may forthwith be
required to comment on the
complaint and show cause why he
should not also be suspended,
disbarred or otherwise disciplinary
sanctioned as a member of the Bar.
Judgment in both respects may be
incorporated in one decision or
resolution.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF JUDGES
 Knowingly rendering unjust
judgment
 Judgment rendered through
negligence
 Knowingly rendering an unjust
interlocutory order or decree
 Malicious delay in the administration
of justice
CIVIL LIABILITY OF JUDGES
 Arts. 19, 20, 27, 32, NCC
DISABILITIES OF JUDGES
 Arts. 1491, NCC – properties and
rights pending ligitation
Page
16
 Arts. 739, NCC – donations to
judge, spouse, descendants,
ascendants by reason of his office
Effect of Withdrawal by Complainant
 To condition administrative actions
upon the will of every complainant,
who may, for one reason or another,
condone a detestable act, it to strip
the Supreme Court of its
supervisory power to discipline
erring members of the judiciary.
Effect of Death of Complainant
 Jurisprudence holds that the death
of the complainant does not warrant
the withdrawal of the charges
against the respondent nor does this
development render the complaint
moot; the complainant is treated
only as a witness in this type of
proceeding. (Mercado vs. Salcedo,
A.M. No. RTJ-03-1781, Oct. 16,
2009)
Effect of Separation or Retirement of
Respondent Judge
 The subsequent retirement
of a judge or any judicial
officer from the service does
not preclude the finding of
any administrative liability to
which he is answerable.
A case becomes moot and
academic only when there
is no more actual
controversy between the
parties or no useful purpose
can be served in passing
upon the merits of the
case. The instant case is
not moot and academic,
despite Justice Reyes’
retirement.
 Even if the most severe of
administrative sanctions
may no longer be imposed,
there are other penalties
which may be imposed if
one is later found guilty of
the administrative offenses
charged, including
the disqualification to hold
any government office and
the forfeiture of benefits. (
IN RE: UNDATED LETTER
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
OF MR. BIRAOGO, AM No.
09-2-19-SC
 The Court retains
jurisdiction either to
pronounce a respondent
official innocent of the
charges or declare him/her
guilty thereof. A contrary
rule would be fraught with
injustice and pregnant with
dreadful and dangerous
implications. For, what
remedy would the people
have against a civil servant
who resorts to wrongful and
illegal conduct during
his/her last days in office?
What would prevent a
corrupt and unscrupulous
government employee from
committing abuses and
other condemnable acts
knowing fully well that
he/she would soon be
beyond the pale of the law
and immune from all
administrative penalties?
 If only for reasons of public
policy, this Court must
assert and maintain its
jurisdiction over members of
the judiciary and other
officials under its
supervision and control for
acts performed in
office which are inimical to
the service and prejudicial
to the interests of litigants
and the general public. If
innocent, a respondent
official merits vindication of
his/her name and integrity
as he leaves the
government which he/she
served well and faithfully; if
guilty, he/she deserves to
receive the corresponding
censure and a penalty
proper and imposable under
the situation.
Effect of Death of Respondent Judge
 The death of the respondent
in an administrative case,
as a rule, does not preclude
a finding of administrative
Page
17
liability. The recognized
exceptions to this rule
are: first, when the
respondent has not been
heard and continuation of
the proceedings would deny
him of his right to due
process; second, where
exceptional circumstances
exist in the case leading to
equitable and humanitarian
considerations; and third,
when the kind of penalty
imposed or imposable
would render the
proceedings useless.
(Mercado vs. Salcedo, AM
No. RTJ-03-1781, Oct. 16,
2009)
Mitigating Circumstances
 complaint acts committed
prior to his admission to the
judiciary
 failing health
 old age
 lack of stenographer
 first offense
 long and exemplary service
 acknowledgement of fault
 apology
Q: How will the mitigating circumstances
affect the case? Ø It could lower the
penalty but the computation is not very
scientific unlike in criminal law (one
degree lower,etc) Ø In administrative
cases, the SC has a lot of latitude in
considering the impact of mitigating
circumstances. So the SC can say that
instead of dismissal, suspension can be
ordered because of apology.
CASES:
In Re: CA Justice Socorro Inting, AM
No. 11-190-CA-J. April 24, 2012
 Complaint: As Justice of the CA,
she should have desisted from
the joining the elections for the
officers and members of the
Boad of Trustees of her
homeowners association and
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
gotten embroiled in the issues
that animated the two groups
which shared the powers of the
associaction, thus getting
drawninto a better litigation
 Held: Joining the judiciary does
not mean that a judge should
live the life of a hermit. The
Code of Judicial Ethics does not
ba him from joining associations
or institutions that pomote the
common good. To be sure, no
social or moral considerations
prevent him from taking active
part in organizations that aim to
promote the welfare of his family
or community, like homeowners
association.
Valdez vs. MeTC Judge Torres, A.M.
No. MTJ-11-1796, June 13, 2012
 Judge failed to decide Civil
Case No. 20191 within the 3-
day period prescribed by the
Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure.
 Judge had already been found
out administrative laible in prior
cases for different administrative
offenses.
 In Lugares v. Gutierres-Torres,
the SC already dismissed
respondent from the service for
gross ineffeiciency, gross
ignorance of the law, dereliction
of duty, and violation of the
Code of Judicial Conduct.
 GUILTY of the less serious
charge of undue delay in
resolving Civil Case No. 20191,
for which she is FINED the
amount of P20,000.00 to be
deducted from her accrued
leave credits, since she had
already been dismissed from
the service.
 Judgment without prejudice to
the outcome of her other
remaining and/or pending
administrative cases.
The Incorporators of Mindanao
Institure Inc. et. al. vs. UCCP et. al.,
GR No. 171765, March 21, 2002
Page
18
 Law firm of Judge’s son entered
appearance as collaborating
counsel in a case before the
Judge.
 Judge Doyon should have
immediately inhibited himself
from the case upon learning of
the entry of appearance of his
son’s law firm. Where the
disqualifying fact is indubitable
and the parties to the case
make no waiver of such
disqualification, as in the case at
bench, Section 1, Rule 137 of
the Rules of Court forthwith
completely strips the judge of
authority to proceed.
Judges: Gross incompetence and
gross inefficiency
Respondent judge failed to decide
102 criminal cases and 43 civil
cases in violation of the Code of
Judicial Conduct. He cannot take
refuge behind the common excuse
of heavy caseload to justify his
failure to decide and resolve cases
promptly. He could have asked the
Court for a reasonable period of
extension to sipose of the cases but
did not. His inefficiency caused not
only necessary financial strain but
also physical and emotional anxiety
to litigants.
 Judge was fined P50,000.00 to
be deducted from his retirement
benefits. (AM No. RTJ-09-2198,
January 18, 2011)
Judges: Gross ignorance of the law
Judge reversed and modified a final
and executor order of the Acting
Judge not upon the instance of any
parties in Civil Case No. 3383-R but
motu proprio in violation of settles
jurisprudence. Respondent failed to
meet the exacting standards of
judicial conduct and integrity. He
has shown himself unworthy of the
judicial robe and place of honor
reserved for guardians of justice.
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
 Judge was dismissed from the
service. (AM No. RTJ-07-2062,
January 18, 2011)
Judges: Gross misconduct
Judge procured from complainant the
building materials he needed for the
construction of his house. He
compromised his position as a judge.
Xxx In such a case his business and
financial dealings with the complainant
would create a doubt about his fairness
and impartiality in deciding the case
would tend to corrode the respect and
dignity of the court.
 Dismissed from the service with
forfeiture of all benefits and with
prejudice to his re-employment
in the government service
including GOCC’s (AM No. RTJ-
09-2198, January 18, 2011)
Judges: Impropriety
Judge sent a letter, in his official
letterhead, to complainant to discuss a
matter pending before his own court.
 For committing acts or
impropriety in violation of the
Code of Judicial Conduct,
respondent judge was fined
P5,000.00. (AM No. RTJ-11-
2267, January 9, 2011)
Judges: Gross misconduct for
violating the Code of Judicial
Conduct
Judge violated specifically Rule 3.02 of
said Canon 3 when he prdered the
implementation of the Order placing the
receivers of the insolvent corporation in
possession of the properties thereof
including those of complainants issued
by his retires predecessor which Order
was declared null and void by the Court
of Appeals and affirmed by the Supreme
Court. He should have read and studied
personally the records of the case page
by page before issuing the said order.
 For gross misconduct,
respondent was fined
25,000.00. (AM No. RTJ-07-
2069, December 14, 2011)
Judge: Gross misconduct
Page
19
Judge (1) talked to a prospective litigant
in his court, (2) recommended the
counsel to handle the case, and (3)
prepared the Motion to withdraw as
counsel of the lawyer he recommended
which pleading was filed in his court and
was acted upon by him.
 Fined 25,000 to be deducted
from his retirement benefits.
(AM No. MTJ-09-1734, January
19, 2011)
Judges: Impropriety and Gross
misconduct
Judge embraced, kissed and sucked
complainant’s breast, touched her
private parts against complainant’s will.
Had respondent not retired, his
misconduct would have merited his
dismissal from the service. However, he
was fined P40,000.00 to be deducted
from his retirement benefits. (AM No.
RTJ-08-2136, September 21, 2010)
Judges: Violation of Section 1, Canon
4, of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct
Respondents judges failed to live up to
the standard of propriety entrenched in
the Code of Judicial Conduct. Shouting
at each other in the workplace and
duing office hours is discourtesy and
disrespect not only towards co-workers,
but also to the court as well. The
behavior of both respondents are totally
unbecoming of members of the judicial
service. What is more detestable is the
fact that their squabble arose out of a
mere allowance coming from the local
government.
 Both respondent judges were
fined P11,000.00 each (AM No.
RTC-08-2124 and AM No. RTC-
08-2125, August 2009)
Judges: Dishonesty and falsification of an
official document
Judge’s act of making an obviously false
statement in his PDS was not mere
inadvertence. He answered “no” to the simple
question posed in the PDS. He answered “no” to
the question “have you ever been charged
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
formally with any infraction?”, but the truth was
he has been charged with an infraction.
 Dismissed from the service with
forefeiture of all benefits with prejudice
to reemployment in the government
service including GOCC’s. Respondent
was also disbarred for violation of
Canons 1 and 2 and Rules 1.01 and
10.01 of the Code of Professional
Resposibility. (AM No. RTJ-08-2138,
August 25, 2009)
Judges: Violation of Canon 2 of the Code of
Judicial Ethics and Rule 2.03 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct
The court’s heading or letterhead, as per Report
of the Court Administrator, serves as a primary
identifier of the office. Written correspondence
bearing the court’s heading gives the impression
that it has the imprimatur of the court, and that
the signatory carries such representation.
Considering this important implication,
scrupulous use of the court’s heading must be
observed at all times.
Respondent used court’s heading in his
personal letter, and unwittingly dragged the
name of the court into his private affairs, giving
the appearance that there is an implied consent
of the court to his cause.
Admonished.
Gross Ignorance of the Law/Procedure
The MTC Judge denied a Motion to Quash the
information for lack of jurisdiction despite the
fact that the salary grade of the accused
employee is 28 and the allegation that the
offense was committed in relation to office thus
falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1857, Nov. 23, 2004
Gross Ignorance
Crime charged is reckless imprudence resulting
in homicide and the judge ordered:
1. The impounding of the bus involved with
directive that it be released only upon
posting of P50,000.00 cash bond;
2. Increased the bond of the accused from
P60,000.00 to P350,000.00 to be posted
cash.
Gross ignorance for the excessive bail imposed
on the accused. The order of impounding is
Page
20
considered as an error of judgment because
there was no SC ruling yet.
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1837. March 23, 2004
Gross Ignorance of the Law
The judge issued a warrant of arrest against the
lawyer of the accused for failure to attend the
promulgation of judgment and directed said
lawyer to remain in jail until the judgment is
promulgated.
A.M. No. RTJ-02-1691. January 16, 2004.
Gross Ignorance of the Law
The judge failed to require the presence of the
accused during the promulgation of judgment.
There are only two (2) instances when the
presence of the accused is not required: (a)
when the judgment is for a light offense, in which
case, the counsel of the accused or a
representative may stand for him; and (b) in
cases where despite due notice to the accused
or his bondsman or warden and counsel, the
accused failed to appear.
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1876. November 9, 2005
Gross Ignorance of the Law/Procedure
The judge cited the complainant for direct
contempt and issued a warrant of arrest against
him recommending no bail. He stayed in
detention for 14 days. Further, the judge also
cited the complainant’s counsel in direct
contempt for attaching to a Motion for Inhibition,
the complainant’s affidavit executed to support
his complaint against the judge and assessed a
fine of P3,000.00.
Sec. 1 Rule 71 provides that if imprisonment is
imposed by the RTC or a period of equivalent
rank the maximum period is 10 days. The order
did not only fail to specify the period, worse the
complainant was detained beyond the maximum
period allowed.
Further, if fine is imposed the maximum amount
is P2,000.00. He imposed an amount beyond
the maximum.
Gross Inefficiency
Additional court assignments or designations
imposed upon a judge do not make him less
liable for any delay in the resolution of pending
cases.
Also, the possibility of the parties to the sale
might plead before his court is not remote and
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
his business dealings with them might not only
create suspicion as to his fairness but also to his
ability to render it in a manner that is free from
any suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality
and also as to the judge’s integrity. A.M. No
RTJ-05-1950. February 13, 2006
Impropriety
A.M. No. MTJ-04-1553. August 18, 2005.
Respondent judge issued 4 checks to
complainant as reimbursement for the
downpayment the latter paid the former relative
to the aborted sale of the judge’s apartment to
her. The checks bounced for insufficiency of
accounts or closure of account. The judge did
not deny said facts and even added in his
comment that “to end this problem” he has
conveyed to complainant parcels of land hence
prayed that the complaint be considered closed
and terminated.
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460. March 31, 2006
Findings:
1. For Simple Misconduct
The judge circulated calling cards bearing the
following: his name as the Presiding Judge of
RTC Br. 73 Malabon City; indication that he is a
“bar exams topnotcher (87.55) and with “full
second honors” from Ateneo De Manila
University, AB and LLB.
Before he starts his court session he is
introduced as a private law practitioner, a
graduate of Ateneo De Manila University with
second honors, and a bar topnotcher during the
1983 Bar examinations with an average score of
87.55%.
Then a reading of the Holy Bible, particularly the
Book of Revelation according to St. John
follows. Then he gives the people in the court
room to the opportunity to ask questions on the
matter read. If no question is asked the session
starts.
There is a violation of Canon 2 Rule 2.02 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct which states that a
judge should not seek publicity for personal
vainglory.
2. Gross ignorance because of 3 fundamental
errors:
a) He ordered the release of accused on
recognizance without the presence of the
prosecutor, thus, depriving the latter of any
opportunity to oppose said release
Page
21
b) He ordered the release without first requiring
the probation officer to render a case study and
investigation report;
c) the order granting the release of the accused
on recognizance was not reduced into writing,
insisting that orders made in open court need
not be reduced into writing.
4. Unbecoming conduct for signing a pleading in
his personal case despite the fact that he had a
lawyer, indication therein that he is presiding
judge of RTC Br. 73 Malabon City and
appending to the pleading a copy of his oath
with a picture of his oath-taking.
“The only logical explanation is that he was
obviously trying to influence or put pressure on a
fellow judge by emphasizing that he himself is a
judge and is thus in the right.”
5. Unbecoming conduct for openly criticizing the
Rules of Court and the Philippine justice system
and for using highly improper and intemperate
language during court proceedings.
Penalty imposed: Fine of P40,000.00 after
taking consideration the fact that he was ne in
the job (inexperienced) when he was slapped
with the charge and considering further that
there was no allegation or proof that he acted in
bad faith or with corn (haha gitabunan ni maam)
motives.
Who can remove judges?
GR: Supreme Court En Banc – penalty to be
imposed is the dismissal of a judge, or
suspension of one year or more or a fine not
exceeding P10,000.00, or both.
Exc: Supreme Court Division
Can IBP investigate judges?
 In Pamatong v. Davide (AC No. 7197,
January 23, 2007), “the Court, by
resolution dated September 5, 2006,
approved in principle the amendment of
SC Circular No. 3-89 such that the IBP
is henceforth required to forward the SC
for appropriate disposition all complaints
for disbarment and discipline filed with
the IBP against all justices and judges,
sitting or retired.
 Otherwise stated, IBP has no
jurisdiction, save only to forward the
case to the SC.
 Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016

RULE 140 , AS AMENDED BY A.M. NO. 01-8-

10-SC, effective October 1, 2001
COMPLAINT

- SC motu proprio
- Verified Complaint
- Anonymous complaint supported by public records of indubitable integrity

If not sufficient in form If sufficient in form and substance

and substance
REQUIRED RESPONDENT TO FILE COMMENT
OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM DATE OF SERVICE

Upon filing Comment or Expiration of time to file Comment unless other pleadings or documents
are required:
ASSIGN TO OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATOR for evaluation report and recommendation;
OR
ASSIGN TO:
> Retired SC Justice - CA and Sandiganbayan Justice
> CA Justice – RTC (special courts of equivalent rank)
> RTC Judge – inferior courts

HEARING: may be done ex parte

Terminated within 90 days from commencement

Within 30 days from termination of hearing:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION

SC ACTION

Page
22
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
LEGAL ETHICS
 Legal Ethics- Branch of moral science
which treats of the duties which an
attorney owes to the court, to his client,
to his colleagues in the profession and
to the public as emobodied in the
Constitution, Rules of Court, The Code
of Professional Responsibility, Canons
of Professional Ethics, jurisprudence,
moral law and special laws.
 Duties of an Attorney:
- These which he owes to the:
1. Public
2. Court
3. Bar
4. Client
 Section 20, Rule 138. Rules of Court,
Duties of attorneys
Section 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is
the duty of an attorney:
(a) To maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines and to
support the Constitution and obey the
laws of the Philippines.
(b) To observe and maintain the respect
due to the courts of justice and judicial
officers;
(c) To counsel or maintain such actions
or proceedings only as appear to him to
be just, and such defenses only as he
believes to be honestly debatable under
the law.
(d) To employ, for the purpose of
maintaining the causes confided to him,
such means only as are consistent with
truth and honor, and never seek to
mislead the judge or any judicial officer
by an artifice or false statement of fact
or law;
(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence,
and at every peril to himself, to preserve
the secrets of his client, and to accept
no compensation in connection with his
Page
23
client's business except from him or with
his knowledge and approval;
(f) To abstain from all offensive
personality and to advance no fact
prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a
party or witness, unless required by the
justice of the cause with which he is
charged;
(g) Not to encourage either the
commencement or the continuance of
an action or proceeding, or delay any
man's cause, from any corrupt motive or
interest;
(h) Never to reject, for any consideration
personal to himself, the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed;
(i) In the defense of a person accused of
crime, by all fair and honorable means,
regardless of his personal opinion as to
the guilt of the accused, to present
every defense that the law permits, to
the end that no person may be deprived
of life or liberty, but by due process of
law.
 Privileges of an Attorney
- First grade civil service eligibility
for any position in the classified
service in the government, the
duties of which require the
knowledge of law
- Second grade civil service
eligibility for any other government
position which does not prescribe
proficiency in law as a qualification
 Importance of Legal Ethics
- The highest moral and ethical
standards should be maintained so
that the people will continue their
trust in lawyers and in the role they
play in the administration of justice
- Consequently, the continued
existence of the legal profession is
ensured
 Primary Characteristics which
Distinguish the Legal Profession
from Business
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
- Duty of Public Service of which,
emolument is a by-product
- Lawyer is an officer of the court
- The fiduciary relationship to the
client
- Candor, fairness to colleagues in
the bar
 Can Corporations Practice Law?
- No.
- The practice of law is reserved only
to natural persons who are lawyers
either as solo practitioners or in
partnership with other lawyers
- The law, in fact prohibits a business
or commercial partnership or
juridical entity to engage in the
practice of law, the reason being
that a commercial partnership or
juridical entity, by the very nature of
the practice of law cannot possess
nor comply with the qualifications
and requirements of a lawyer. (Sec.
1, Rule 138 ROC; Re Coop Co, 198
NY 479, 92 NE 15)
 What is the effect is we allow
Corporations to practice Law?
- Lawyers then from corporations can
skip liability and say that the
liabilities of the corporations are not
their individual liabilities. This is
contrary to the basic premise of the
legal profession, that, it must be
personal responsibility and
accountability on the part of the
lawyer
 How about Partnerships in the
practice of law?
- A partnership in the practice of law
is a mere relationship or association
for such particular purpose. It is not
a legal entity. It is not a partnership
formed for the purpose of carrying
on a trade or business or of holding
a property
- A professional law partnership, even
if registered with the SEC is not
even a taxpayer and any lawyer
practicing law under a law
Page
24
partnership is considered a solo
practitioner and not a law
partnership. (Tan vs del Rosarion, Jr
237 SCRA 324)
 Section 1, Rule 138. Rules of Court
- Who may practice law?
Any person heretofore duly admitted
as a member of the bar, or hereafter
admitted as such in accordance with
the provisions of this rule, and who
is in good and regular standing, is
entitled to practice law.
 Sources of Legal Ethics
1. Constitution
2. Rules of court
3. The Code of professional
responsibility
4. The canons of professional ethics
5. Jurisprudece
6. Moral law
7. Other special laws
 Consitution
a. Sec. 14, Art VI, 1987
Constitution
No Senator or Member of the House
of Representatives may personal
appear as counsel before
i. Any court of justice
ii. Electoral tribunals
iii. Quiasi-judicial and other
administrative bodies
 Puyat vs De Guzman, Jr. (113
SCRA 31)
- A member of the Congress cannot
indirectly fail to follow the
constitutional prohibition of not
appealing personally as counsel
before the SEC by buying a nominal
share in the corporation after his
appearance as counsel therein was
contested.
b. Sec 8, Art XI, 1987
Constitution
During their tenure, the
Ombudsman and his Deputies shall
be subject to the same
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
disqualifications as provided for in
Sec 2, Art IX-A, 1987 Constitution
 Rules of Court
a. Sec 7, Rule 85
When the executor or administrator
is an attorney, he shall not charge
against the estate any professional
fees for legal services rendered by
him
b. Sec 1 (B), Rule 130
An attorney cannot, without the
consent of his client be examined as
to any communication made by the
client to him or his advice given
thereon in the course of professional
employment
c. Rule 138- Attorneys and
Admission to the Bar
d. Rule 138-A- Law Student
Practice Rule
e. Rule 139- Integrated Bar of
the Philippines
f. Rule 139-B- Grievance
Procedures/Disbarment or
Suspension of Attorneys
 Legislation
a. Art 1491 (5), Civil Code
The following persons cannot
acquire by purchase, even at a
public or judicial auction, either
in person or through the
mediation of another:
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting
attorneys, clerks of superior and
inferior courts, and other officers
and employees connected with
the administration of justice, the
property and rights in litigation or
levied upon an execution before
the court within whose
jurisdiction or territory they
exercise their respective
functions; this prohibition
Page
25
includes the act of acquiring by
assignment and shall apply to
lawyers, with respect to the
property and rights which may be
the object of any litigation in
which they may take part by
virtue of their profession.
b. Arts 203, 222, Labor Code on
Attorney’s Fees
c. Art. 209, RPC on the Betrayal of
Trust by an Attorney
d. Sec 90. Title III, Book 1, RA
7160
Practice of Profession. –(a) All
governors, city and municipal
mayors are prohibited from
practicing their profession or
engaging in any occupation other
than the exercise of their
functions as local chief
executives
 Public Officials with
Restrictions in the
Practice of Law:
 No Senator or member if the House
may personally appear as counsel
before any court, electoral tribunal,
quasi-judicial and other
administrative bodies.
 Sec 1, RA 910- a retired justice or
judge receiving pension from the
government cannot act as counsel
in any civil case in which the
government or any of its
subdivisions or agencies is the
adverse party or in a criminal case
wherein officer/employee of the
government is accused of an
offense in relation to is office
 Sec 90, 7160- Sanggunian
members shall not
Appear as counsel before any court in a civil
case wherein a local government unit or any
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
office, agency, or instrumentality of the
government is the adverse party
Appear as counsel in criminal cases wherein an
officer or employee of the national or local
government is accused of an offense committed
in relation to his office
Collect any fee for their appearance in
administrative proceedings involving the LGU of
which he is an official
Use property and personnel of the government
except when the Sangguniang Member
concerned is defending the interest of the
government
 Can a Civil Service
employee engage in the
Private Practice of Law?
A civil service officer or employee whose duty or
responsibility does not require his entire time be
at the disposal of the government may not
engage in the private practice of law without the
written permit fro the head of the department
concerned. However, government officials who
by express mandate of the law are prohibited
from practicing law may not, even with the
consent of the department head, engage in the
practice of law. If so authorized by the
department head, he may, in an isolated case,
act as counsel for a relative or close family
friend. A government official forbidden to
practice law may be held criminally liable for
doing so. An officer or employee of the civil
service who, as a lawyer, engages in the private
practice of law without a written permit from the
department head concerned may be held
administratively liable therefor.
 Court Decisions
 Treatises – books containing formal
and methodical exposition of the
principles of certain subjects.
Authoritative treatises on legal
ethics are often cited by courts, and
thus serve as sources of legal
ethics.
Page
26
 Other Sources- e.g. ABA 1983
Model Rules of Professional
Conduct, ABA 1969 Model Code of
Professional Responsibility
 Relation of Ethics and Morality
- Morals define personal character,
while ethics stresses a social
system in which those morals are
applied. In other words, wthics point
to standards or codes of behavior by
the group to which the individual
belongs.
- Example: Consider a defense
lawyer. Though the lawyer’s
personal moral code likely finds
murder as immoral and
irreprehensible, ethics demand the
accused client be defended as
vigorously as possible, even when
the lawyer knows that the party is
guilty and that a freed defendant
would potentially leaf to more
crimes. Legal ethics must override
personal morals for the greater good
of upholding a justice system in
which the accused are given a far
trial and the prosecution must prove
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Corollary principles:
Not everything legal is moral
Not everything legal is ethics
 Power to admit to the Bar
- Vested in the Supreme Court
- The authority of the SC over the
legal profession is a constituent
element of its judicial power.
Accordingly, any legislative or
executive judgment substituting that
of the SC in matter concerning the
admission to the practice of law or
the suspension, disbarment or
reinstatement of an attorney
infringes upon an constitutes an
invalid exercise of the legislative or
executive power
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
 Legislative power to repeal, alter or
supplement
- 1935 and 1973 Constitutions: The
SC shall have the power to
“promulgate rules concerning… the
admission to the practice of law, and
the integration of the Bar, which
however, may be repealed, altered
or supplemented by the Batasang
Pambansa
- 1987 Constitution: deleted the
phrase re: the power of legislature
to repeal, alter or supplement SC
rules
 Basic Requirements for Admission
(Sec 2, Rule 138, Rules of Court):
1. Citizen of the Philippines
2. At least 21 years old
3. Good moral character
4. Resident of the Philippines
5. Must produce before the SC
satisfactory evidence of god
moral character, and that no
charges against him, involving
moral turpiture have been filed or
are pending in any court in the
Philippines
 Moral Turpitude
- Offends the generally accepted
code of mankind; an act of
baseness, vileness or depravity in
the private and social duties which a
man owes to his fellowmen and
society in general; immoral in itself,
regardless of the fact if it is
punishable by law or not; the doing
of the act itself is inherently immoral
and not the prohibition by law.
- Example: robbery, adultery, bigamy,
extortion, bribery, forgery, libel
 Warranties of the SC in Admitting a
Person to the Practice of Law:
1. Person so admitted has necessary
learning and proficiency
2. He is of good moral character
 Under RA 9225, if a person intends to
practice the legal profession in the
Page
27
Philippines and he reacquires his
Filipino citizenship pursuant to its
provisions, he shall apply with the
proper authority for a license of permit to
engage in such practice. Stated
otherwise, before a lawyer who
reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant
to RA 9225 can resume his law practice,
he must first secure from tjos Court the
authority to do so, conditioned on:
a. The updating and payment in full of
the annual IBP membership dues
b. The payment of the professional tax
c. The completion of at least 36 credit
hours of mandatory continuing egal
education—this is especially
significant to refresh the applicant
petitioner’s knowledge of Philippines
laws and update him of legal
developments and
d. The retaking of the lawyer’s oath
which will not only remind him of his
duties and responsibilities as a
lawyer and as an officer of the court,
but also renew his pledge to
maintain allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines
 Modern Concept of the Practice of
Law
Cayetano vs Monsod, 201 SCRA 210
(1991)
- Practice of Law means any activity,
in or out of the court which requires
the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and
experience. To engage in the
practice of law is to perform those
acts which are characteristic of the
profession. Generally, to practice
law is to give notice or render any
kind of service which device or
service required the use in any
degree of legal knowledge or skill. It
is not limited to appearing in court,
or advising and assisting in the
conduct of litigation, but embraces
the preparation of pleadings and
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
other papers incident to actions and
special proceedings, conveyancing,
the preparation of legal instruments
of all kinds, and the giving of legal
advice to clients.
 Old Concept, Practice of Law
People vs Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109
(1965)
Criteria Determinative of Practice of
Law:
1. Habituality
2. Compensation’
3. Application of Law, Legal Principle,
Practice or Procedure which calls
for legal knowledge, training and
experience
4. Attorney-Client Relationship
 Is teaching of Law Practice of Law?
- A law professor does not actually
deal with clients whose rights are or
may be subject to legal
controversies; he does not hold
himself out to the public as a lawyer,
but as a mentor learned in the law
who is qualified by reason of his
legal training to instruct students on
legal subjects (Minister of Justice
Opinion, No. 89, s. 1986)
 Practice of Law a Privilege, but also
in the Nature of a right
- Privilege because lawyers must bow
to the inherent regulatory power of
the Court to exact compliance with
the lawyer’s public responsibilities
- Right because the lawyer cannot be
prevented from practicing law
except for valid reasons (e.g.
prohibitions on some public officers)
 Why is the practice of law generally
limited to lawyers?
- To protect party litigants because of
the complex nature of judicial
proceedings
- To protect public interest through
assuring that judicial proceedings
Page
28
take place with dispatch without
sacrificing justice and efficiency.
 Sanctions for Unauthorized Practice
of Law
- Injunction to restrain continuation of
unauthorized practice; contempt of
court (Sec 3, e of Rule 71, ROC),
criminal prosecution, damages,
denial of right to fees
- Managan vs CFI: one who
masqueraded as a lawyer using the
name of a deceased lawyer was
found guilty of continuous fraudulent
misrepresentation and highly
improper conduct tending directly to
impede, obstruct, degrade and
make a mockery of the
administration of justice.
Consequently, he was adjudged in
contempt of court, severely
censored and sentenced to suffer
for 3 months of imprisonment
 Shari’a lawyers who are LLB graduated
but not members of the bar are not
allowed to practice before regular courts
even if both parties are Muslims
Par 2, Art 143 of PD 1083, The Code of
Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines
provides for concurrent jurisdiction of
the Shari’a District Courts with existing
Civil courts
 Appearance “In Propria Persona” or
“Pro Se Practice”
- Appearance in court by a non-
lawyer for himself and without the
assistance of a member of the bar
Basis: Sec 1 (2), Art III, Constitution
on due process- right to be heard by
himself and counsel, especially in
criminal cases
Sec 34, Rule 7, ROC- every
pleading must be signed by the
party or counsel representing him…
Sec 34, Rule 138, ROC—By whom
litigation conducted
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
In the court of a justice of the peace,
a party may conduct his litigation in
person, with the aid of an agent or
friend appointed by him for that
purpose, or with the aid of an
attorney. In any other court, a party
may conduct his litigation personally
or by aid of an attorney and his
appearance must be either personal
or by a duly authorized member of
the bar
Maderada vs Mediodea, AM No.
MTJ-02-1459. Octover 14, 2003: In
a litigation, parties may personally
do everything during its progress—
fro its commencement to its
termination. When they, however
act as their own attorneys, they are
restricted to the same rules of
evidence and procedure as those
qualified to practice law; otherwise,
ignorance would be unjustifiably
rewarded.
Individuals have long been
permitted to manage, prosecute and
defend their own actions; and when
they do so, they are not considered
to be in the practice of law. “One
does not practice law by acting for
himself any more than he practices
medicine by rendering first aid to
himself.”
BUT: WHILE PRO SE PRACTICE IS
ALLOWED, IT IS NOT ADVISABLE (In Re:
Joaquin T. Borromeo, 241 SCRA 405)
“A Little learning is a dangerous thing. He who
acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client”
 Non Lawyers who are authorized to
appear in court:
GR: a non-lawyer may represent a party
before the MTC
Exc: criminal case
Exc to the Exc: in a locality where a duly
licensed member of the Bar is available
Page
29
 Senior law student: enrolled in a
recognized law school’s clinical
education program approved by the
SC may appear before any court,
tribunal, agency, office, without
compensation, to represent indigent
clients accepted by the Legal Clinic
of the school; iunder direct
supervision and control of an IBP
member duly accredited by the Law
school; civil, criminal, administrative
(Sec. 1, Rule 138-A, ROC)
If before the RTC and the higher
courts: they must be accompanied
by a supervising lawyer in all
appearances
 Labor Code
1. When they represent
themselves,
2. When they represent their
organization or members
thereof with written authorization
of the latter
3. Duly accredited members of any
legal aid office duly recognized
by the DOJ, or the IBP in cases
referred to by the latter
 Cadastral Act- a non-lawyer can
represent a claimant before the
cadastral court
 Before the Department of
Agrarian Reform adjudication
Board
 Proceedings where Lawyers are
prohibited to Appear:
1. Conciliation Proceedings under the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law
2. Small claims cases
3. Indigenous System if Settlement
(Sec 10, Rule 4 NCIP
ADMINSTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO.
1-03 pursuant to RA 8371,
otherwise known as “The
Indigenous People’s Act of 1997”-
As a general rule, lawyers are
prohibited to appear for any party as
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
counsel, except when such lawyer is
appearing in her capacity as a
member of the council of elders or
due to his/her obligation as member
of the IP community for the purpose
of defending or prosecuting his/her
case.
4. Sec 5 (7) on Settlements of Money
Claims, Guideline No. IX (Insurance
Guidelines on Rule XVI of the
Omnibus Rules and Regulations
Implementing RA 8042- Lawyers for
the Insurance Companies, shall be
prohibited to appear before the
NLRC in money claims under the
Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules
CHAPTER ONE. THE LAWYERS & THE
SOCIETY
 Canon 1. UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS,
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW
AND LEGAL PROCESSES
 Lawyer’s Oath—Contains in
capsule form the ethical standards
required for lawyers
1. Not to unduly delay a case- lawyer
was reprimanded when he used his
legal expertise to unnecessarily and
unjustly delay a case (Del Mundo vs
CA)
2. To delay no man for money or
malice- a lawyer should not refuse
or delay a case just because he
may not be paid well or as expected
by hum because the legal
profession is not a money-making
trade. But this does not mean that a
lawyer cannot reject a case the facts
of which do not convince him to be
meritorious. If a lawyer is
deliberately not paid, the honorable
thing for him to do is to withdraw
from the case so as to allow the
client to employ another lawyer
Page
30
 Bongalonta vs Castillo, 240
SCRA 320
 Moreno vs Araneta, AC no.
1109, April 27, 2005
 Discouraging Lawsuits
- Under Rule 1.03 of the CPR, a
lawyer shall not for any corrupt
motive or interest, encourage any
suit or proceeding or delay any
man’s cause
 Crime/Tort of Maintenance-
Intermeddling of an uninterested
party to encourage a lawsuit
A lawyer owes to the society and to
the court the duty not to stir up
litigation. The following are
unprofessional acts:
1. Volunteering advice to bring
lawsuit except when ties of
blood, relationship and trust
make it a duty to do so
2. Hunting up defects in titles or
other causes of action; to breed
litigation by seeking out claims
for personal injuries
3. Employing agents or runners
4. Paying direct or indirect reward
to those wh bring or influence
the bringing of cases to his
office
5. Searching for unknown heirs
and soliciting their employment
BARRATRY- offenses if frequently
inciting and stirring up quarrels and
suits; formenting suits; then offering
his legal services to one of the
parties
AMBULANCE CHASING- a
lawyer’s act of figuratively chasing
the victims of an accident for the
purpose of talking to the victim or
the latter’s relatives and offering his
legal services for the filing of the
case against the person who cause
the accident
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
- Recognized evils of ambulance
chasing:
1. Formenting of litigation; burden
on the corts and the society
2. Subordination of perjury
3. Mulcting of innocent persons by
judgments, upon manufactured
causes of action
4. Defrauding of injured persons
having proper causes of action
but ignorant of their legal rights
and court procedures (by means
of contracts which retain
exorbitant percentages of
recovery and illegal charges for
court costs and expenses and
by settlement made for quick
returns of fees and against the
just rights of the injured)
 CANON 2. MAKING AVAILABLE
EFICIENT LEGAL SERVICE
 Canon 2.01. A lawyer shall not
reject, except for valid reasons
the cause of the defenseless or of
the oppressed.
- Valid reasons to decline
engagement: (Rule 14.03- not in a
position to carry out the work
effectively or competently; he labors
a conflict of interest between him
and the prospective client or
between a present client and the
prospective client)
- Must exercise the same degree of
standard of diligence according to
paying clients; Legal aid is not a
matter of charity but a public
responsibility
 BM NO 2012, FEBRUARY 10,
2009, PROPOSED RULE ON
MANDATOIRY LEGAL AID
SERVICE FOR PRACTICING
LAWYERS
All practicing lawyers are required to
render a minimu of 60 hours of free
legal aid services to indigent
Page
31
litigants in a year. Clerks of Court
and the IBP Capter are designated
to coordinate with a lawyer for cases
where he may render free legal aid
service.
The following lawyers are excluded
in the term “practicing lawyer”:
1. Government employees and
incumbent elective officials not
allowed by law to practice
2. Lawyers who by law are not
allowed to appear in court
3. Supervising lawyers of students
enrolled in law student practice
in duly accredited legal clinics of
law schools and lawyers of non-
governmental organizations
(NGOs) and peoples
organizations (POs) like the
Free Legal Assistance Group
who by the nature of their work
already render free legal aid to
indigent ad pauper litigants and
4. Lawyers not covered under
subparagraphs (1) to (3)
including those who are
employed in the private sector
but do not appear for and in
behalf of parties in courts of law
and quasi-judicial agencies
Indigent and pauper litigants are
those whose gross income and that
of their immediate family do not
exceed an amount double the
monthly minimum wage of an
employee and those who not own
any real property. They are exempt
from payment of docket fees and
lawful fees as well as transcripts of
stenographic notes
PENALTIES: A penalty of P4000
shall be imposed on the lawyer who
fails to meet the required minimum
number of hours of legal aid service
each year required by the IBP
without satisfactory explanation. The
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
lawyer shall have a “not in good
standing” status and shall not be
allowed to appear in court or any
quasi-judicial body as counsel for a
period of 3 months. A lawyer who
fails to comply with the dutis in the
Rule for at least 3 consecutive years
shall be subject to disciplinary
proceedings and may be suspended
from the practice of law for 1 year.
 Canon 2.04. A lawyer shall not
change rates lower than those
customarily prescribed unless
the circumstances so warrant.
- Consider the IBP Chapter approved
Schedules of Attorney’s fees
- To avoid demeaning and degrading
competition
- ULEP vs Legal Clinic, Inc. 223
SCRA 378
 CANON 3. USE OF TRUE, HONEST,
FAIR AND OBJECTIVE
INFORMATION IN MAKING KNOWN
LEGAL SERVICES
Advertising
GR: A lawyer cannot advertise his
talent, as he is a member of an
honorable profession the primary
purpose of which is to render public
service and secure justice; remuneration
is a mere incident.
Exc (forms of permissible
advertisement)
1. Writing legal articles for legal
publications in which he gives
information upon the law but he
cannot accept employment from
such publication to advise inquiries
in respect to individual rights of
persons
2. Law lists, but onlu bried biographical
and informative data
3. Ordinary professional cards
Page
32
4. Notice to other local lawyers and
publishing in a legal journal of one’s
availability
5. Offer of free legal services to the
indigent even when broadcasted
over the radio or tendered through
circulation of printed matter to the
general public
6. Simple announcement f the opening
of a law firm or of changes in the
partnership, firm name or office
address being for the convenience
of the profession
7. Listing in a phone directory, but not
under a designation of a special
branch of law
 Solicitation of cases constitutes
malpractice
The law prohibits lawyers from soliciting
cases for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or
brokers (Rule 138, Sec 27,ROC)
 Use of Law Firm Name
1. In the choice of a firm name, no
false, misleading or assumed
name shall be used. The
continued use of the name of a
deceased partner is permissible
provided that the firm indicates
in all its communications that
said partner is deceased. This
rule abandoned the doctrine in
the case of In Re: Sycip, 92
SCRA 1 (1979)
2. Where a partner accepts public
office, he shall withdraw from
the firm and his name shall be
dropped from the firm name
unless the law allows him to
practice concurrently
3. Filipino lawyers cannot practice
law under the name of a foreign
law firm, as the latter cannot
practice law in the Philippines
and the use of a foreign law firm
name in the country is unethical
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
 CANON 4. PARTICIPATE IN THE
IMPROVEMENT OF THE LEGAL
SYSTEM
Examples:
- Present position papers or
resolutions for the introductions of
pertinent bills in Congress
- Petition ith the SC for the
amendment of the ROC
 CANON 5. A LAWYERS SHALL KEEP
ABREAST OF LEGAL
DEVELOPMENYTS, PARTICIPATE IN
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO
ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW
SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE
PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW
STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN
DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND
JURISPRUDENCE
BAR MATTER 850: Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education, August
8, 2000
Purpose: To ensure that throught their
careers, they keep abreast with law and
jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the
profession and enhance the practice of
law
Requirements for Completion of ML:
- at least 36 hours of continuing legal
education activities per 3 years:
 6 hours – legal ethic
 4 hours – trial and pretrial skills
 5 hours – alternative dispute
resolution
 9 hours – updates on substantive
and procedural laws and
jurisprudence
 4 hours – writing and oral
advocacy
 2 hours – international law and
international conventions
Page
33
 6 hours – other subjects as may
be prescribed by the MCLE
Committee
Persons exempted from MCLE:
1. President, Vice President and
Undersecretaries of the Executive Department
2. Senators and HR Members
3. Chief Justice, Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court; incumbent and retired
justices of the Judiciary, incumbent
members of the JBC and incumbent
court lawyers covered by the Philippine
Judicial Academy Program of continuing
legal education
4. Chief State Counsel, Chief State
Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the DOJ
5. Solicitor General; Associate Solicitor
General
6. Government Corporate Counsel,
Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate
Counsel
7. Chair and members of the
Constitutional Commissions
8. Ombudsman, Overall Deputy
Ombudsman, Deputy Ombudsman, Special
Prosecutor
9. Head of government agencies
exercising quasi-judicial functions
10. Incumbent Deans, bar reviewers
and professors of law having teaching
experience of at least 10 years in
accredited law school
11. Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, and
members of the Corps of Professional
Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial
Academy
12. Governors and Mayors
13. Others:
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
a. Those who are not in law practice,
private or public
b. Those who have retired from law
practice with the approval of the IBP Board of
Governors
Good Causes for Exemption form of
Modification of Requirement:
 Verified request
 Grounds:
o Physical disability
o Illness
o Post-graduate study abroad
o Proven expertise in law
Consequences for Non-Compliance:
BAR Matter No. 1922, June 3, 2008
"Bar Matter No. 1922. – Re:
Recommendation of the Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
Board to Indicate in All Pleadings
Filed with the Courts the Counsel’s
MCLE Certificate of Compliance or
Certificate of Exemption. – The Court
Resolved to NOTE the Letter, dated
May 2, 2008, of Associate Justice
Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura,
Chairperson, Committee on Legal
Education and Bar Matters, informing
the Court of the diminishing interest of
the members of the Bar in the MCLE
requirement program.
The Court further Resolved, upon the
recommendation of the Committee on
Legal Education and Bar Matters, to
REQUIRE practicing members of the
bar to INDICATE in all pleadings filed
before the courts or quasi-judicial
bodies, the number and date of issue of
their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or
Certificate of Exemption, as may be
applicable, for the immediately
preceding compliance period. Failure to
Page
34
disclose the required information would
cause the dismissal of the case and the
expunction of the pleadings from the
records.
The New Rule shall take effect sixty (60)
days after its publication in a newspaper
of general circulation."
 CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL
APPLY TO LAWYERS IN
GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN THE
DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.
- A lawyer does not shed his
professional; obligations upon his
assuming public office
- Lawyers who are incumbent judges
are governed by the Code of
Judicial Conduct. They cannot be
investigated by the IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline.
 R.A. 6713 – Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees
 Public officials (including
government lawyers)
- Elective, appointive, permanent,
temporary, career, non-career
(including military and police),
whether or not they receive
compensation, regardless of the
amount
 These norms should be
observed in the discharge and
execution of official duties:
- Commitment to public interest
- Professionalism o Justness
- Sincerity o Political neutrality
- Responsiveness to the public
- Nationalism
- Patriotism
- Commitment to democracy
- Simple living
Canon 6 -THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO
LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN
THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.
Problem Areas on Legal Ethics- MIDTERMS 2016
 Government lawyers are prohibited to
engage in private practice unless
authorized by the Constitution or law
provided that such practice will not
conflict or tend to conflict.
 Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a
lawyer engaged in public
prosecution is not to convict but
to see that justice is done. The
suppression of facts or the
concealment of witnesses
capable of establishing the
innocence of the accused is
highly reprehensible and is cause
for disciplinary action.
- Primary duty is not to convict but to
see that justice is done
- The suppression of facts or
concealment of witnesses capable
of establishing the innocence of the
accused is highly reprehensible and
is caused for disciplinary action
A prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer.
Thus, he should be as much concerned
with seeing that no innocent man suffers
as in seeing that no guilty man escapes.
If a prosecutor finds that there is no
sufficient evidence:
- In the preliminary investigation:
resolve to the effect that there is no
problem cause
- If case has already been filed: file a
motion before the court for the
dismissal of the action
- If case on appeal: recommend
before the appellate court the
acquittal of the accused
 Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the
government service shall not use
his public position to promote or
advance his private interests, nor
allow the latter to interfere with
his public duties.
- GR: a lawyer who holds a
government office may not be
Page
35
disciplined as a member of the Bar
for misconduct in the discharge of
his duties as a government official
- Exc: misconduct is of such
character as to affect his
qualification as a lawyer to show
moral delinquency, then he may be
disciplined as a member of the bar
 Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not,
after leaving government service,
accept engagement or
employment in connection with
any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service.
(otherwise, tantamount to the
representation of conflicting
interests).
- PCGG vs Sandiganbayan; GR No.
151805 (2005)
 Matter: any discrete, isolatable
act as well as identifiable
transaction or conduct involving
a particular situation and
specific party, and not merely an
act of drafting, enforcing or
interpreting government agency
procedures, regulations or laws,
or briefing abstract principles of
law
 Interventions as contemplated
under Rule 6.03:
- An act of a person who has the
power to influence the subject
proceedings
- Such intervention cannot be
insubstantial, insignificant or
innocuous