10/11

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND

DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF
THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false
statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application
for admission to the bar.

Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the
bar of any person known by him to be unqualified in respect to character,
education, or other relevant attribute.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY,

FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND
SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the
professional employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any
lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN
THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a
member of the bar in good standing.

Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal
services with persons not licensed to practice law, except:

(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate

that, upon the latter's death, money shall be paid over a reasonable
period of time to his estate or to persons specified in the agreement; or

10/11 1
 (b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of
a deceased lawyer; or
(c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a
retirement plan even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit
sharing agreement.

CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO

THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.

Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the

contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or
the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision
already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact
that which has not been proved.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE

TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON
SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.

Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.

Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing

language or behavior before the Courts.

Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported
by the record or have no materiality to the case.

Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper
authorities only.

CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS

DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.

Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately
prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will

10/11 2
 adduce and the order of its proferrence. He should also be ready with the
original documents for comparison with the copies.

Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same
cause.

Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution
of a judgment or misuse Court processes.
Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a break
or recess in the trial, while the witness is still under examination.
Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent
himself or to impersonate another.
Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor
needlessly inconvenience him.
Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except:

(a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of

an instrument, and the like; or

(b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to

the ends of justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, entrust
the trial of the case to another counsel.
CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND
REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR
GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT.

Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality

to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges.

Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
party.

Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another

branch or agency of the government in the normal course of judicial
proceedings.

10/11 3
 Maximino Noble III vs Atty. Orlando Ailes (A.C. No. 10628 July 1,
2015)
Facts:
Maximino alleged that on August 18, 2010, Orlando, a lawyer, filed a complain
for damages against his own brother, Marcelo O. Ailes, Jr. Marcelo), whom
Maximino represented, together with other defendants, therein. In the said
complaint, Orlando stated... the following data: "IBP77405812/07/09QC x x
x MCLE Compliance No. II00086893/Issued on March 10, 2008.
Maximino claimed that at the time of the filing of the said complaint, Orlando's
IBP O.R. number should have... already reflected payment of his IBP annual
dues for the year 2010, not 2009, and that he should have finished his third
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education MCLE Compliance, not just the
second.

Sometime in December 2011, Maximino learned from Marcelo that the latter
had filed a separate case for grave threats and estafa against Orlando. When
Maximino was furnished a copy of the complaint, he discovered that, through
text messages,... Orlando had been maligning him and dissuading Marcelo
from retaining his services as counsel, claiming that he was incompetent and
that he charged exorbitant fees, saying, among others: "x x x Better dismiss
[your] hi-track lawyer who will impoverish [you] with his... unconscionable
[professional] fee. Max Noble, as shown in court records, never appeared even
once, that's why you lost in the pre-trial stage,

x x x get rid of Noble] as [your] lawyer. He is out to squeeze a lot of money

from [you], x x x daig mo nga mismong abogado mong... polpol.
Records show that Orlando even prepared a Notice to Terminate Services of
Counsel in the complaint for damages, which stated that Maximino "x x x has
never done anything to protect the interests of the defendants in... a manner
not befitting his representation as a seasoned law practitioner and, aside from
charging enormous amount of professional fees and questionable expenses,
said counsel's contracted services reached as far only in preparing and filing
uncalled for motions to dismiss x x x"... as well as a Compromise
Agreement,both of which he sent to Marcelo for his signature. Affronted,
Maximino filed the instant complaint charging Orlando with violation of Rule
7.03 of Canon 7, the entire Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
In a Report and Recommendation dated April 30, 2013, the IBP Commissioner
recommended the dismissal of the case against Orlando, finding that a

10/11 4
 transgression of the MCLE compliance requirement is not a ground for
disbarment as in fact, failure to... disclose the required information would
merely cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings
from the records. Neither did the IBP Commissioner find any violation of the
CPR so gross or grave as to warrant any administrative liability on the part of
Orlando, considering that the communication between Orlando and Marcelo,
who are brothers, was done privately and not directly addressed to Maximino
nor intended to be published and known by third person
Issues:
whether or not the IBP correctly dismissed the complaint against Orlando

Ruling:
The petition is partly meritorious.

In this relation, Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 as well as Canon 8 of the CPR provides:
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in
a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Canon 8 — A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor
toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against
opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which
is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the
professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any
lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful... counsel.
Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be
dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use
of intemperate language and unkind comments has no place in the dignity of
the judicial forum. In Buatis Jr. v. People,24 the Court treated a lawyer's use
of the words "lousy," "inutil," "carabao English," "stupidity," and "satan" in a
letter addressed to another colleague as defamatory and injurious which
effectively... maligned his integrity. Similarly, the hurling of insulting language
to describe the opposing counsel is considered conduct unbecoming of the
legal profession.

10/11 5
 In this case, the IBP found the text messages that Orlando sent to his brother
Marcelo as casual communications considering that they were conveyed
privately. To the Court's mind, however, the tenor of the messages cannot be
treated lightly. The text messages were clearly... intended to malign and annoy
Maximino, as evident from the use of the word "polpol" (stupid). Likewise,
Orlando's insistence that Marcelo immediately terminate the services of
Maximino indicates Orlando's offensive conduct against his colleague, in
violation of the... above-quoted rules. Moreover, Orlando's voluntary plea of
guilty to the crime of unjust vexation in the criminal case filed against him by
Marcelo was, for all intents and purposes, an admission that he spoke ill,
insulted, and disrespected Maximino - a departure from the... judicial decorum
which exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.
On this score, it must be emphasized that membership in the bar is a privilege
burdened with conditions such that a lawyer's words and actions directly
affect the public's opinion of the legal profession. Lawyers are expected to
observe such conduct of nobility and uprightness... which should remain with
them, whether in their public or private lives, and may be disciplined in the
event their conduct falls short of the standards imposed upon them. Thus, in
this case, it is inconsequential that the statements were merely relayed... to
Orlando's brother in private. As a member of the bar, Orlando should have
been more circumspect in his words, being fully aware that they pertain to
another lawyer to whom fairness as well as candor is owed. It was highly
improper for Orlando to interfere and insult Maximino... to his client.
Indulging in offensive personalities in the course of judicial proceedings, as in
this case, constitutes unprofessional conduct which subjects a lawyer to
disciplinary action.While a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and
courage, such... enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive
language. The Court has consistently reminded the members of the bar to
abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the
honor and reputation of a party.
Considering the circumstances, it is glaringly clear how Orlando transgressed
the CPR when he maligned Maximino to his client.
With regard to Orlando's alleged violation of BM No. 1922, the Court agrees
with the IBP that his failure to disclose the required information for MCLE
compliance in the complaint for damages he had filed against his brother
Marcelo is not a ground for disbarment. At most, his... violation shall only be

10/11 6
 cause for the dismissal of the complaint as well as the expunction thereof
from the records.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Orlando O. Ailes GUILTY of
violating Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 as well as the entire Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is hereby ADMONISHED to be more
circumspect in dealing with his professional... colleagues and STERNLY
WARNED that a commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.

Atty. Noe-Lacsamana vs. Atty. Busmente (A.C. No. 7269

November 23, 2011)
Fact:
Complainant and Respondent are opponent in a civil case when complainant
inquired on the credentials of the Respondent’s alleged corroboration counsel
Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa. It was found out the Dela Rosa is not a Lawyer and
not authorized to practice law. Respondent defendant that she did not
authorized Dela Rosa to appear in his behalf and that her signature was
forged.

Issue:

Whether Respondent violated the CPR?

Held:
Yes, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer
shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law. The
Court ruled that the term “practice of law” implies customarily or habitually
holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer for compensation as a source of
livelihood or in consideration of his services.5 The Court further ruled that
holding one’s self out as a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that
purpose, such as identifying oneself as attorney, appearing in court in
representation of a client, or associating oneself as a partner of a law office
for the general practice of law.
The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the
unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy. Public
policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found
duly qualified in education and character. The permissive right conferred on
the lawyer is an individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails
to maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct. The purpose

10/11 7
 is to protect the public, the court, the client, and the bar from the
incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not
subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to
see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons and ethics of the profession
enjoin him not to permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid
of, or to make possible the unauthorized practice of law by, any agency,
personal or corporate. And, the law makes it a misbehavior on his part, subject
to disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law.

Rodrigo Tapay vs Attys. Bancolo and Jarder (A.C. No. 9604

March 20, 2013)
Facts:

Sometime in October 2004, Tapay and Rustia received an Order from the
Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas requiring them to file a counter-affidavit to
a complaint for usurpation of authority, falsification of public document, and
graft and corrupt practices filed against them by Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr., a
co-employee in the Sugar Regulatory Administration.

The Complaint was allegedly signed on behalf of Divinagracia by one Atty.

Charlie L. Bancolo of the Jarder Bancolo Law Office based in Bacolod City,
Negros Occidental.
When Atty. Bancolo and Rustia accidentally chanced upon each other, the
latter informed Atty. Bancolo of the case filed against them before the Office
of the Ombudsman. Atty. Bancolo denied that he represented Divinagracia
since he had yet to meet Divinagracia in person. When Rustia showed him the
Complaint, Atty. Bancolo declared that the signature appearing above his
name as counsel for Divinagracia was not his. Thus, Rustia convinced Atty.
Bancolo to sign an affidavit to attest to such fact.
The Office of the Ombudsman provisionally dismissed the Complaint since the
falsification of the counsel’s signature posed a prejudicial question to the
Complaint’s validity.

Thereafter, Divinagracia filed his Counter-Affidavit denying that he falsified the

signature of his former lawyer, Atty. Bancolo. Divinagracia presented as
evidence an affidavit by Richard A. Cordero, the legal assistant of Atty.
Bancolo, that the Jarder Bancolo Law Office accepted Divinagracia’s case and
that the Complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman was signed by the
office secretary per Atty. Bancolo’s instructions.

10/11 8
 The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the criminal case for falsification of
public document for insufficiency of evidence. The administrative case for
dishonesty was also dismissed for lack of substantial evidence.

Tapay and Rustia filed with the IBP a complaint to disbar Atty. Bancolo and
Atty. Jarder, Atty. Bancolo’s law partner. The complainants alleged that they
were subjected to a harassment Complaint filed before the Office of the
Ombudsman with the forged signature of Atty. Bancolo. Complainants stated
further that the signature of Atty. Bancolo in the Complaint was not the only
one that was forged. Complainants attached a Report by the PNP Crime
Laboratory 6 which examined three other letter-complaints signed by Atty.
Bancolo for other clients, allegedly close friends of Atty. Jarder. The report
concluded that the questioned signatures in the letter-complaints and the
submitted standard signatures of Atty. Bancolo were not written by one and
the same person. Thus, complainants maintained that not only were
respondents engaging in unprofessional and unethical practices, they were
also involved in falsification of documents used to harass and persecute
innocent people.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Bancolo is administratively liable

Held:

Yes. Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client
before the Office of the Ombudsman was signed in his name by a secretary of
his law office. Clearly, this is a violation of Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides: A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY
OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the
unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy. Public
policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found
duly qualified in education and character. The permissive right conferred on
the lawyer is an individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails
to maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct. The purpose
is to protect the public, the court, the client, and the bar from the
incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not
subject to the disciplinary control of the Court.

The preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving the
practice of law which is reserved exclusively for members of the legal

10/11 9
 profession.

The complainants did not present any evidence that Atty. Jarder was directly
involved, had knowledge of, or even participated in the wrongful practice of
Atty. Bancolo in allowing or tolerating his secretary to sign pleadings for him.
Thus, the court finds Atty. Jarder is not administratively liable.

Penalty: suspension from the practice of law for one year

In re Atty. Kapunan (A.M. No. 13-11-09 SC, August 12, 2014)

FACTS:
The Court required Atty. Kapunan to submit an explanation to her answers in
an interview by Anthony Taberna Taberna) in his show

"Umagang Kay Ganda" because in such interview she allegedly made

unwarranted remarks which tended to erode public trust and confidence in the
judiciary. She made unfounded insinuations that some members of the
judiciary can easily be bribed at the expense of justice. In the said Compliance,
Atty. Kapunan avers that, generally, the topic in the one hour face-to-face
interview was her life as a lawyer, which started with her family background
and flowed into a discussion of her law practice and her experiences with the
courts and the justice system. In the course of the discussion, she made
certain statements pertaining to corruption in the judiciary. Atty. Kapunan,
however, claims that, mindful of a lawyer's duty to observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and judicial officers, she refrained from using
grossly disrespectful, contemptuous and derogatory language against the
courts and individual judges. This can be noted, according to her, from the
replies she gave during the interview as shown in the transcript, the relevant
portions of which she quoted as follows:

A May kilala po kayong justice ng SC na nababayaran?

LOo.
A Kwan po, sitting justice?

L Ah, sitting justice? Mas lalong hindi ko sasabihin kung sitting justice, ano.
Laughs) That means may kaso kami doon. No. Yes. Some justice both in the
CA and the SC have been known to receive. Known to receive. Because
sometimes, hindi mo naman alam kung totoo 'yun o hindi e. Kasi that's the
problem with bribery, wala namang resibo ang bribe. At wala namang mag-

10/11 10
 aamin na nagbigay at walang mag-aamin na tumanggap. That's why the SC is
having such a difficult time to remove-anong tawag doon?

Thieves in robes. T Hoodlums in robes.) Hoodlums in robes. Because walang

gustong mag-testify, whether kliyente or lawyer because babalikan ka e.

A Sa pagkakaalam niyo, magkano ria ang bayaran ngayon diyan? Pagdating

sa CA saka sa SC.

L Well, I am told ah, na ang restraining order daw sa CA can be as much as s

million. T Hmm? And sa level naman ng prosecution, I
am told that 'yung whether to file a case- whether for the fiscal to Atty. file a
case or not to file a case, that's half a million. Five hundred thousand. I am
told.

Kapunan explains that she made no personal accusation against any court or
judge. She adds that when imparting information on corruption and bribe
money based on hearsay and/or general knowledge within the legal circles,
she, in the interest of candor and transparency, would use the appropriate

caveats - "known to receive," "I am told' and "hindi ko po alam."

ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Kapunan violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
NO.

HELD:

Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as

a citizen, to criticize the courts or any of its officers. This right, however, is not
without limitations. Comments made against the courts must not go beyond
the bounds of courtesy and fairness in order not to destroy the people's trust
in the judicial system.

Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as

a citizen, to criticize the courts or any of its officers.
This right, however, is not without limitations. Atty. Kapunan should be
reminded that comments made against the courts must not go beyond the
bounds of courtesy and fairness in order not to destroy the people's trust in
the judicial system. As held in In re Almacen: But it is the cardinal condition of
all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of
decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists between fair criticism, on the one
hand, and abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other.

10/11 11
 Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to
courts. It is such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action.
Moreover, it is well to remind Atty. Kapunan that, as a member of the Bar, she
is under the obligation to maintain at all times a respectful attitude toward the
courts. This responsibility of a lawyer in relation to the court is imposed under
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Specifically, Canon 10 and 11 provide:
CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT.

CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE

TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON
SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.

Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing

language or behavior before the Courts.

This responsibility under the said Code is closely entwined with her vow in the
attorney's oath, to conduct herself as a lawyer with all good fidelity to the
courts, as well as her duties under Section 20 (b), Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court and the first canon of the Canons of Professional Ethics, thus: For,
membership in the Bar imposes upon a person obligations and duties which
are not mere flux and ferment. His investiture into the legal profession places
upon his shoulders no burden more basic, more exacting and more imperative
than that of respectful behavior toward the courts. He vows solemnly to
conduct himself "with all good fidelity xxx to the courts; and the Rules of
Court constantly remind him "to observe and maintain the respect due to
courts of justice and judicial officers." The first canon of legal ethics enjoins
him "to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of
the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its
supreme importance." These rules of courteous demeanor must, according to
the Court, be observed not only in open court, but also out of court.
RULING While it appears that, at the moment, there is no solid basis to
proceed against her, the Court is not disposed to shelve the matter in the
meantime. Justice Brion is of the view that the matter should be dealt with
appropriately given the extent and gravity of the substance of her disclosure
on the alleged corruption in the judiciary and the public perception her
statements represent.

Atty. Umaguing vs. Atty. Wallen R. De Vera (A.C. No. 10451,

February 4, 2015)

10/11 12
 FACTS:

Umaguing ran for the position of SK Chairman but lost to her rival.
Complainants lodged an election protest and engaged in the services of Atty.
De Vera. According to the complainants, Atty. De Vera moved at a glacial
pace; he rushed the preparation of the documents and attachments for the
election protest. Two 2 of these attachments are the Affidavits of material
witnesses, which was personally prepared by Atty. De Vera. At the time that
the aforesaid affidavits were needed to be signed by the witnesses, they were
unavailable. To remedy this, Atty. De Vera look for the nearest kin of the
witnesses and ask them to sign and he had all the documents notarized. He
hastily filed the election protest with full knowledge that the affidavits were
falsified. In further breach of his oath, and for lack of trust and confidence i n
the integrity and competency of Atty. De Vera, the complainants withdraw him
as their counsel. Complainants sought Atty. De Vera's disbarment. Anent the
issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal
services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or
statement of facts. The standards of the legal profession condemn the
lawyer's advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the
ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to
a merchant advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic
seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other
circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly
reprehensible. The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement
are allowed. The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned
as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a
client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching
public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service
which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial
stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the
difference between a normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome
result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the following as
allowed forms of advertisement:

ISSUE 1 Whether or not Atty. De Vera should be held administratively liable.

HELD:

10/11 13
 Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that, fundamental is the rule that in his dealings
with his client and with the courts, every lawyer is expected to be honest,
imbued with integrity, and trustworthy. Xxx The Lawyer's Oath enjoins every
lawyer not only to obey the laws of the land but also to refrain from doin g
any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing of any in
court , and to conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity to the courts as well as to his clients. xxx In
this light, Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that ª[a] lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.º 1. Advertisement in a reputable law list 2. Use of ordinary simple
professional card 3. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to
his specialization 1ST SEMESTER SY. 20152016 ATTY. VICTORIA LOANZON
Atty. De Vera is found guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 10.01,
Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by submitting a falsified
document before a court. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are
designed to ensure that whoever is granted the privilege to practice law in this
country should remain faithful to the Lawyer's Oath. 6 PHILIPPINE
JURISPRUDENCE IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW ACOSTA, BARTOLOME,
CASQUEJO, DE GRACIA, PINERA conjugal home and joined Atty. Ramona
Paguida Valencia at their residence, and has since failed to render much
needed financial support. In their defense, they postulated that they were not
lawyers as of yet when they committed the supposed immorality, so as such,
they were not guilty of a violation of Canon1, Rule 1.01.

ISSUE 2 Whether or not a case of suspension or disbarment may proceed

regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant.

HELD: Yes. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of

interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the
basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly
immoral conduct has been proven. This rule is premised on the nature of
disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not a
civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a
defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no
redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for
the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts
of justice from the official administration of persons unfit to practice in them .
xxx The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the
attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no

10/11 14
 interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper
administration of justice. ISSUE Whether or not Atty. Garrido's and Valencia's
actions constitute a violation of Canon 1, Rule1.01 and thus a good enough
cause for their disbarment, despite the offense being supposedly committed
when they were not lawyers.
HELD: Yes. Membership in the Bar is a privilege, and as a privilege bestowed
by law through the Supreme Court, membership in the Bar can be withdrawn
where circumstances show the lawyer's lack of the essential qualifications
required of lawyers, be they academic or moral. In the present case, the Court
had resolved to withdraw this privilege from Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty.
Rowena P. Valencia for the reason of their blatant violation of Canon 1,Rule 1.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which commands that a lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Furthermore, the contention of respondent that they were not yet lawyers
when they got married shall not afford them exemption from sanctions; good
moral character was already required as a condition precedent to admission to
the Bar

10/11 15