Study Guide

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

COMPETENCE and DILIGENCE

See:
 Canon 18, CPR
 Rule 18.03 CPR
 Canon 12, CPR
 Rule 12.01 CPR
 Rule 12.03, CPR
 Rule 12.04 CPR
 Rule 14.04, CPR
 Canon 17, CPR
 Rule 18.01, CPR
 Rule 18.04, CPR
 Canon 6 New Code of Judicial Conduct
 Sections 1 to 7, Canon 6 New Code of Judicial Conduct

JURISPRUDENCE:

 Ramirez v. Margallo, AC 10537, February 3, 2015 -When an action or proceeding

is initiated in our courts, lawyers become the eyes and ears of their clients.
Lawyers are expected to prosecute or defend the interests of their clients without
need for reminders. The privilege of the office of attorney grants them the ability
to warrant to their client that they will manage the case as if it were their own.
The relationship between an attorney and client is a sacred agency. It cannot be
disregarded on the flimsy excuse that the lawyer accepted the case only because
he or she was asked by an acquaintance. The professional relationship remains the
same regardless of the reasons for the acceptance by counsel and regardless of
whether the case is highly paying or pro bono.


 Pajarillo v. WCC, GRNL 49297, 1980- A lawyer must exercise ordinary diligence
or that reasonable degree of care and skill having reference to the character of the
business he undertakes to do as any other member of the bar similarly situated
commonly possesses and exercises.

 Section 16, Article III, 1987 Constitution

 Villasis v. CA- GRN L-34369- A newly hired counsel who appears in a case in
the midstream is presumed and obliged to acquaint himself with all the antecedent
processes and proceedings that have transpired in the record prior to his takeover.

 Achacoso v. CA, GRNL-35867, 1973- The Court censures the practice of

counsels who secures repeated extensions of time to file their pleadings and
thereafter simply let the period lapse without submitting the pleading on even an
explanation or manifestation of their failure to do so. There exists a breach of duty
not only to the court but also to the client.
 Edrial v. Quilat-Quilat, GRN 133625, 2000- Postponement is not a matter of
right but of sound judicial discretion.

 Aguilar v. Manila Banking Corp, GRN 157911, 2006- Unjustified delay in the
enforcement of a judgment sets at naught the role of courts in disposing
justiciable controversies with finality.

 Blanza v. Arcangel, CAN 492, 1967- If a lawyer volunteers his services to a

client, and therefore not entitled to attorney’s fees, he is still bound to attend to a
client’s case with all due diligence and zeal.

 Cantiller v. Potenciano, CAN 3195, 1989 -The failure to exercise due diligence
and the abandonment of a client’s cause make such a lawyer unworthy of the trust
which the client had reposed on him.

 Santiago v. Fojas, AMN 4103, 1995- Once he agrees to take up the cause of his
client, no fear of judicial disfavor or public unpopularity should restrain him from
the full discharge of his duty.

 PESTO v. MILLO, ACN 9612, March 13, 2013- An attorney who conceals his
inefficiency and lack of diligence by giving wrong information to his client
regarding the matter subject of their professional relationship is guilty of conduct
unbecoming an officer of the Court. He thereby violates his Lawyer's Oath to
conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion
with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his client. He also thereby violates
Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, by which he is
called upon to serve his client with competence and diligence.


 Dela Cruz v. Concepcion(Adm Matter RTJ-93-1062, August 25, 1004- Gross
Ignorance of the Law- To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the subject
decision, order or actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties
must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but most importantly,
he must be moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty and corruption.

 Ualat v. Ramos Adm Matter No. MTJ-91-567, December 6, 1996.- Ignorance of

the law excuses no one certainly not the judges.. when the law is elementary, so
elementary, not to know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law,

 Del Rosario v. Cedillo Adm Matter No. MTJ-04-1557, October 21, 2004.- An
administrative complaint against a judge cannot be pursued simultaneously with
the judicial remedies accorded to the parties aggrieved by an erroneous judgment.
For until complainant’s appeal is resolved and the case is finally resolved and the
case if finally terminated, the Court will have no basis to conclude whether or not
respondent judge is indeed guilty of the charges of gross ignorance of the law and
knowingly rendering an unjust judgment.

 Yu-Asensi v. Villanueva, Adm Matter No. MTJ-001245- Judge’s habitual

tardiness amounted to serious misconduct and inefficiency.

 OCA v, Fuentes III, AM No. RTJ-13-2342, March 6, 2013- All judges to perform
their judicial duties with reasonable promptness because the integrity of the
 judicial system is measured not only by the fairness and correctness of the
decisions rendered but also by the expediency with which disputes are resolved.

 Ruiz v. Bringas, Adm Matter No. mTJ 00-1266, April 6, 2000- A judge should be
courteous both in his conduct and in his language especially hose appearing
before him. He can hold counsels to a proper appreciation of their duties to the
court, their clients and the public without being petty arbitrary, overbearing or
tyrannical.

MORALITY
See:
 Rule 1.01, CPR
 Canon 7, CPR
 Rule 7.03, CPR
 Canon 2 New Code of Judicial Conduct
 Sections 1-2 Canon 2, New Code of Judicial Conduct

Jurisprudence
 Talens-Dabon v. Arceo Adm Matter no. RTJ-96-1336, July 25, 1996-The integrity of the
judiciary rests not only upon the fact that it is able to administer justice but also upon the
perception and confidence of the community that the people who run the system have
done justice. At times, the strict manner by which we apply the law may, in fact, do
justice but may not necessarily create confidence among the people that justice, indeed, is
served. Hence, in order to create such confidence, the people who run the judiciary,
particularly the judges and justices, must not only be proficient in both the substantive
and procedural aspects of the law, but more importantly, they must possess the highest
integrity, probity and unquestionable moral uprightness, both in their public and private
lives. Only then can the people be reassured that the wheels of justice in the country run
with fairness and equity, thus creating confidence in the judicial system. -Respondent
judge was dismissed from service for gross misconduct and immorality for sexual
advances made upon clerk of court.
 Royong v. Oblena 7 SCRA 859- Public confidence in the law and in lawyers may
be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member the bar. There
is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyer’s
professional capacity or in his private life or in his private transaction because a
lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a
mere citizen at another. The moral turpitude for which an attorney may be
disbarred may consist of misconduct in either his professional or non-professional
activities, in his professional and private capacity.
 (In the matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling in the
2002 bar Examination and for Disciplinary action as member of the Philippine
Shari’a Bar, BM No. 1154 (2004)- Good moral character is what a person really
is, as distinguished from good reputation, the estimate in which he is held by the
public in the place where he is known.
 (In re; Argosino, AM no. 712 (1997) -All aspects of moral character and behavior
may be inquired into in respect of those seeking admission to the Bar. The
requirement of good moral character to be satisfied by those who would seek
admission to the bar must of necessity be more stringent than the norm of conduct
expected from members of the general public. The Supreme Court may deny
lawyer’s oath taking based on a conviction for reckless imprudence resulting to
 homicide (hazing case). But after the expiry of the original period of probation
granted by the trial court, he may be allowed to submit, for the Court’s
examination and consideration, relevant evidence to show that he is a different
person now, that he has become morally fit for admission to the ancient and
learned profession of the law.
 Zaguirre v. Castillo CAN 4921, March 6, 2003; Respondent, a married man had
illicit relations with complainant. A child was born out of this relationship.
 Cordova v. Cordova ACN 3249, November 29, 1989; Married Lawyer had
scandalous relationships with two women.
 Tapucar v. Tapucar AC 4148 (1998)- Keeping a mistress, entering into another
marriage while a prior one still subsists, as well as abandoning and mistreating
complainant and their children.
 Tiong v. Florendo CAN 4428(2011); Lawyer had an illicit affair with the wife of
his client.
 (Guevarra v. Eala, CAN 7136 (2007)-Whether a lawyer’s sexual congress with a
woman not his wife or without a benefit of marriage should be characterized as
grossly immoral conduct depends on the surrounding circumstances. The case at
bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who
is not his wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out discreetly.
 (Abaigar v. Paz 93 SCRA 91)-Mere intimacy between a man and a woman
possessing no legal impediment to marry, voluntarily entered and without any
deceit is neither so corrupt as to warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanction.

Note: See also the Powerpoint Presentations already posted in the FB Group.

The Final Examination will be sent on May 23, 2020. Send your answers to me
not later than 9:00 o’ clock in the morning the next day via e-mail at
meazventura@yahoo.com or via messenger at Edz ZV.