LEGAL ETHICS (PINEDA)

✓ MEANING OF LEGAL ETHICS

Legal Ethics: It is a branch of moral science which treats of the duties which an attorney owes to
the court, to his client, to his colleagues in the professional and to the public as embodied in the
Constitution, Rules of Court, CPR, Canons of Professional Ethics, jurisprudence, moral law and
special laws. It provides the needed moral foundation in the study of law intended to guide the
student throughout his life. It will guard against the abuses and ills of the profession such as
dishonesty, deceit, immorality, negligence, slothness, lack of diligence and the many forms of
malpractice of the members of the Bar.
On the positive side, Legal ethics will raise the standard of the legal profession, encourage and
enhance the respect for the law, assure an effective and efficient administration of justice, assist
in the keeping and maintenance of law and order. It also provides the basis for the weeding out
of the unfit and the misfit in the legal profession for the protection of the public.
✓ PRESENT BASIS of PHILIPPINE LEGAL ETHICS
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR): It is the main basis of Philippine legal ethics. It is the
embodiment into one code of the various pertinent and subsisting rules, guidelines and
standards of the rule of conduct of lawyers sourced from the (1) Constitution, (2) Rules of Court,
(3) Canons of Professional Ethics, (4) Statutes, (5) special laws, (6) treatises, and (7) decisions
which must be observed by the members of the bar in the exercise of their profession in or out
of the court as well as in their public and private lives.
CPR was promulgated by the Supreme Court on June 21, 1988. It is the SC which has the
supremacy of supervision over all members of the bar. It is binding on all lawyers. Violation
thereof is a ground for disciplinary action.
✓ DEFINITION OF TERMS COMMONLY USED IN LEGAL ETHICS
BAR AND BENCH: Bar refers to the whole body of attorneys and counsellors, while the bench
denote the whole body of judges.
BAR ADMISSION: Act by which one is licensed to practice before courts after satisfying certain
requirements.
LAWYER: The general term for a person trained in the law and authorized to advise or
represent others in legal matters.
TRIAL LAWYER: Personally handles cases in court, administrative agencies or boards which
means engaging in actual trial work either for prosecution or for the defense of clients.
PRACTICING LAWYERS: Engaged int he practice of law. All trial lawyers are practicing
lawyers, but not all practicing lawyers are trial lawyers.
CLIENT: Engages the services of a lawyer for legal advice or for purpose of prosecuting or
defending a suit.
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW: Who are license, officers of courts, empowered to appear, prosecute
and defend. It is synonymous with counsellor-at-law, lawyer, attorney, counsel, abogado, and
boceros.
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT: Simply an agent whose authority is strictly limited by the instrument
appointing him though he may do things not mentioned in his appointment necessary to the
performance of the duties. His authority is provided in a special power of attorney or general
power of attorney. But attorney-in-fact is not necessarily a lawyer.
COUNSEL DE OFICIO: It need not be a lawyer. In localities, where members of the bar are not
available, the court may appoint any person, resident of the province and of good repute for
probity and ability to defend the accused. Thus, it could be a non-lawyer, lawyer or attorney
appointed by the court to represent a party.
ATTORNEY AD HOC: Appointed by the court to defend an absentee defendant in the suit in
which the appointment is made.
ATTORNEY OF RECORD: Attorney whose name must appear somewhere in permanent
records or files of case or on the pleadings or some instrument filed in the case or on
appearance docket. Once an attorney becomes an attorney of record, he often cannot withdraw
from the case without court permission.
OF COUNSEL: Associate attorneys are referred to as “of counsel”
LEAD COUNSEL: Refer the chief or primary attorney in class action or multi-district litigation as
distinguished from his juniors or subordinates.
HOUSE COUNSEL: Lawyer who acts as attorney for business though carried as an employee
of that business and not as an independent lawyer.
AMICUS CURIAE: A friend of court. A person with strong interest in or view on the subject
matter of an action but not a party to the action may petition the court for recognition to file a
brief. Experience and impartial attorneys may be invited by the court to appear as amicus curiae
to help in the disposition of issues submitted to it.
AMICUS CURIAE PAR EXCELLENCE: Bar associations who appear in court as amici curiae or
friends of court. It has no control over the suit. It acts merely as a consultant to guide the court
in a doubtful question or issue pending before it.
BAR ASSOCIATION: Association of members of the legal profession like the IBP where
membership is integrated or compulsory.
ADVOCATE: Lawyer who pleads the cause of another before a judicial court.
BARRISTER: Person entitled to practice law as an advocate or counsel in courts.
SOLICITOR: Government lawyer attached with the office of the solicitor general.
PROCTOR: formerly an attorney in the admiralty and ecclesiastical courts.
TITULO DE ABOGADO: Means not mere possession of the academic degree of Bachelor of
laws but membership in the bar after due admission thereto, qualifying one for practice of law.
✓ ADMISSION TO PRACTICE LAW
The power of admission to the practice of law is vested by the Constitution in the Supreme
Court (Sec 5, 1987 Constitution). The constitutional power to admit candidates to the legal
profession is a judicial function. The SC acts through the Bar Examination Committee in the
exercise of its judicial function to admit candidates to the legal profession.
✓ MEANING OF PRACTICE OF LAW
“ Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience... If what he does exacts knowledge of the law
and is of a kind usual for attorneys engaging int he active practice of their profession, and he
follows some one or more lines of employments such as this he is a practicing attorney at law
within the meaning of the statute ”, CAYETANO vs MONSOD (1991).
“The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the
preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the
management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts,
and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in
matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services
contemplating an appearance before a judicial body... constitute law practice as do the
interpretation and drafting of legal instruments where the work done involves the determination
by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions” ULEP vs LEGAL CLINIC
(1993).
✓ REGULATION OF PRACTICE OF LAW
“The SC has the exclusive and constitutional power with respect to admission to the practice of
law in the Philippines and to any member of the Philippine Bar in good standing may practice
law anywhere and before any entity, whether judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative, in the
Philippines.... Members of the Philippine Bar authorized to practice law, and in good standing,
may practice their profession before the Patent office for the reason that much of the business
in said office involves the interpretation and determination of the scope and application of the
Patent Law and other laws applicable, as well as the presentation of evidence to establish facts
involved; that part of the functions of the Patent Director are judicial or quasi-judicial, so much
so that appeals from his orders and decisions are under the law taken to the SC... the
respondent director is hereby prohibited from requiring members of the Philippine Bar to submit
to an examination or test and pass the same before being permitted to appear and practice
before the Patent Office”, PHILIPPINE LAWYER’S ASSCOSIATION vs AGRAVA (1959).
“The justification for excluding from the practice of law those not admitted to the bar is found,
not in the protection of the bar from competition, but in the protection of the public from being
advised and represented in legal matters by incompetent and unreliable persons over whom the
judicial department can exercise little control”, ULEP vs LEGAL CLINIC (1993).
✓ PERSONS ENTITLED TO PRACTICE LAW
“The conduct and behavior of every official and employee of an agency involved in the
administration of justice, from the presiding judge to the most junior clerk, should be
circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Their conduct must at all times be
characterized by strict propriety and decorum so as to earn and keep the respect of the public
for the judiciary... The law requires that he exercise that right with propriety, without malice or
vindictiveness, or undue harm to anyone; in a manner consistent with good morals, good
customs, public policy, public order, or otherwise stated he act with justice, give everyone his
due, and observe honesty and good faith... As a member of the Shari’ah Bar and an officer of ac
court, Alawi is subject to a standard of conduct more stringent than most other government
workers. As a man of the law, he may not use language which is abusive, offensive,
scandalous, menacing, or otherwise improper... [also] persons who pass the Shari’a Bar are not
full-pledge members of the Philippine Bar, hence may only practice law before Shari’a courts.
While one who has been admitted to the Shari’a Bar and one who has been admitted to the
Philippine Bar, may both considered “counsellors”, in the sense that they give counsel or advice
in a professionall capacity, only the latter is an “attorney”... The title of “attorney” is reserved to
those who, having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and successfully taken the
Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain
members thereof in good standing; and it is they only who are authorized to practice law in this
jurisdiction”, ALAWI vs ALAUYA (1997).
✓ REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR
BASIC REQUIREMENTS for ALL APPLICANTS:
Sec 2, Rule 138, RRC:
1) A Philippine citizen 2) At least 21 years of age 3) Of good moral character 4) A resident of the
Philippines 5) No charges against him involving moral turpitude have been filed or are pending
in any Philippine court
ACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS:
1) Pre-Law Course (Bachelor’s degree) 2) Law Course with completed course on civil,
commercial, remedial, criminal, public and private international law, labor and social legislation,
medical jurisprudence, taxation, and legal ethics (Sec 5 & 6, Rule 138 RRC)
“The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the
preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the
management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts,
and in addition, conveyancing... Respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he
appeared in the proceedings before the MBEC and filed various pleadings without license to do
so.. Having held himself out as counsel knowing that he had no authority to practice law,
respondent has shown moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar... Before one is
admitted to the Philippine Bar, he must possess the requisite moral integrity for membership in
the legal profession. Possession of moral integrity is of greater importance than possession of
legal learning. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed only on the morally fit. A bar
candidate is morally unfit cannot practice law even if he passes the Bar Examinations....
Respondent passed the Bar Examinations and took the lawyers oath. However, it is the signing
in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer”, AGUIRRE vs RANA (2003).
“The rules of court mandates that an applicant for admission to the bar be a citizen of the
Philippines, at least 21 years of age, of good moral character and a resident of the Philippines.
He must also produce before this court satisfactory evidence of good moral character and that
no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, having been filed or are pending in any court
in the Philippines... Moreover admission to the bar involves various phases such as furnishing
satisfactory proof of educational, moral, and other qualifications; passing the bar examinations;
taking the lawyers oath and signing the roll of attorneys and receiving from the clerk of court of
this court a certificate of the license to practice”, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME
PRACTICE OF LAW, BENJAMIN DACANAY (2007).
✓ REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CANDIDATE CAN PRACTICE LAW
1. Basic requirements and Academic requirements 2. Passed the Bar Examinations 3. Taking of
the lawyer’s oath before the SC (Rule 138, Sec 17, RRC) 4. Signing of the Roll of Attorneys 5.
Certificate of membership issued by the clerk of court of the SC
Sec 1, Rule 138, RRC: Any person duly admitted as a member of the bar, and who is in good
and regular standing is entitled to practice law.
✓ PRACTICE OF LAW A PRIVILEGE
Practice of law is not a natural or constitutional right. It is not a property but a mere privilege and
as such must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the court to exact compliance with the
lawyer’s public responsibilities. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special
qualifications duly ascertained and certified. But the privilege to practice law is a right by itself
only subject to limitations.
Practice of law is reserved only to those who are academically trained in law and possessed of
good moral character not only at the time of his admission to the bar but even more so
thereafter to remain in the practice of law.
✓ CONTINUING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRACTICE OF LAW
“Membership in good standing is a continuing requirement. This means continued membership
and concomitantly payment of annual membership dues in the IBP, payment of the annual
professional tax; compliance with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement; faithful
observance of the rules and ethics of the legal profession and being continually subject to
judicial disciplinary control”, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW,
BENJAMIN DACANAY (2007).
“Membership in the legal profession is a privilege and demands a high degree of good moral
character, not only as a condition precedent to admission, but also as a continuing requirement
for the practice of law”, BARRIENTOS vs LIBIRAN-METEORO (2004).
“...Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the Bar and is in fact, a continuing
requirement for the practice of law. The loss thereof means termination of the petitioner’s
membership in the bar; ipso jure the privilege to engage int he practice of law. Thus, a Filipino
lawyer who becomes citizen of another country and later re-acquires his Philippine citizenship
under R.A. No. 9225, remains to be a member of the Philippine Bar. However, the right to
resume the practice of law is not automatic. R.A. No. 9225 provides that a person who intends
to practice his profession in the Philippines must apply with the proper authority for a license to
permit to engage in such practice... Petitioner is hereby granted [to resume practice of law]
subject to the condition that he shall re-take the lawyer’s oath and subject to the payment of the
appropriate fees”, IN RE: PETITION TO RE-ACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW
IN THE PHILIPPINES, EPIFANIO MUNESES (2012).
✓ PROHIBITION AND LIMITATIONS IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW
“Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law likewise transgresses Canon 9 of the CPR
which provides, a lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of
law... This duty likewise applies to law students and Bar candidates. As aspiring members of the
Bar, they are bound to comport themselves in accordance with the ethical standards of the legal
profession... Petitioner demonstrated good faith and good moral character when he finally filed
the instant petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys... it was not a third party who called this
Court’s attention to petitioner’s omission... While the practice of law is not a right but a privilege,
this court will not unwarrantedly withhold this privilege from individuals who have shown mental
unfitness and moral fiber to withstand the rigors of the profession”, IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN
IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS MICHAEL MEDADO
“Rule 6.03 prohibits former government lawyers from accepting engagement or employment in
connection with any matter in which they had intervened while in said service... Respondent
was an incumbent punong barangay at the time he committed the act complained of, therefore
he was not covered by that provision”, CATU vs RELLOSA (2008).
Rule 6.03: A lawyer shall not after leaving government service accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which he intervened while in said service.
✓ NON-LAWYERS WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO APPEAR IN COURT
General Rule: Only those who are licensed to practice law can appear and handle cases in
court.
Exceptions:
1) In cases before MTC, a party may conduct his own case or litigation in person with the aid of
an agent or friend
appointed by him for the purpose. 2) Before any other court, a party may conduct his
litigation personally. But if he gets someone to aid him, that someone must be an authorized
member of the bar. He cannot after judgment claim that he was not properly represented by
counsel. 3) In criminal case before MTC, the judge can appoint a non-lawyer who is a resident
in the province , of good repute for probity and ability to aid the accused in his defense, if only a
duly member of the bar is not available. 4) A senior law student enrolled in a recognized law
school’s clinical education program approved by the SC may appear before any court without
compensation, to represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school. The
student shall be under the direct supervision and control of an IBP member duly accredited by
the law school (Rule 138-A, Sec 1, RRC). 5) Non-lawyers may appear before the National Labor
Relations Commission or any labor arbiter under the labor code, if they represent themselves,
or if they represent their organization or members thereof with written authorization, or they are
duly accredited members of any legal aid office duly authorized by the DOJ or IBP. 6) A non-
lawyer can represent a claimant before the cadastral court. 7) Any person appointed to appear
for the Government of the Philippines in accordance with law (Rule 138, Sec 33,
RRC). 8) Non-lawyer may represent a party before the DARAB.
✓ LAW STUDENT PRACTICE
A senior law student enrolled in a recognized law school’s clinical education program approved
by the SC may appear before any court without compensation, to represent indigent clients
accepted by the legal clinic of the law school. The student shall be under the direct supervision
and control of an IBP member duly accredited by the law school (Rule 138-A, Sec 1, RRC).
✓ PUBLIC OFFCIALS WHO ARE PROHIBITED TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES
Section 90, Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) provides:
Sec. 90. 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.
Section 90 of RA 7160 provides, “...Governors, city mayors, and municipal mayors are
prohibited from practicing their profession or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise
of their functions as a local chief executives. This is because they are required to render full
time service. They should therefore devote all their time and attention to the performance of
their official duties”, CATU vs RELLOSA (2008).
1. Judges and other officials or employees of the Superior Court (Rule 138, Section 35, RRC) 2.
Officials and employees of the office of the Solicitor General 3. Government prosecutors 4.
President, VP, Members of Cabinet, their deputies and assistants 5. Members of constitutional
commission 6. Ombudsman and his deputies 7. Governors, city and municipal mayors 8. Those
who by special law are prohibited
“Respondent transgressed the prohibition prescribed in Section 415 of the LGC... the punong
barangay [respondent], as chairman of the lupon tagapamayapa, conducted the conciliation
proceedings to resolve the disputes between the two parties... The provision clearly requires the
personal appearance of the parties in katarungan pambarangay conciliation proceedings
unassisted by counsel or representative. The rationale behind the personal appearance
requirement is to enable the lupon to secure first hand and direct information about the facts
and issues, the exception being in cases where minors or incompetent are parties.... the
participation of lawyers with their penchant to use their analytical skills and legal knowledge
tend to prolong instead of expedite settlement of the case”, MAGNO vs ATTY. JACOBA (2005).
Section 415 of the LGC 1991:
Appearance of Parties in Person. -In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties
must appear in person without the assistance of the counsel or representative, except for
minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their next of kin who are not lawyers.
✓ PUBLIC OFFICIAL WITH RESTRICTIONS IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW
1. No senator or member of the HOR may personally appear as counsel before any court of
justice or before electoral tribunal, but they are allowed to engage in the other aspects of the law
practice such as giving legal advice or negotiating contracts in behalf of clients. 2. Sangguniang
members may practice their professions subject ot limitations provided in Section 90, Local
Government
Code of 1991 (RA 7160) :
Sec. 90. Practice of Profession. —
(b) Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or
teach in schools except during session hours: Provided, That sanggunian members who are
members of the Bar shall not:
(1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government unit or
any office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party;
(2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national or
local government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office;
(3) Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local
government unit of which he Is an official; and
(4) Use property and personnel of the Government except when the sanggunian member
concerned is defending the interest of the Government.
“Section 90 of the LGC applies to all provincial and municipal officials in the professions or
engaged in any occupation. Section 90 explicitly provides that Sanggunian members may
practice their professions, engage in any occupation or teach in schools expect during session
hours. Neither the statute trenches upon the SC’s power and authority to prescribe rules on the
practice of law, it simply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of
interest between the discharge of their public duties and the private practice of their profession”,
JAVELLANA vs DILG and SANTOS (1992).
“As punong barangay, respondent was not prohibited to practice profession. However, he
should have procured prior permission or authorization from the head of his department as
required by civil service regulations. The failure of the respondent to comply with Sec 12 Rule
18 of the Revised Civil Service Rules constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer: to obey
laws... In acting as counsel for a party without first securing the required written permission,
respondent not only engaged in the unauthorized practice of law but also violated civil service
rules which is a breach of Rule 1.01 of the CPR. [also failed to comply with Canon 7 of the CPR
for not living up to his oath as well as with the ethical standards of the legal profession”, CATU
vs RELLOSA (2008).
3. Justice or judge receiving pension from the government cannot act as counsel in any civil
case of its subdivisions or agencies is the adverse party or in a criminal case wherein an officer
or employee of the government is accused of an offense in relation to his office.
✓ SANCTIONS FOR PRACTICE OR APPEARANCE WITHOUT AUTHORITY
“A member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as an attorney for violation
of the lawyers oath and/or for the breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the
CPR”, CATU vs RELLOSA (2008).
“Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba is hereby FINED in the amount of 50, 000 for willful violation of
Section 415 of the LGC of 1991 with WARNING that commission of similar acts of impropriety
on her part in the future will be dealt with more severely”, MAGNO vs ATTY. JACOBA (2005).
“Under Sec. 27 Rule 138 of the rules of court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in such office, grossly misconduct, or by reason of his conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court,
or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do
so”, BARRIOS vs ATTY. MARTINEZ (2004).
✓ DUTIES OF A LAWYER Under the Revised Rules of Court (LEGAL ETHICS, PINEDA pp.
37-42)
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 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 of a 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 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 reject, for any reconsideration personal to
himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed i) In the defense of a person accused of the
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.
NOTE: Through the lawyer, the judicial machinery is set in motion by his filing of cases in court
on which the judge is called upon to act. His participation in the dispensation of justice is
indispensable. If there no lawyers, courts cannot operate to dispense justice. His intimate and
indispensable relationship to the court makes him a part of the court. Hence, the reference to
him as officer of the court.
➢ DUTIES OF ATTORNEYS IN THE CPR (based on law, jurisprudence, and principles of
justice and equity)
✓ CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote
respect for the law and
legal processes.
This duty is enshrined in the Attorney’s Oath which every lawyer has to take before he is
allowed to practice law. By swearing the lawyer’s oath, an attorney becomes guardian of truth
and the rule of law, and an indispensable requirement in the fair and impartial administration of
justice. Lawyers must not only uphold and obey the constitution and the laws but also legal
orders or processes of courts, otherwise, they will be disciplined for disobedience.
- Lawyer’s oath
● Unlawful conduct- transgression of any provisions of law, need not be penal law
● Dishonest act- act of lying or cheating
● Grossly immoral or deceitful conduct- a conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and
which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the
community; involves moral turpitude
● Moral turpitude- an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the duties which one person
owes to another or to society in general which is contrary to the usually accepted and customary
rule of right and duty which a person should follow.
Examples:
● Estafa
● Bribery
● Murder
● Seduction
● Abduction
● Concubinage
● Smuggling
● Falsification of public document
● Violation of BP 22
INSTANCES OF GROSS IMMORALITY AND CONSEQUENCES 1. Abandonment of wife and
cohabiting with another woman= DISBARRED 2. Bigamy perpetrated by the lawyer =
DISBARRED 3. A lawyer who had carnal knowledge with a woman through a promise of
marriage which he did not fulfill= DISBARRED 4. Seduction of a woman who is the niece of a
married woman with whom the respondent lawyer had adulterous relations = DISBARRED 5.
Lawyer arranging the marriage of his son to a woman with whom the lawyer had illicit relations.
After the marriage the woman to his son, the lawyer continued his adulterous relations with her.
= DISBARRED 6. Lawyer inveigling a woman into believing that they had been married civilly to
satisfy his carnal desires = DISBARRED 7. Lawyer taking advantage of his position as chairman
of the college of medicine and asked a lady student to go with in Manila where he had carnal
knowledge of her under threat that if she refused, she would flunk in all her subjs. =
DISBARRED 8. Concubinage coupled with failure to support illegitimate children =
SUSPENDED INDEFENITELY 9. Maintaining adulterous relationship with a married woman=
SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY 10. Delivering bribe money to a judge on request of clients=
STRICTLY WARNED 11. Seducing a woman through promise of marriage by a married lawyer=
DISBARRED
Rule 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
Lawyer must constantly be of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition
precedent to the admission to the practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for
remaining in the practice of law. He should not engage or participate in any unlawful acts
especially crimes involving moral turpitude (estafa, bribery, murder, bigamy, seduction,
concubinage, smuggling, falsification of public document, violation of B.P. Blg 22 etc.),
dishonest, grossly immoral or deceitful conduct. Otherwise, his privilege to practice the legal
profession may be withdrawn from him. The transgression of any provision of law by a lawyer is
a repulsive and reprehensible act which the court will not countenance.
Honesty is essential for every lawyer to retain his standing as a member of the bar. Lawyers
must conduct themselves with good moral character and without deception. Dishonesty is
condemned and is a ground for disciplinary action.
Immoral conduct is that which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community. Morality is a
human standard based on natural moral law which is embedded in man’s conscience and which
guides him to do good and avoid evil. Immorality is the doing of an act which is contrary to
science.
Rule 1.02: A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
A lawyer should not render any service or advice to any client no matter how important, which
will involve disloyalty to the laws of the country which he is bound to uphold and obey. Lawyer
advances the honor of his profession and the best interest of his client when he renders service
or gives advice tending to impress upon the client and his undertaking exact compliance with
the strictest principle of moral law. He must advise his client to observe the statute law.
Although the client may expect the lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense, the great
trust of the lawyer is to be performed within and not without the bounds of the law. All acts of
lawyers which are unlawful, dishonest, immoral conduct corrode public confidence in the legal
system.
Rule 1.03: A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man’s cause.
Lawyers owe to the court and to society not to stir up litigation. The act is not a crime, but it is
proscribed by the rules of legal ethics to prevent barratry and ambulance chasing. Lawyers must
not file pointless petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary. It is unprofessional for a
lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of blood,
relationships or trust make it his duty to do so. Thus, lawyer should not be an instigator of
controversy, but a mediator for concord and conciliator for compromise.
It the duty of the lawyer not to delay any man’s cause from corrupt motive or interest. He had
sworn this in his lawyer’s oath. For example, appealing a case for purposes of delay, resort to
technicalities to frustrate justice, filing of motions for postponement, indiscriminate filing
intended for harassment, etc.)
Rule 1.04: A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will
admit of a fair settlement.
The right of the lawyers to the fees due for services in a litigation cannot have a higher standing
than the right of the clients or the parties. It cannot be a ground fro disapproving the
compromise. Also a lawyer cannot enter into a compromise without authority. But a lawyer has
the exclusive management of the procedural aspect of the litigation.
Whenever the controversy will admit of fair judgment, the client should be advised to avoid or to
end the litigation. (to avoid litigation expenses and to help courts in the declogging of cases).
Effect of compromise without client’s authority/ consent: unenforceable, meaning be ratified by
the client if he/ she so desires.
DECIDED CASES:
“By transmitting and distributing the stolen test questions to some members of the Beta Sigma
Lambda Fraternity, possibly for pecuniary profit and to given them undue advantage over the
other examiners in the mercantile law examination, De Guzman abetted cheating or dishonesty
by his fraternity brothers in the examination which is violative of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, as wells
as Canon 7 of the CPR for members of the Bar...De Guzman was guilty of grave misconduct
unbecoming a member of the bar. He violated the law instead of promoting respect for it and
degraded the noble profession of law instead of upholding its dignity and integrity”, RE: 2003
BAR EXAMINATIONS, (2004). *Note: 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.
“Respondent eventually acknowledged her indebtedness to Isidra... her attempt to evade her
financial obligations runs counter to the precepts of the CPR, above quoted [Canon1, Rule
1.01], and violates the lawyer’s oath which imposes upon every member of the bar the duty to
delay no man for money or malice... [also] the issuance of checks which were later dishonored
for having been drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and
confidence reposed on her. It shows lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to
render her unworthy of public confidence... [lawyers] are expected to maintain not only legal
proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing so that the
peoples faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. They must at all times faithfully
perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts and to their clients which include prompt
payment of financial obligations”, BARRIENTOS vs LIBIRAN-METEORO (2004).
“the crimes of which the respondent was convicted [also] import deceit and violation of her
attorney’s oath and the CPR under both of which she was bound to obey the laws of the land...
Respondent has been found guilty and convicted for estafa. Moral turpitude includes everything
which is done contrary to justice, honesty, or good morals... estafa no doubt is a crime involving
moral turpitude because the act is unquestionably against justice, honesty and good morals”,
BARRIOS vs ATTY. MARTINEZ (2004).
“While the general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred, and the court may
not ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him for misconduct in his non-professional or
private capacity, where, however, the misconduct outside of the lawyer’s professional dealings
is so gross a character as to show him morally unfit for the office and unworthy of the privilege
which his licenses and the law confer on him, the court may be justified in suspending or
removing him form the office of attorney... The fact that respondent has chosen to engage in
private practice does not mean he is now free to conduct himself in less honorable[manner]”,
BARRIOS vs ATTY. MARTINEZ (2004).
“...deem reasonable to affirm the sanction imposed by the IBP-CBD, Atty. Valerio was ordered
suspended from the practice of law for 2 years, because aside from issuing worthless checks
and failing to pay her debts, she has also shown wanton disregard of the IBPs and Court Orders
in the course of proceedings”, A-1 FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. vs ATTY. VALERIO (2010).
“Having incurred just debts, respondent had the moral duty and legal responsibility to settle
them when they became due... Respondent left the apartment unit without settling her unpaid
obligations and without the complainants knowledge and consent. Respondents abandonment
of the leased premises to avoid her obligations for the rent and electricity bills constitutes
deceitful conduct violative of the CPR particularly Canon 1 and Rule 1.01”, CHAM vs ATTY.
PAITA-MOYA (2008)
“considering the seriousness of ATTY Limpin’s action in submitting a false document...
committed an infraction which did not conform to her oath as a lawyer in accord with Canon 1
and Rule 1.01.... [also] in allowing herself to be swayed by the business practice of having Mr.
De los Angeles appoint the members of the BOD and officers of the corporation despite the
rules enunciated in the Corporation Code with respect to the election of such officers, ATTY
limpin has transgressed Rule 1.02”, GUARIN vs ATTY. LIMPIN ( 2015).
“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... Carrying on an illicit
affair with a married [woman] [constitute] a grossly immoral conduct and indicative of an
extremely low regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession... Respondent violated Rule
1.01 of Canon 1 which prescribes a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct, and Canon 7 Rule 7.03 which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law”, GUEVARRA vs ATTY. EALA
(2007).
“Respondent and complainant were sweethearts whose sexual relations were evidently
consensual. We do not find complainants assertions that she had been forced into sexual
intercourse... Unfortunately respondent chose to marry and settle permanently with another
woman... these facts do not constitute gross immorality warranting the permanent exclusion of
respondent from the legal profession. His engaging in premarital sexual relations with
complainant and promises to marry suggest a doubtful moral character on his part but the same
does not constitute grossly immoral conduct. A grossly immoral conduct is one that is so corrupt
and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible
to a high degree. It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless act which shows a moral indifference to
the opinion of respectable members of the community”, FIGUERORA vs BARRANCO (1997).
“Respondent repeatedly engaged in sexual congress with a woman not his wife and now
refuses to recognize and support a child whom he previously recognized and promised to
support...Respondent violated the standards of morality required of the legal profession and
should be disciplined accordingly... [violated] Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03... settled that a
lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private
capacities as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor”, ZAGUIRRE vs ATTY. CASTILLO (2003).
“Respondent’s act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his former employee
constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction... His act of having carnal knowledge
of a woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage
and his own marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he procurred the act by enticing a
very young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the
dignity of the human person and the ethics of profession... Respondent is hereby disbarred for
gross immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and
Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the CPR”, VENTURA vs ATTY. SAMSON (2012).
“Respondent in giving advice that directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional policy
showed disrespect for the Constitution and gross ignorance of the law. Worse, he prepared
spurious documents that he knew were void and illegal. By advising complainant that a
foreigner could legally and validly acquire real estate in the Philippines and by assuring
complainant that the property was alienable, respondent deliberately foisted falsehood on his
client. He did not give due regard to the trust and confidence reposed in him by complainant...
for all this, respondent violated not only the lawyers oath and Canon 1 of the CPR. He also
transgressed [Rule 1.01, Rule 1.02, Canon 7, 15, 16 and 17]”, STEMMERIK vs MAS (2009).
✓ CANON 2- A lawyer shall make his legal service available in an efficient and
convenient manner compatible with
the independence, integrity and effectiveness of the profession.
Rule 2.01: A lawyer shall not reject except for a valid reasons the cause of the defenseless or
oppressed.
Except for valid reason, it is the lawyer’s duty to see to it that justice be accorded to all without
discrimination, and cannot be excused for any trivial reason. It is a means for the correction of
social imbalance that may and often do lead to injustice, for which reason it is a public
responsibility of the bar.
- Oppressed: the victims of cruelty, unlawful exaction, domination or excessive use of authority -
Defenseless: those who are not in a position to defend themselves due to poverty, weakness,
ignorance or other similar reasons
Rule 2.02: In such case, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render
legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter’s
right.
In case of non-acceptance, immediate legal advice should still be rendered to safeguard their
rights. Advice may be on what preliminary steps to take until the client has secured the services
of counsel. But he shall refrain from giving legal advice if the reason for not accepting the case
is that there involves a conflict of interest between him and the prospective client.
Rule 2.03: A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business.
Legal Profession as distinguished from business:
1. A duty of public service in which one may attain the highest eminence without making much
money. 2. A relation as an officer of court to the administration of justice involving thorough
sincerity, reliability and integrity. 3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary. 4. A
relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to
business methods
of advertising and encroachment in their practice, or dealing directly with their clients.
It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant. It is
destructive of the honor of a great profession. It lowers the standards of that profession. Law is
a profession and not a trade. For solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity
of the legal profession. If made in a modest and decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the
lawyer or to the bar. But then most worthy and effective advertisement possible is the
establishment of a well merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This
cannot be forced but must be the outcome of character and conduct.
Solicitation of Legal Business, When Permissible
-must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession - use of simple signs stating the
name of the lawyer; use of professional cards bearing the name of the lawyer, his office/law firm
connected, address, telephone number, special branch of law practiced - adviertisements in
legal periodicals - publication in reputable law lists NOTE: Legal aid program as a public service
is allowable.
Rule 2.04: A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily or prescribed, unless
the circumstances so warrant.
To avoid any demeaning and degrading competition, lawyers must refrain from charging lower
rates than the customary rules unless there are valid justifications such as when a client is a
relative or indigent/poor.
CANON 3- A lawyer in making known of his legal services shall use only true, honest,
fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts.
Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or
legal services.
The profession is primarily for public service and so lawyers must use true, honest, fair, dignified
and objective information, otherwise, using of self-praise and puffing damages public confidence
and may increase lawsuit and result in needless litigation.
- Use true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information - the unethical act may be done by
the lawyer personally though another with his permission
Reasons for the Prohibition: - the profession is primarily for public service - commercializes the
profession - involves self-praise and puffing - damages public confidence - may increase
lawsuits and result in needles litigation
“marriage license promptly secured thru our assistance and annoyance of delay or publicity
avoided if desired, and marriage arranged to wishes of parties. Consultation on any matter free
for the poor. Everything confidential, Directior of Religious Affairs v Bayot”
Rule 3.02 - 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.
Use of a deceased partner’s name is allowed because all of the partners, by their joint efforts
contributed to the goodwill attached to the firm name provided that a cross is put after the name
of the deceased partner.
The use of a foreign law firm’s name is unethical because foreign firm is not authorized to
practice law in the country.
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdrawal from the firm and his
name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law currently.
This is to prevent the law firm or partners from making use of the name of the public official to
attract legal business and to avoid suspicion of undue influence.
Use of a foreign law firm’s name - unethical - Reason: foreign firm is not authorized to practice
law in the country
Rule 3.04 - A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the mass
media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business.
A person engaged in a lawful calling ( which may involve knowledge of the law) is not engaged
in the practice of law provided that:
1. The legal question is subordinate and incidental to a major non-legal problem 2. The services
performed are not customarily reserved to members of the bar 3. No separate fee is charged for
the legal advice or information.
Note: If a person involved is both lawyer and non-lawyer: Rule 15.08 “A lawyer who is
engaged in another profession or occupation concurrently with the practice of law shall make
clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.”
“Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who
stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them in
public... The canon of the profession tell is that 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. The canons of the profession enumerates exceptions to
the rule against advertising or solicitation and define the extent to which they may be
undertaken... [1] those expressly allowed and those which are implied from the restrictions”,
ULEP vs LEGAL CLINIC (1993).
First exception: publication in reputable law lists in a manner consistent with the standards of
conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data
*law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be mere
supplemental feature of a paper
*A lawyer may not properly publish his brief biological and informative data in a daily paper,
magazine, trade journal or society program.
*nor may a lawyer permit his name to be published in a law list the conduct, management
or contents of which are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar or to lower
the dignity or standing of the profession
*such data must not be misleading and may include only a statement of the lawyer’s name
and the names of his professional associates; addresses, tel. Numbers, branches of law
practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the bar; educational background; offices;
posts of honor; legal authorships; legal teaching positions; membership in bar associations and
committees thereof and legal fraternities, and with their written consent, the names of clients
regularly represented.
Second exception: simple professional card.
*Card may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law firm which he is
connected with, address, telephone number and special branch of law practiced
Third exception: simple pronouncement of the opening of a law firm or of changes of
partnership, firm name or office address being for the convenience of the profession
Fourth exception: he may have his name listed in a telephone directory but not under a
designation of special branch of law
“The solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation to be
proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in a modest
and decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar. Thus, the use of
simple signs stating the name or names of the lawyers, the office, and residence address and
fields of practice as wells as advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data are
permissible. Even the use of calling cards is now acceptable... the practice of law is not a
business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary
consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law
advocacy is not a capital but necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be a
secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should
be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what
they owe to themselves ”, KHAN vs SIMBILLO (2003).
Elements distinguishing the legal profession from business:
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one may attain
the highest eminence without making much money 2. A relation as an officer of the court or the
administration of justice involving sincerity, integrity and reliability 3. A relation to clients in the
highest degree of fiduciary 4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor,
fairness, and willingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and encroachment
on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients
“respondent indeed used the business entities mentioned in the report to solicit clients and to
advertise his legal services, purporting to be specialized in corporate rehabilitation cases... the
letter clearly states that, should the prospective client agree to the proposed fees, respondent
would render legal services related to the former’s loan obligation with a bank. This
circumvention is considered objectionable and violates the code, because the letter is signed by
respondent as President of Jesi & Jane Management, Inc. and not as a partner or associate of a
law firm... A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation.
Impropriety arises, when such business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as
to be inconsistent with the lawyer’s duties as a member of the bar. This inconsistency arises
when the business is one that can readily lend itself to the procurement of professional
employment for the lawyer; or that can be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyer’s
behalf; or is of a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the practice of law”,
VILLATUYA vs ATTY. TABALINGCOS (2012).
“The rule is settled that negligence of counsel binds the client.... The confusion in the office of
the law firm following the death of Atty. Baizas is not a valid justification for its failure to file the
brief. With Baiza’s death, the responsibility of Atty. Alberto and his associates to the petitioner
as counsel remained until withdrawal by the former of thier appearance... this is so because it
was the law firm which handled the case for petitioner”, BR SEBASTIAN ENTERPRISES, INC.
v CA (1992).
“negligence of clerks which adversely affect the cases handled by lawyers is binding upon the
latter.... Admonished law firms to adopt a system of distribution pleadings and notices, whereby
lawyers working therein receive promptly notices and pleadings intended for them, so that they
will always be informed of the status of their cases”, BR SEBASTIAN ENTERPRISES, INC. v
CA (1992).
✓ CANON 4- A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL
SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR
SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
CANON 5- A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS,
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.
3-fold OBLIGATION OF A LAWYER CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENT OF CONTINUING
LEGAL EDUCATION
1) He owes it to himself to continue improving his knowledge of the law. 2) He owes it to his
profession to take an active interest in the maintenance of high standards of legal education. 3)
He owes it to the lay public to make the law part of their social consciousness.
MCLE, B.M. No. 850 (2000):
*Purpose: Continuing legal education is required of members of the IBP to ensure that
throughout their career, they keep abreast with the law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of
the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law.
*Requirement: every 3 years at least 36 hours of continuing legal education activities approved
by MCLE Committee
-6 hours: legal ethics -4 hours: trial and pretrial skills -5 hours: alternative dispute resolution -9
hours: updates on substantive and procedural laws and jurisprudence -4 hours: legal writing and
oral advocacy -2 hours: International law and international conventions -6 hours: subjects as
may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee
*Exempted from the MCLE:
-President and VP, and the secretaries and undersecretaries of executive departments -
senators and members of the house of representatives -CJ and AJ of the SC, incumbent and
retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council,
incumbent court lawyers covered by Phil Judicial Academy Program -Chief state
counsel/prosecutor, and assistant secretaries of the DOJ -Solicitor general and Assistant
Solicitor General -Government corporate counsel, deputy and assistant government corporate
counsel -chairmen and members of the constitutional commissions -ombudsman, overall deputy
ombudsman, deputy ombudsmen and the special prosecutor of the office of the ombudsman -
Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions -incumbent deans, bar
reviews, and professors of law who have teaching experience for at least 10 yrs accredited law
schools -chancellor, vice-chancellor, and members of the corps of professors and professional
lectures of the philippine judicial academy -governors and mayors -not in law practice, public or
private -retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP of Governors -good cause for
exemption from or modification of requirement may be filed
Section 3, Rule 7; Good cause for exemption or modification of requirement - a member may file
a verified request setting forth good cause for exemption from compliance with or modification of
any of the requirements, including an extension of time for compliance, in accordance with the
procedure to be established by the MCLE Committee
Section 5, Rule 7: Proof of Exemption - Applications for exemption from or modification of the
MCLE requirement shall be under oath and supported by documents
Section 1, Rule 12: What constitutes non-compliance; A. Failure to complete the education
requirement within the compliance period B. Failure to provide attestation of compliance or
exemption C. Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of
exempt status) within the prescribed period D. Failure to satisfy the education requirement and
furnish evidence of such compliance within 60 days from receipt of a non-compliance notice E.
Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period F. Any other act or omission
analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade compliance with the
MCLE requirements
*Consequences of non-compliance
-non-compliance fee -listing as a delinquent member -accrual membership fee
*To be exempted:
-A member may file a verified request setting forth good cause for exemption from compliance
with or modification of any of the requirements including an extension with the procedure to be
established bu the MCLE Committee. Sec 3, Rule 7: Good cause for exemption or modification
of requirement. -Applicants for exemption from or modification of the MCLE requirement shall be
under oath and supported by documents. Sec 5, Rule 7: Proof exemption
B.M. No. 1922 (2008):
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
exemption. Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case
and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.
OCA Circular No. 79-2014:
...and replacing it with failure to disclose the required information would subject the counsel to
appropriate penalty and disciplinary action
...fine: 2k (1st ), 3k (2nd), 4k (3rd) ...listed as deliquent member ...the non-compliant lawyer shall
be discharged from the case and the client/s shall be allowed to secure the services of a new
counsel with the concomitant right to demand the return of fees already paid to the non-
compliant lawyer.
Rule on New Bar Passers:
MCLE Governing Board Order No.1 (2008) provides that lawyers who pass the Bar when only 4
moths or less remain of the compliance period, are exempted from complying with the MCLE
requirements for the said compliance period. They shall comply with the MCLE requirements for
the next compliance period. However, lawyers who are admitted to the bar either 1 year after
the start of the said compliance period, are required to comply with the MCLE requirements in
accordance in accordance with MCLE Governing Board Resolution (2004)
DECIDED CASES:
“BM No. 850 requires members of the IBP to undergo continuing legal education to ensure that
throught the career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintains the ethics of the
profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law... Respondent failed to comply with
BM No. 850. His application for exemption for the first and second compliance periods was filed
after the compliance periods. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for 6 months
or until he has fully complied with the MCLE Requirements for the first, second, 3rd and 4th
compliance periods, and he has full paid the required non-compliance and reinstatement fees”,
ARNADO vs ADAZA (2015).
“Failure to disclose the required information for MCLE Compliance is not a ground for
disbarment. His violation shall only cause the dismissal of the complaint as well as expunction
thereof from the records”, NOBLE v. AILES (2015).
✓ CANON 6- THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT
SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR
TASKS.
Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the public service and
burdened with a high degree of social responsibility. REASON: A lawyer does not shed his
professional obligations upon his assuming public office. Misconduct in the discharge of official
duties as government official may not be disciplined as a member of the bar unless if the
misconduct of a government official is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a
lawyer or to show moral delinquency.
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards (RA 6713): All public officials and employees, whether
lawyers or non-lawyers are governed by this code [Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards). It
provides the standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties.
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.
Public prosecutor (a quasi-judicial officer) should seek equal and impartial justice and
concerned with seeing that no innocent man suffers as in seeing that no guilty man escapes.
But he is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal complaint where he is not convinced
that he has evidence to prop up the averments thereof.
Public Prosecutor is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal information where he is not
convinced that he has evidence to prop up the averments thereof, or that the evidence at hand
points to a different conclusion. (People v Pineda, 20SCRA 748 [1967])
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.
This applies to (1) lawyers in government allowed by law to engage in private practice, and (2)
those who though prohibited from engaging the practice of law, have friends, former associates
and relatives who are in the practice of law.
Promotion of private interest includes soliciting gifts or anything monetary value in any
transaction requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his
office.
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.
This is to avoid conflict of interest, to preclude the lawyer from using secrets or information
learned in his official capacity, or to prevent the appearance of impropriety.
RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act): Accepting or having any member of the family
accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending official business with him during
the pending thereof or within 1 year after termination.
RA 910 (Act to Provide for the Retirement of Justices, as amended by RA 9946): No retiring
justice or judge during the time that he is receiving said pension shall appear as counsel in any
court in any civil case wherein the government or any of its subdivision or instrumentality is an
adverse party, or in a criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the government is
accused of an offense related to his official function, or collect any fee for his appearance in any
administrative proceedings to maintain an interest adverse to the government.
DECIDED CASES:
“PAO was created for the purpose of providing legal assistance to indigent litigants. Respondent
violated the prohibition against accepting legal fees other than his salary. Every lawyer is
obligated to uphold the law which respondent violated when he accepted the cases and
received attorney’s fees in consideration of his legal services. [Moreover,] he did not only fail to
file a complaint against the Jovellanoses, he also led the complainant to believe that he really
filed an action against the Jovellanoses. He even made it appear that the cases were being tried
and asked the complainant to pay his appearance fees for hearings that never took place.
These acts constituted dishonety, avolation of the lawyer’s oath not to do any falsehood. [Thus],
he is disbarred and ordered that his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and also to return
to the complainant the amount of 5,000 with interest”, RAMOS v. IMBANG (2007).
“Rule 6.03 is applicable to both adverse-interest conflicts and congruent-interest conflict. The
rule is intended to avoid conflict of loyalties. The case at bar does not involve the adverse
interest aspect of Rule 6.03. Respondent Mendoza has no adverse interest problem when he
acted as Solicitor General in Sp. Proc. No. 107812, and later as counsel of respondents in 2
civil cases before the sandiganbayan. His alleged intervention while a Solicitor General in Sp.
Proc. No. 107812 is an intervention on a matter different from the matter involved in the civil
case no. 0005 and 0096... Also the act of respondent Mendoza in informing Central bank on the
procedure how to liquidate GENBANK is a different matter from the subject matter in the said
civil cases which is about sequestration of the shares of respondent Tan in Alied Bank.
Therefore, there is no switching of sides for no two sides are involved. Their interest coincide
instead of colliding [because in lawyering for respondent Tan, respondent Mendoza is not
working against the interest of Bentral Bank. On the contrary he is directly defending the validity
of the action of Central Bank and selling it later to Allied Bank.Intervene includes an act of a
person who has the power to influence the subject proceedings under Rule 6.03. It requires that
it be substantially and personally participated.”, PCGG v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2005).
“Lawyers in the government service in the discharge of their official task have more restrictions
than lawyers in private practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a
lawyer who holds a responsible office. Respondent violated Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 because he
used his public position while he was still connected with the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation to advance his private interest by defrauding the complainant. He is disbarred from
the practice of law and ordered to return the amount received from the complainant with legal
interest”, HUYSSEN v. GUTIERREZ (2006).
“Rule 6.03 prohibits former government lawyers from accepting engagement or employment in
connection with any matter in which they had intervened while in said service... Respondent
was an incumbent punong barangay at the time he committed the act complained of, therefore
he was not covered by that provision”, CATU vs RELLOSA (2008).
✓ 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 139-A provides:
Sec. 9. Membership dues. - Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such annual
dues as the Board of Governors shall determine with the approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed
sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the collections from each Chapter shall be set aside as a
Welfare Fund for disabled members of the Chapter and the compulsory heirs of deceased
members thereof.
Sec. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. - Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this
Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of
membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground
for the removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.
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.
The falsity referred to in this canon must be knowingly done. If the false statement or
suppression of material fact is discovered before the candidate could take the bar examinations,
he will be denied permission to take the bar examinations.
If the false statement or suppression of material fact is discovered after the candidate had
passed the examinations but before having taken his oath, he will not be allowed to take his
oath as a lawyer. If the discovery was made after the candidate had taken his oath as a lawyer,
his name will be stricken from the roll of attorneys.
Sec 12, Rule 138, RRC provides t that no candidate shall endeavor to influence any member of
the committee, and during examination the candidates shall not communicate with each other
nor shall they give or receive any assistance. The candidate who violates this provision or any
other provision of this rule, shall be barred from the examination, and the same to count as a
failure against him, further disciplinary action, including permanent disqualification, may be
taken in the discretion of the court.
When the applicant concealed a charge of acrime against him not involving moral turpitude, this
concealment nevertheless will be taken against him. It is the fact of concealment and not the
commission of the crime itself that makes him morally unfit to become a lawyer. When he made
concealment, he perpetrated perjury.
As to what crime involves moral turpitude is for the Supreme Court to determine.
Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the bar of any person
known by him to b unqualified in respect to character, education, or other relevant attribute.
A lawyer shall not make no recommendation or endorsement of any applicant for admission to
the bar, if he knoes that the applicant is not qualified to become a member of the bar for lack of
good moral character, lack of educational requirements or other relevant attribute. A lawyer
should aid in guarding the bar against admission to the profession of candidates unfit or
unqualified. A lawyer who violates this rule is liable for disciplinary action because such act
constitutes gross misconduct in office (Rule 138, Section 27, RRC).
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.
A lawyer should maintain the standard of moral fitness required of him when he applied for
admission to the bar.He must not only in fact be of good moral character but also be seen of
good moral character. His conduct of nobility and uprightness should stay with him whether in
his public or private life. He must constantly conduct himself with great propriety.
- 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 conduct of
nobility and uprightness should stay with him whether in his public or private life
DECIDED CASES:
“By transmitting and distributing the stolen test questions to some members of the Beta Sigma
Lambda Fraternity, possibly for pecuniary profit and to given them undue advantage over the
other examiners in the mercantile law examination, De Guzman abetted cheating or dishonesty
by his fraternity brothers in the examination which is violative of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, as wells
as Canon 7 of the CPR for members of the Bar...De Guzman was guilty of grave misconduct
unbecoming a member of the bar. He violated the law instead of promoting respect for it and
degraded the noble profession of law instead of upholding its dignity and integrity”, RE: 2003
BAR EXAMINATIONS, (2004).
“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... Carrying on an illicit
affair with a married [woman] [constitute] a grossly immoral conduct and indicative of an
extremely low regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession... Respondent violated Rule
1.01 of Canon 1 which prescribes a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct, and Canon 7 Rule 7.03 which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law”, GUEVARRA vs ATTY. EALA
(2007).
“Respondent repeatedly engaged in sexual congress with a woman not his wife and now
refuses to recognize and support a child whom he previously recognized and promised to
support...Respondent violated the standards of morality required of the legal profession and
should be disciplined accordingly... [violated] Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03. settled that a
lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private
capacities as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor”, ZAGUIRRE vs ATTY. CASTILLO (2003).
“Respondent in giving advice that directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional policy
showed disrespect for the Constitution and gross ignorance of the law. Worse, he prepared
spurious documents that he knew were void and illegal. By advising complainant that a
foreigner could legally and validly acquire real estate in the Philippines and by assuring
complainant that the property was alienable, respondent deliberately foisted falsehood on his
client. He did not give due regard to the trust and confidence reposed in him by complainant...
for all this, respondent violated not only the lawyers oath and Canon 1 of the CPR. He also
transgressed [Rule 1.01, Rule 1.02, Canon 7, 15, 16 and 17]”, STEMMERIK vs MAS (2009).
“Respondent’s act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his former employee
constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction... His act of having carnal knowledge
of a woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage
and his own marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he procurred the act by enticing a
very young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the
dignity of the human person and the ethics of profession... Respondent is hereby disbarred for
gross immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and
Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the CPR”, VENTURA vs ATTY. SAMSON (2012).
“A lawyer’s language should always be degnified and respectful, not in offensive language.
Unkind language has no place in the dignity of judicial forum... [In the case,] the tenor of the
messages cannot be treated lightly. It was clearly intended to malign and annoy Maximino
evidenced by the word “polpol” which constitutes a unprofessional conduct which subjects the
lawyer to disciplinary action. It was incosequential that the texts were relayed in private. Atty.
Orlando is guilty of violating Rule 7.03 and the entire canon 8”, NOBLES vs AILES (2015).
“Respondent can engage in the practice of law only by paying his dues, and it does not matter
that his practice is "limited." While it is true that R.A. No. 7432, 4 grants senior citizens
"exemption from the payment of individual income taxes: provided, that their annual taxable
income does not exceed the poverty level as determined by the National Economic and
Development Authority (NEDA) for that year... [Also] By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his
pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP
dues to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
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.
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 court; nor
shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice”,
the exemption does not include payment of membership or association dues, SANTOS v.
LLAMAS (2000).
“The integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer
population. This requires membership and financial support of every attorney as condition sine
qua non to the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the
Supreme Court. Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free
to attend or not to attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in
its elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of his
annual dues... This means that the compulsory nature of payment of dues subsists for as long
as ones membership in the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of
practice, the member is engaged in... Whether the practice of law is a property right, in the
sense of its being one that entitles the holder of a license to practice a profession, we do not
here pause to consider at length, as it [is] clear that under the police power of the State, and
under the necessary powers granted to the Court to perpetuate its existence, the respondents
right to practice law before the courts of this country should be and is a matter subject to
regulation and inquiry. And, if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure is
recognized, then a penalty designed to enforce its payment, which penalty may be avoided
altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable or arbitrary. But we must here emphasize
that the practice of law is not a property right but a mere privilege, and as such must bow to the
inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyers public
responsibilities... it must be borne in mind that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened
with conditions, one of which is the payment of membership dues. Failure to abide by any of
them entails the loss of such privilege if the gravity thereof warrants such drastic move,”
LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO AREVALO, JR. REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT
OF IBP DUES (2005).
“It was established that Atty Lanuevo without authority from the SC sought the reexamination
and rechecking of the notebooks of Galang on certain subjects. The examiners claimed that
they recheck the notebook based on the representation of Atty Lanuevo. They claimed good
faith. They believed that Atty Lanuevo has the necessary authority being the court administrator.
SC said that Ramon Galang should not be admitted to the bar and Atty Lanuevo should be
disbarred for his conduct of dishonesty. While there is no direct evidence showing that he
gained money for consideration for his act, SC observed that right after the release of the
results of the bar exams, Atty Lanuevo was able to purchase real properties. In addition, in his
applications to take the bar exams, it was discovered that in those years Galang did not disclose
the fact that he has a pending case - a criminal case for slight physical injuries. This is contrary
to the requirement in the application which he executed and which is under oath,” In Re: Galang
66 SCRA 282.
“He was allowed to take the bar exams with the condition that if he will pass the bar exams he
can take the oath upon order by the SC because he has a pending case for homicide. In acting
on the petition of Cuevas, the SC asked the father of the deceased to comment on the petition
of Cuevas. The father said that as a Christian he has already forgiven Cuevas but as a father I
have not forgotten the incident. He consented to the lowering the crime to homicide instead of
murder because of the pleas of the accused and his wife and his family. He also added that he
is not in the position to say that Cuevas is already a person of good moral character and that he
leaves that to the discretion/decision of the cour. SC granted the petition of Cuevas. Cuevas
was allowed on the following consideration: (1) During the period of probation, he has faithfully
complied with the conditions thereof and he has not committed any offense or misconduct in
that period (2) He was able to produce before the SC certifications from the religious
community, from the IBP, from the government officials that he has reformed,” In Re: Arthur
Cuevas (1998).
“A member of the Shari'a Bar took the bar exams but there was a petition for him to disallow him
on taking the bar exams and to impose the appropriate penalty on the ground, according to the
complainant, respondent insulted the complainant and his wife before the media. The
respondent also attacked and hit the face of the complainant. But the respondent in his
application to take the bar exams did not disclose the pending case against him. In his defense,
he said that he did not indicate those cases because there was this judge who was his teacher
and mediated. He assumed that the case was settled. SC said t's the court who can decide
cases. There was no amicable settlement in the case. SC said that it is his duty as a bar
applicant to disclose his pending cases and it's up to the SC to decide whether the case against
him involves moral turpitude or not. With respect to the other charge with the use of Meling of
the appellation attorney, SC emphasized that the use of the name 'attorney' is reserved to those
who are admitted to the bar and duly qualified. Members of the Shari'a bar cannot use the name
'attorney'. They can use the name 'counselor' but not 'attorney' unless that member of the
Shari'a Bar is also a member of the Philippine Bar,” In Re: Meling (2004).
✓ 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.
A lawyer who uses intemperate, abusive, abrasive or threatening language betrays disrespect
to the court, disgraces the bar and invites the exercise by the court of its disciplinary power.
Thus, a lawyer’s language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful as benefiting
an advocate and in keeping eith the dignity of the legal profession.
When strong language is use is justified: when the use of strong language has been impelled by
the same langauge used by the judge, the lawyer cannot be blamed.
Lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, fairness and candor. NOTE: Lack or want of
intention is no excuse for the disrespectful language.
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.
It is highly unethical for a lawyer to exert efforts directly or indirectly, in any way, to encroach
upon the professional employment of another. Lawyer should not steal another’s client.
Competition among attorneys is contrary to the long established etiquette of the legal
profession. No self-respecting practitioner will ever voluntarily tender his services in pending
matters then being conducted by other counsel, and will not obtrude criticism on acts of a
party’s attorney.
However, any person who seeks relief against an unfaithful or neglectful lawyer may approach
another lawyer for proper advice and assistance. Any advice or assistance is not encroaching
upon the business of another lawyer for such act is justified under the circumstance e.g., No
encroachment when previous lawyer was already dismissed.
DECIDED CASES:
A lawyer filed a case against another lawyer. Pleading with insulting remarks . Respondent was
accused of falsification of a document, but then it was established that he did not falsify such
document. During trial, respondent lawyer insulted the complainant. Respondent is guilty of
abusive language. SC said “Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all
lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers
and avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Specifically, in Rule 8.01, the Code
provides: Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. Atty. Ferrers actions do not measure up to this Canon.
The evidence shows that he imputed to Atty. Barandon the falsification of the Salaysay Affidavit
of the plaintiff in Civil Case 7040. He made this imputation with pure malice for he had no
evidence that the affidavit had been falsified and that Atty. Barandon authored the same.
Moreover, Atty. Ferrer could have aired his charge of falsification in a proper forum and without
using offensive and abusive language against a fellow lawyer. The Court has constantly
reminded lawyers to use dignified language in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of
our legal system. Atty. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which enjoins lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at
all times.Several disinterested persons confirmed Atty. Ferrers drunken invectives at Atty.
Barandon shortly before the start of a court hearing. Though a lawyers 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 ascriptions has no place in the
dignity of judicial forum. Atty. Ferrer ought to have realized that this sort of public behavior can
only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public respect for it.
Whatever moral righteousness Atty. Ferrer had was negated by the way he chose to express
his indignation. He is suspended for 1 year,” Barandon vs. Ferrer (2010).
Pefianco saw a lady crying seeking for the settlement of the case. The former intervened and a
commotion happened at the pao office. Respondent started the fight and insulted the head of
the office before the public and outside of the court. Respondent was reprimanded and a
penalty of fine. SC said, “Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility admonishes
lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers.
Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act honorably,
fairly and candidly toward each other and otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at all
times. In this case, respondents meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so caused
the untoward incident. He had no right to demand an explanation from Atty. Salvani why the
case of the woman had not or could not be settled. Even so, Atty. Salvani in fact tried to explain
the matter to respondent, but the latter insisted on his view about the case. Respondent said he
was moved by the plight of the woman whose husband had been murdered as she was
pleading for the settlement of her case because she needed the money. Be that as it may,
respondent should realize that what he thought was righteous did not give him the right to
demand that Atty. Salvani and his client, apparently the accused in the criminal case, settle the
case with the widow.Even when he was being pacified, respondent did not relent. Instead he
insulted and berated those who tried to calm him down. He was fined and reprimanded with a
warning,” Alcantara v. Pefianco (2002).
Likong revoked the SPA of lim. And so lim filed a case against likong. A compromise agreement
was made. Likong was not furnished a copy of the agreement on the ground that he was
abandoned by his lawyer. Yap who crafted the agreement made it favorable to Lim. SC said
“there is no showing that respondent even tried to inform opposing counsel of the compromise
agreement. Neither is there any showing that respondent informed the trial court of the alleged
abandonment of the complainant by her counsel. Instead, even assuming that complainant was
really abandoned by her counsel, respondent saw an opportunity to take advantage of the
situation, and the result was the execution of the compromise agreement which, as previously
discussed, is grossly and patently disadvantageous and prejudicial to complainant.
Undoubtedly, respondent's conduct is unbecoming a member of the legal profession. Canon 9
of the Code of Professional Ethics states: A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon
the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel; much less should he undertake
to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should deal only with his counsel. It is
incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a
party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to the law. The
Code of Professional Responsibility states: Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. 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. Rule 15.03 — A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. The
violation of the aforementioned rules of professional conduct by respondent Atty. Alexander H.
Lim, warrants the imposition upon him of the proper sanction from this Court. Such acts
constituting malpractice and grave misconduct cannot be left unpunished for not only do they
erode confidence and trust in the legal profession, they likewise prevent justice from being
attained. Respondent Atty. Alexander H. Lim is hereby imposed the penalty of SUSPENSION
from the practice of law for a period of ONE (1) YEAR”, Likong vs.Lim (1994).
“A lawyer’s language should always be dignified and respectful, not in offensive language.
Unkind language has no place in the dignity of judicial forum... [In the case,] the tenor of the
messages cannot be treated lightly. It was clearly intended to malign and annoy Maximino
evidenced by the word “polpol” which constitutes a unprofessional conduct which subjects the
lawyer to disciplinary action. It was inconsequential that the texts were relayed in private. Atty.
Orlando is guilty of violating Rule 7.03 and the entire canon 8”, NOBLES vs AILES (2015).
✓ CANON 9- A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
The prohibition against the practice of law by a layman is grounded in the need of the public for
integrity and competence of those who undertake to render legal services. Because of the
fiduciary and personal character of the lawyer-client relationship and the inherently complex
nature of our legal system, the public can better be assured of the requisite responsibility and
competence if the practice of law is confined to those who are subject to the requirements and
regulations imposed upon members of the legal profession.
Section 3&7, Rule 71, RUles of Court (Indirect contempt=Fine or imprisonment or both) /Section
27 & 138 (No authority= Disbarment)
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.
The rule is absolute that authority of a lawyer to represent a client in a case cannot be
delegated to an unqualified person. The reason for the rule is the dictates of public policy. It
does not follow however that the retained lawyer is automatically authorized to make such
delegation to qualified person. A client-lawyer relationship is a personal one. The retained
counsel cannot just get another lawyer to represent the client without the latter’s consent.
Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons
not licensed to practice law.
A lawyer can only divide or stipulate to divide fees with another lawyer who had rendered legal
services with him in a case or legal work. An agreement for the division o attorney’s fees
whereby a non-lawyer is allowed to share in said fees with lawyers, is condemned and is
immoral and cannot be justified. Non-lawyers are not entitled to attorney’s fees. If attorney’s
fees were allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the public in hopeless confusion as to whom to
consult in case of necessity and also to leave the bar in chaotic condition aside from the fact
that non-lawyers are not amenable to disciplinary measures.
Exceptions:
(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 *Payment of past services (b) Where a lawyer undertakes to
complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; or (c) Wher;e 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.
DECIDED CASES:
Respondent averred that she neither formed a law partnership with her husband nor allowed her
husband to appear in court on her behalf. If there was an instance that her husband appeared in
court, he did so as a representative of her law firm. The letterhead submitted by the complainant
was a false reproduction to show that her husband is one of her law partners. But upon cross-
examination, when confronted with the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office bearing her
signature, she admitted that Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., is not a lawyer, but he and a certain
Gerardo A. Panghulan, who is also not a lawyer, are named as senior partners because they
have investments in her law office. Complainant withdrawn the case. SC said the affidavit of
withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed by complainant does not, in any way,
exonerate the respondent. 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 duly
proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for
suspension or disbarment is not in any sense 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. the respondent is guilty of assisting in the unauthorized practice of law. A lawyer
who allows a non-member of the Bar to misrepresent himself as a lawyer and to practice law is
guilty of violating Canon 9 and Rule 9.01. In this case, Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., is not a lawyer,
but he holds himself out as one. His wife, the respondent herein, abetted and aided him in the
unauthorized practice of the legal profession. At the hearing, the respondent admitted that the
letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office listed Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., Gerardo A. Panghulan,
and Maricris D. Battung as senior partners. She admitted that the first two are not lawyers but
paralegals. They are listed in the letterhead of her law office as senior partners because they
have investments in her law office. That is a blatant misrepresentation. The Sagip
Communication Radio Group identification card is another proof that the respondent assisted
Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., in misrepresenting to the public that he is a lawyer. The lawyers 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. 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. respondent Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of six (6) months with a warning,Cambaliza v. Cristobal-Tenorio
(2004).
Busmente when he appeared in court, a lady (de la rosa) accompanied him and was able to
represent herself as a lawyer and was able to access the case records. De la rosa was not a
lawyer. Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa was a law graduate and was his paralegal assistant
for a few years. Busmente alleged that Dela Rosas employment with him ended in 2000 but
Dela Rosa was able to continue misrepresenting herself as a lawyer with the help of Regine
Macasieb (Macasieb), Busmentes former secretary. Busment was suspended for 6 months.
Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states: 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. The Court further
ruled that holding ones 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 lawyers 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. 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, Noe-Lacsamana v. Busmente (2011).
Respondents admitted that the criminal and administrative cases filed by Divinagracia against
complainants before the Office of the Ombudsman were accepted by the Jarder Bancolo Law
Office. The cases were assigned to Atty. Bancolo. Atty. Bancolo alleged that after being
informed of the assignment of the cases, he ordered his staff to prepare and draft all the
necessary pleadings and documents. However, due to some minor lapses, Atty. Bancolo
permitted that the pleadings and communications be signed in his name by the secretary of the
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 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. the preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving the practice of
law which is reserved exclusively for members of the legal profession. Atty. Bancolo’s authority
and duty to sign a pleading are personal to him. Although he may delegate the signing of a
pleading to another lawyer, he may not delegate it to a non-lawyer. Further, under the Rules of
Court, counsel’s signature serves as a certification that (1) he has read the pleading; (2) to the
best of his knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it; and (3) it is not
interposed for delay.11 Thus, by affixing one’s signature to a pleading, it is counsel alone who
has the responsibility to certify to these matters and give legal effect to the document.
respondent Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo administratively liable for violating Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one Year with a warning, Tapay vs Bancolo (2013).
The share of the fees is unethical. A non-lawyer cannot have any share to the legal fees. We
strike down the alleged oral agreement that the union president should share in the attorneys'
fees. Canon 34 of Legal Ethics condemns this arrangement in terms clear and explicit. It says:
"No division of fees for legal services is proper, except with another lawyer, based upon a
division of service or responsibility." The union president is not the attorney for the laborers. He
may seek compensation only as such president. An agreement whereby a union president is
allowed to share in attorneys' fees is immoral. Such a contract we emphatically reject. It cannot
be justified, Amalgamated Laborer’s Association v. CIR (1968)
“Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law likewise transgresses Canon 9 of the CPR
which provides, a lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of
law... This duty likewise applies to law students and Bar candidates. As aspiring members of the
Bar, they are bound to comport themselves in accordance with the ethical standards of the legal
profession... Petitioner demonstrated good faith and good moral character when he finally filed
the instant petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys... it was not a third party who called this
Court’s attention to petitioner’s omission... While the practice of law is not a right but a privilege,
this court will not unwarrantedly withhold this privilege from individuals who have shown mental
unfitness and moral fiber to withstand the rigors of the profession”, IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN
IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS MICHAEL MEDADO
✓ CANON 10: A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
RATIONALE: The burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at face
value what was asserted by the counsel.
A lawyer is an officer of the court; he is, like the court itself, an instrument or agency to advance
the ends of justice.
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.
RATIONALE: Procedures are instruments in the speedy and efficient in the administration of
justice. It is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily the high
esteem and regard towards the courts so essential to the proper administration of justice.
A lawyer in all his dealings is expected to act in good faith just as anybody specially in his
dealings withe court. E.g. it is not candid nor fair for the lawyer knowingly to misquote, offering
false testimony as evidence (a crime punishable under RPC).
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.
3 things:
1. knowingly misquoting contents of a paper or argument of opposing counsel, or text of a
decision or authority 2. Knowingly citing a law, a provision already inoperative by repeal or
amendment 3. Asserting facts not duly proven
RULE: When a lawyer makes a quotation of a decision in his pleadings, he should quote the
same verbatim to avoid misleading the court. However a mere typographical error in the citation
of authority is not contemptuous. When the misquotation is intended, the lawyer is subject to
disciplinary action.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat
the ends of justice.
Judges should not condone the deliberate abuse of the procedural rules by any member of the
bar. Any lawyer who misuses the rules to frustrate the ends of justice deserves stern
condemnation. REASON: The aim of lawsuit is to render justice. And the rules of procedure are
precisely designed to attain such objective to those whom it is due without unnecessary
expense and waste of time for truly justice delayed is justice denied. Technicalities should give
way to the realities of the situation.
DECIDED CASES
Decision was already final but the lawyer still filed an appeal to question the decision.
Respondent professed his sincerity, honesty and good faith in filing the petitions complained of;
he filed these petitions to protect the interests of his clients in their property. The respondent
asserted that these petitions were all based on valid grounds the lack of jurisdiction of the MeTC
and the RTC over the underlying unlawful detainer case, the extrinsic fraud committed by the
late Atty. Catolico, and the extrinsic fraud committed by the complainant and his family against
his clients; he discovered that the allegedly detained property did not really belong to the
complainant and his family but is a forest land. The respondent also asserted that his resort to a
petition for annulment of judgment and a petition for declaratory relief to contest the final
judgments of the MeTC and RTC were all parts of his legal strategy to protect the interests of
his clients. SC said, the respondents repeated attempts go beyond the legitimate means
allowed by professional ethical rules in defending the interests of his client. These are already
uncalled for measures to avoid the enforcement of final judgments of the MeTC and RTC. In
these attempts, the respondent violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which makes it obligatory for a lawyer to observe the rules of procedure and. . .
not [to] misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. By his actions, the respondent used
procedural rules to thwart and obstruct the speedy and efficient administration of justice,
resulting in prejudice to the winning parties in that case. The respondent likewise violated Rule
12.02 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as the rule
against forum shopping, both of which are directed against the filing of multiple actions to attain
the same objective. Both violations constitute abuse of court processes; they tend to degrade
the administration of justice; wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure; and add to the
congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts. The respondents subsequent petitions
involving the same property and the same parties not only demonstrate his attempts to secure
favorable ruling using different fora, but his obvious objective as well of preventing the execution
of the MeTC and RTC decisions in the unlawful detainer case against his clients. This intent is
most obvious with respect to the petitions for annulment of judgment and declaratory relief, both
geared towards preventing the execution of the unlawful detainer decision, long after this
decision had become final. Respondent was disbarred, Que v. Atty Revilla (2009).
Respondent lawyer showed to the wife a CA resolution granting him custody of their children.
No issue of said resolution. Wife filed a disbarment case against husband. Respondent claims
that he acted in good faith in invoking the Court of Appeals Resolution which he honestly
believed to be authentic. This, however, is belied by the fact that he used and presented the
spurious resolution several times. Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. The
burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is
asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be devoted just to the task of verification of
allegations submitted could easily be imagined. Even with due recognition then that counsel is
expected to display the utmost zeal in the defense of a clients cause, it must never be at the
expense of the truth. Moreover, the records show that respondent used offensive language in
his pleadings in describing complainant and her relatives. A lawyers language should be forceful
but dignified, emphatic but respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of
the legal profession.[9] The lawyers arguments whether written or oral should be gracious to
both court and opposing counsel and should be of such words as may be properly addressed by
one gentlemen to another. By calling complainant, a sly manipulator of truth as well as a
vindictive congenital prevaricator, hardly measures to the sobriety of speech demanded of a
lawyer. He violated canon 10, 10.01 and 10.02. he was suspended for 2 years, Hueysuwan v.
Florido (2004).
A petition filed by respondent Imperio to declare petitioner's counsel in direct contempt, on the
alleged ground that in his petition said lawyer cited a fictitious authority Respondent misquoted
a decision by the Supreme Court. Wrong GR number. Honest mistake was the defense of the
respondent. SC sided the defense of the respondent. There was an honest mistake, only that
there was typographical error. It is plainly but a slight typographical mistake not sufficient to
place him in contempt, especially because the names of the parties were given correctly. As to
said counsel's interpretation of this Court's decision in said case, or of what the ruling therein "in
effect" created, established or confirmed, the same are mere arguments fully within the bounds
of earnest debate, rather than a deception urged upon this Court, Del Rosario v. Chngcuangco.
If Atty. Balbuena was diligent enough, he would have known that the correct name of the
complainant in the case referred to is neither Alberto Naldeza as indicated in the motion for
reconsideration nor Albertoalone as stated in the petition, but ALBERTO NALDOZA. Moreover,
the case was not reported in volume 245 of the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) as
falsely represented in the paragraph 16 of the petition, but in volume 254 of the SCRA. Worse,
in both the motion for reconsideration and the petition, Atty. Balbuena deliberately made it
appear that the quoted portions were our findings or rulings, or, put a little differently, our own
words. The truth is, the quoted portion is just a part of the memorandum of the Court
Administrator quoted in the decision. Rule 10.02 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the text of a
decision or authority. He was only admonished by the SC, COMELEC vs Noynay (1998).
Atty Dacanay erroneously alleged a fact which was not duly proven. He claimed that it was his
secretary who inserted such statement. SC did not accept the argument. The insertion could
only be made by a lawyer. If it was the secretary who typed the phrase, still the lawyer is liable
because he is obliged to review the work of the secretary. He was disbarred because he
committed abuse of representation before the highest court of the land. the Court found movant,
Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay, guilty of intercalating a material fact in a decision of the Court of
Appeals, which he appealed to this Court on certiorari, thereby altering the factual findings of
the Court of Appeals with the apparent purpose of misleading this Court in order to obtain a
favorable judgment. Consequently, Atty. Dacanay was disbarred from the practice of law .But
after 3 years, he was reinstated, ADEZ Realty Inc. V. CA (1995).
✓ 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.
RATIONALE: Disrespect towards the court undermines the confidence of the people reposed to
the court.
Respect due to the courts, judicial officers and other officers of the court must be maintained.
Lawyers must be respectful not only in their actions but also in their use of language whether in
oral arguments or in pleadings. Disrespectful acts and language are contemptuous. Disrespect
to judicial incumbents is disrespect to that branch of the government to which they belong, as
well as to the sate which has instituted the judicial system.
Freedom of speech is not absolute. Criticisms should be done in good faith. It must not spill over
indecency. If they have any complaint, it must be pursued within the bounds of the law, without
in the least promoting distrust in the administration of justice.
Pleading containing derogatory, offensive, or malicious statements submitted to the court or
judge in which the proceedings are pending, constitutes direct contempt.
Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.
Respect begins with the lawyer outward appearance in court. Male should wear long-sleeve
barong and coat and a tie. Female appear in semi-formal attires but prohibited from wearing a
hat. 5 inches above the knee is acceptable.
The court can hold the lawyer in contempt of court if he appears not in proper attire.
Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.
It is the duty of the lawyer not only to his client, but also to the courts and to the public to be
punctual in attendance and to be concise and direct in the trial and disposition of cases, He
shall delay no man for money or malice. Inexcusable absence makes him liable for
contemptuous behavior.
Lack of punctuality interferes in the speedy administration of justice. COnsequently both the
judge and the lawyer are in duty bound to perform their duties with punctuality.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.
Lawyers must render respectful subordination to the court is essential to the orderly
administration of justice. A layer’s language should be dignified in keeping with the dignity of the
legal profession. Lawyers must maintain the rule of law and not the rule of jungle.
A lawyer’s arguments, written or oral, should be gracious to both court and opposing counsel
and be of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman to another. A mere
disclaimer of any intentional disrespect not a ground for exoneration.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have
no materiality to the case.
Lack or want of intention is no excuse but can a be a mitigating factor.
But lawyers must be courageous enough to expose arbitrariness and injustice of courts and
judges. Also, a lawyer can demand that the misbehavior of a judge be placed on record. The act
is not contemptuous.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
Rule allows such criticism so long as it is supported by the record or it is material to the case.
But the court in pending litigation must be shielded from embarrassment. Assessment of the
case is not allowed under litigation for it might affect or influence the process.
Nature of the case (Against a judge/ justice)
Administrative in nature - Supreme court through office of the administrator Criminal in nature-
Ombudsman (if connected with their duties, to the SC, not ombudsman) Impeachable offense
against Justice of the SC- House of representatives and Senate
Administrative complaint-> Appeal to the CA then SC (for lawyer)
Note: Complaints should not be coursed to the media, to the military authorities, the president,
governors, mayors or other officers or institutions which are not the proper forums to investigate
judges and magistrates.
DECIDED CASES
Lawyer filed a petition to surrender title and shall only be issued certificate again if justice is
served. The Lawyer allowed the publication in the media some of his allegations about injustices
(because of the dismissal of the appeals and petitions). SC suspended him indefinitely. It is the
fault of the lawyer because the case before the RTC was dismissed because of not complying
with the requirements in filing Motion for reconsideration. The virulence so blatantly evident in
Atty. Almacen's petition, answer and oral argumentation speaks for itself. The vicious language
used and the scurrilous innuendoes they carried far transcend the permissible bounds of
legitimate criticism. They could never serve any purpose but to gratify the spite of an irate
attorney, attract public attention to himself and, more important of all, bring ;this Court and its
members into disrepute and destroy public confidence in them to the detriment of the orderly
administration of justice. Odium of this character and texture presents no redeeming feature,
and completely negates any pretense of passionate commitment to the truth. It is not a whit less
than a classic example of gross misconduct, gross violation of the lawyer's oath and gross
transgression of the Canons of Legal Ethics, In Re: Almacen (1970).
A lawyer alleged that there was connivance between the opposing party and the judge and the
judge is using the connection and so cited wicker in contempt. Later the lawyer asked for
forgiveness because the statement was actually made by his client. SC said, what Wicker said
in his note to Atty. Rayos was that he had been told by an unidentified young man, whom he
thought to be employed in the court, that it seemed the opposing counsel, Atty. Santos, knew
who the replacement judge was, because Atty. Santos did not show up in court on the same
days the new judge failed to come. It would, therefore, appear that the other allegations in the
motion that respondent judge had been personally recruited by the opposing counsel to replace
Judge Capulong who had been eased out were Atty. Rayos and not Wickers. Atty. Rayos is
thus understating his part in the preparation of the motion for inhibition. Atty. Rayos, however,
cannot evade responsibility for the allegations in question. As a lawyer, he is not just an
instrument of his client. His client came to him for professional assistance in the representation
of a cause, and while he owed him whole-souled devotion, there were bounds set by his
responsibility as a lawyer which he could not overstep. Even a hired gun cannot be excused for
what Atty. Rayos stated in the motion. Based on Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, Atty. Rayos bears as much responsibility for the contemptuous allegations in the
motion for inhibition as his client. He was fined by the court, Wicker v. Archangel (1996).
SC case handled by Atty. and was criticized by UP. Up published it to media while the case was
still pending via MOR and alleged that SC committed injustice and dishonesty. SC asked the
professors of UP to explain why they should not be disciplined. Only one got away but others
were penalized. The Dean was admonished. Such criticisms must not spill away in such
indecency, Re: Letter of UP law Faculty (2011).
The judge asked the lawyer to lower his voice during the hearing. The lawyer said that the court
was constantly loud. The court cited him contempt. The judge filed a disbarment case against
the lawyer. Laywer was suspened for 1 year and sternly warned. Respondent violated Rule
11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Battung disrespected Judge
Baculi by shouting at him inside the courtroom during court proceedings in the presence of
litigants and their counsels, and court personnel. The respondent even came back to harass
Judge Baculi. This behavior, in front of many witnesses, cannot be allowed. We note that the
respondent continued to threaten Judge Baculi and acted in a manner that clearly showed
disrespect for his position even after the latter had cited him for contempt. In fact, after initially
leaving the court, the respondent returned to the courtroom and disrupted the ongoing
proceedings. These actions were not only against the person, the position and the stature of
Judge Baculi, but against the court as well whose proceedings were openly and flagrantly
disrupted, and brought to disrepute by the respondent. Litigants and counsels, particularly the
latter because of their position and avowed duty to the courts, cannot be allowed to publicly
ridicule, demean and disrespect a judge, and the court that he represents. A lawyer who insults
a judge inside a courtroom completely disregards the latter’s role, stature and position in our
justice system. When the respondent publicly berated and brazenly threatened Judge Baculi
that he would file a case for gross ignorance of the law against the latter, the respondent
effectively acted in a manner tending to erode the public confidence in Judge Baculis
competence and in his ability to decide cases. Incompetence is a matter that, even if true, must
be handled with sensitivity in the manner provided under the Rules of Court; an objecting or
complaining lawyer cannot act in a manner that puts the courts in a bad light and bring the
justice system into disrepute, Baculi vs. Battung (2011).
The judge was accused of favoring the corporation. No supporting evidence. It was only based
on hearsay. SC said Respondent ought to be aware that if a court official or employee or a
lawyer is to be disciplined, the evidence against him should be substantial, competent and
derived from direct knowledge, not on mere allegations, conjectures, suppositions, or on the
basis of hearsay. No doubt, it is this Courts duty to investigate the truth behind charges against
judges and lawyers. But it is also its duty to shield them from unfounded suits which are
intended to, among other things, harass them. He was fined with a warning, Judge Cervantez v.
Atty. Sabio (2008).
Complainants charge of gross ignorance of the law against respondents remains unfounded
and unsubstantiated. The evidence which complainant submitted, instead of helping his cause,
showed that it was he who was stubbornly remiss in his duties to his client and to the court, as
well. The judge was correct in dismissing the case for non-compliance of the requirements said
by the SC. A lawyer who files an unfounded complaint must be sanctioned because, as an
officer of the court, he does not discharge his duty by filing frivolous petitions than only add to
the workload of the judiciary. Such filing of baseless complaints is contemptuous of the courts. A
lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is, "like the court itself, an instrument or agency to advance
the ends of justice." His duty is to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts to which he
owes fidelity, "not to promote distrust in the administration of justice." Faith in the courts a
lawyer should seek to preserve. For, to undermine the judicial edifice "is disastrous to the
continuity of government and to the attainment of the liberties of the people, Andamo vs. Larida
(2011).
SC said that whether the certificate of service is true or not, the case should be filed before the
SC, not to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman should first refer the matter of petitioner's
certificates of service to this Court for determination of whether said certificates reflected the
true status of his pending case load, as the Court has the necessary records to make such a
determination. The Ombudsman cannot compel this Court, as one of the three branches of
government, to submit its records, or to allow its personnel to testify on this matter. In fine,
where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee arises from their
administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same
to this Court for determination whether said Judge or court employee had acted within the scope
of their administrative duties, Maceda v. Ombudsman (1993).
✓ CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY
TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND
EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative bodies (Constitution, Article 3, Section 6).
It is the duty of an attorney: (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 (Rule
138 Section 20 (g)).
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 adduce and the order of its proferrence.
He should also be ready with the original documents for comparison with the copies.
A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation (Rule 18.02). A lawyer
should never come to court unprepared. Most cases brought to court without preparation are
cases lost. Half of the work of a lawyer is done in the office. It is spent in study and research.
Inadequate preparation obstructs the administration of justice.
Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.
Lawyers should not engage in forum shopping. Forum shopping is the institution of 2 or more
actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court
would make a favorable disposition.
The essential elements of forum shopping are: (1) 2 or more cases are pending; (2) the pending
cases involve: same parties, same causes of action, and same relief prayed for.
Penalties for violation of the rule against forum shopping (Section 5, Rule 7, ROC):
1. Failure to comply with the requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be the cause for the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. 2. The submission of a
false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect
contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions;
and 3. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum
shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice, and shall constitute
direct contempt as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
Specific instances of forum shopping that merited the sanction:
1. When, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion
(other than by appeal or certiorari) in another 2. Filing an action while the same cause of action
is still pending in an administrative proceeding 3. When counsel omits to disclose the pendency
of an appeal, in filing a certiorari case
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.
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 or even
an explanation or manifestation of their failure to do so.
Where a lawyer’s motion for extension of time to file a pleading, memorandum or brief has
remained unacted by the court, the least that is expected of him is to file it within the period
asked for.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse Court processes.
It is understandable for a party to make full use of every conceivable legal defense the law
allows it. However, of such attempts to evade liability to which a party should respond, it must
ever be kept in mind that procedural rules are intended as an aid to justice, not as a means for
its frustrations.
Once judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party should no the denied the fruits
of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party. Unjustified delay in the
enforcement of a judgement sets at naught the role of the courts in disposing justiciable
controversies with finality.
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.
Purpose: To prevent the suspicion that he is coaching the witness what to say during the
resumption of the examination. Moreover, this rule is also designed to uphold and maintain fair
play with the other party and to prevent the examining lawyer from being tempted to coach his
own witness to suit his purpose.
Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to
impersonate another.
The witness who commits misrepresentation is criminally liable for false testimony either under
ART 181, 182 or 183 of the RPC, as the case may be. The lawyer who induces a witness to
commit false testimony is equally liable as the witness. The lawyer who presented a witness
knowing him to be a false witness is criminally liable for offering false testimony in Evidence
under Article 184 of the RPC. The lawyer who is guilty of the above is both criminally and
administratively liable.
Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly
inconvenience him.
The lawyer has a duty to always treat adverse witnesses and suitors with fairness and due
consideration. Thus it is misbehavior in court for a lawyer to frighten or shout at witness, to
terrorize them or tear them down arrogantly, cross-examine them with incessant questions
beyond what is fair and necessary or maligning them with such other similar acts where
disrespect instead of respect, is the tone of the action.
Right and Obligations of a Witness (Section 3, Rule 132, RRC):
A witness must answer questions, although his answer may tend to establish a claim against
him. However, it is the right of a witness:
1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper or insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
demeanor. 2. Not to be detained linger than the interests of justice require 3. Not to be
examined except only as to matter pertinent to the issue 4. Not to give an answer which will
tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law; or 5. Not to
give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it be the very fact at issue or to
a fact which the fact in issue would be presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his
previous final conviction for an offense.
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.
RATIONALE:
1. There is a difference between the respective functions of a witness and an advocate. 2. The
function of a witness is to tell the facts as he recalls them in answer to the question. 3. The
function of an advocate is that of a partisan. 4. The lawyer will find it hard to dissociate his
relation to his client as an attorney and his relation to the party as a witness.
Instances when a lawyer may not testify as witness in a case which he is handling for a client:
1. When as an attorney, he is to testify on the theory of the case. 2. When such would adversely
affect any lawful interest of the client with respect to which confidence has been reposed on
him. 3. Having accepted a retainer, he cannot be a witness against his client. 4. He cannot
serve conflicting interests. 5. When he is to violate the confidence of his client.
Instance when a lawyer may testify as witness in a case which he is handling for a client:
1. On formal matters such as mailing, authentication or custody of instrument and the like. 2.
Acting as an expert on his fee. 3. On substantial matters in cases where his testimony is
essential the the ends of justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, entry the trial of
the case to another counsel.
DECIDED CASES
“[SC said] there is nothing ethically remiss in a lawyer who files numerous cases in different
fora, as long as he does so in good faith, in accordance with the Rules, and without any ill-
motive or purpose other than to achieve justice and fairness.... The nature of the cases filed by
the respondent, the fact of re-filing them after being dismissed, the timing of the filing of cases,
the fact that the respondent was in conspiracy with a renegade member of the complainants
family, the defendants named in the cases and the foul language used in the pleadings and
motions all indicate that the respondent was acting beyond the desire for justice and fairness.
His act of filing a barrage of cases appears to be an act of revenge and hate driven by anger
and frustration against his former client who filed the disciplinary complaint against him for
infidelity in the custody of a clients funds...the respondent filed frivolous and unfounded lawsuits
that violated his duties as an officer of the court in aiding in the proper administration of justice,
and he did so against a former client to whom he owes loyalty and fidelity. He violated canon
12, 21 and 21.02,” Alcantara c. De Vera (2010).
“Respondent was guilty of grave misconduct and notorious dishonesty. Respondent gravely
abused the confidence that complainant reposed in him and committed dishonesty when he did
not turn over the proceeds of the sale of her property. Worse, with palpable bad faith, he
compelled the complainant to go to court for the recovery of the proceeds of the sale and, in the
process, to spend money, time and energy therefor. Then, despite his deliberate failure to
answer the complaint resulting in his having been declared in default, he appealed from the
judgment to the Court of Appeals. Again, bad faith attended such a step because he did not pay
the docket fee despite notice. Needless to state, respondent wanted to prolong the travails and
agony of the complainant and to enjoy the fruits of what rightfully belongs to the latter.
Unsatisfied with what he had already unjustly and unlawfully done to complainant, respondent
issued checks to satisfy the alias writ of execution. But, remaining unrepentant of what he had
done and in continued pursuit of a clearly malicious plan not to pay complainant of what had
been validly and lawfully adjudged by the court against him, respondent closed the account
against which the checks were drawn. There was deceit in this. Respondent never had the
intention of paying his obligation. He violated Rule 1:01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, respondent diminished public confidence in the law and the Lawyers. Instead of
promoting such confidence and respect, he miserably failed to live up to the standards of the
legal profession. Also Respondent then knowingly and willfully violated Rules 12.04 and 12:03
of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which respectively provide that lawyers
should avoid any action that would unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse court processes; and that lawyers, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, should not let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an
explanation for their failure to do so. For his deliberate violation or defiance of Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1 and Rules 12:03 and 12:04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
coupled with his palpable bad faith and dishonesty in his dealings with the complainant,
respondent deserves a graver penalty. That graver penalty is indefinite suspension from the
practice of law.,” Nunez v. Atty. Ricafort (2002)
“The Complaint was filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP). It charged Atty. Rafanan with deceit; malpractice or other gross
misconduct in office under 12.08 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) among
others. As to his alleged violation of Rule 12.08 of the CPR, respondent argued that lawyers
could testify on behalf of their clients on substantial matters, in cases where [their] testimony is
essential to the ends of justice. Complainant charged respondents clients with attempted
murder. Respondent averred that since they were in his house when the alleged crime
occurred, his testimony is very essential to the ends of justice. SC said, a lawyer is not
disqualified from being a witness except only in certain cases pertaining to privileged
communication arising from an attorney-client relationship. The reason behind such rule is the
difficulty posed upon lawyers by the task of dissociating their relation to their clients as
witnesses from that as advocates. Witnesses are expected to tell the facts as they recall them.
In contradistinction, advocates are partisans -- those who actively plead and defend the cause
of others. It is difficult to distinguish the fairness and impartiality of a disinterested witness from
the zeal of an advocate. The question is one of propriety rather than of competency of the
lawyers who testify for their clients. Thus, although the law does not forbid lawyers from being
witnesses and at the same time counsels for a cause, the preference is for them to refrain from
testifying as witnesses, unless they absolutely have to; and should they do so, to withdraw from
active management of the case. Notwithstanding this guideline and the existence of the Affidavit
executed by Atty. Rafanan in favor of his clients, we cannot hastily make him administratively
liable because First, we consider it the duty of a lawyer to assert every remedy and defense that
is authorized by law for the benefit of the client. The Affidavit executed by Atty. Rafanan was
clearly necessary for the defense of his clients, since it pointed out the fact that on the alleged
date and time of the incident, his clients were at his residence and could not have possibly
committed the crime charged against them. Notably, in his Affidavit, complainant does not
dispute the statements of respondent or suggest the falsity of its contents. Second, paragraph
(b) of Rule 12.08 contemplates a situation in which lawyers give their testimonies during the
trial. In this instance, the Affidavit was submitted during the preliminary investigation which, as
such, was merely inquisitorial. Nonetheless, we deem it important to stress and remind
respondent to refrain from accepting employment in any matter in which he knows or has
reason to believe that he may be an essential witness for the prospective client. Furthermore, in
future cases in which his testimony may become essential to serve the ends of justice, the
canons of the profession require him to withdraw from the active prosecution of these cases.”
Santiago v. Rafanan (2004).
“Complainant alleged that respondents act of filing three (3) motions for extension of time within
which to file the appeal and his wrong choice in the mode of appeal in the petition that he
belatedly filed exemplify gross incompetence and caused serious prejudice to complainant.
Complainant also alleged that the lapse of seven (7) months from the time the resolution dated
October 1, 2001 was received by respondent before he informed complainant of the same
constitutes inexcusable negligence. SC said Respondents act of filing three (3) successive
motions for extension of time to file the petition on the careless assumption that each motion will
be granted by the Court, and without taking care of informing himself of the Courts action
thereon, constitutes inexcusable negligence. Moreover, respondent knowingly referred to Rule
65 in the petition he belatedly filed as an afterthought in his desperate attempt to salvage the
appeal. Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer not to neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, skill and competence, regardless of its
importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He must constantly keep in mind that
his actions or omissions or nonfeasance would be binding upon his client. Thus, he is expected
to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure, and a client who deals with him
has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and competence but also
a whole-hearted fealty to the clients cause. to withdraw from the case to enable the client to
engage the services of another counsel who can study the situation and work out a solution To
make matters worse, it took respondent seven (7) months from the time he received a copy of
the Courts resolution denying complainants petition to inform complainant of the same,”FIl-
Garcia Inc. v. Hernandez (2008).
✓ 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.
In prosecuting or defensing cases, the lawyer must be guided by the principles of justice. He
must rely on the merits of the case s and should avoid using influence and connections to win
his cases. His cases must be won because they are meritorious and not because of
connections, clout, dominance or influence. To do so, the lawyer breaks the basic principles of
justice which he is highly condemnible.
Courts on the other hand as impartial administrators of justice are entitled to dispose of their
business in an orderly manner, free from outside interference obtrusive of their functions and
tending to embarrass the administration of justice, just as litigants are entitled to have their
cases tried fairly by an impartial tribunal.
Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek
opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges.
Rationale: To protect the good name and reputation of the judge and the lawyer. The unusual
attention may subject the judge and the lawyer to suspicion. A lawyer should not see judge in
chamber and talk to him about a case he is handling and pending in the judge’s court. A lawyer
should not communicate to the judge the merits of the pending case.
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.
Test when public statement is contemptuous: The character of the act done and its direct
tendency to prevent and obstruct the discharge of official duty is the test to determine whether a
newspaper publication concerning a pending case is contemptuous.
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.
Rationale: To preserve the independence of the judges in the performance of their duties.
DECIDED CASES
“[SC] We find merit in the recommendation of the Solicitor General that respondent, by way of
disciplinary action, deserves suspension from the practice of law. The subject letters indeed
indicate that respondent had previous communication with Judge Galicia regarding the
preparation of the draft decisions in Civil Case Nos. 81, 83, and 88, and which he in fact
prepared. Although nothing in the records would show that respondent got the trial court judge's
consent to the said preparation for a favor or consideration, the acts of respondent nevertheless
amount to conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and an officer of the Court. Marked attention and
unusual hospitality on the part of a lawyer to a judge, uncalled for by the personal relations of
the parties, subject both the judge and the lawyer to misconstructions of motive and should be
avoided. A lawyer should not communicate or argue privately with the judge as to the merits of a
pending cause and deserves rebuke and denunciation for any device or attempt to gain from a
judge special personal consideration or favor. A self-respecting independence in the discharge
of professional duty, without denial or diminution of the courtesy and respect due the judge's
station, is the only proper foundation for cordial personal and official relations between bench
and bar. A lawyer's attempt to influence the court is rebuked, as shown in Canon No. 13 and
Rule 13.01, therefore, this Court finds respondent guilty of unethical practice in attempting to
influence the court where he had pending civil case,” Lantoria v. Atty. Bunyi (1992).
Public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession, which confidence may be eroded by
the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. Respondent violated Rule 1.01
which mandates lawyers to refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. For, as the IBP found, he engaged in deceitful conduct by, inter alia, taking advantage
of the complaint against CDO to advance his interest to obtain funds for his BATAS Foundation
and seek sponsorships and advertisements for the tabloids and his television program. He also
violated Rule 13.02 which mandates: A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. For despite the
pendency of the civil case against him and the issuance of a status quo order
restraining/enjoining further publishing, televising and broadcasting of any matter relative to the
complaint of CDO, respondent continued with his attacks against complainant and its products.
At the same time, respondent violated Canon 1 , which mandates lawyers to uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. For he
defied said status quo order, despite his (respondents) oath as a member of the legal profession
to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities. Further,
respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 which mandate by using intemperate language. To
the Court, suspension of respondent from the practice of law for three years is, in the premises,
sufficient,”Foodsphere Inc. v. Mauricio (2009)
Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Canon 11 mandates a lawyer to
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and [he] should insist
on similar conduct by others. Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyer shall submit
grievances against a judge to the proper authorities only. Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of
Canon 11 when he admittedly caused the holding of a press conference where he made
statements against the Order dated November 12, 2002 allowing the accused in Crim. Case No.
5144 to be released on bail. Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that
Judge Tan was displaying judicial arrogance in the article entitled, Senior prosecutor lambasts
Surigaojudge for allowing murder suspect to bail out, which appeared in the August 18, 2003
issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Respondents statements in the article, which were made
while Crim. Case No. 5144 was still pending in court, also violated Rule 13.02 of Canon 13,
which states that a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending
case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. In regard to the radio interview
given to Tony Consing, respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 for not resorting to the
proper authorities only for redress of his grievances against Judge Tan. Respondent also
violated Canon 11 for his disrespect of the court and its officer when he stated that Judge Tan
was ignorant of the law, that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of
studying the law, and that he was a liar. Respondent also violated the Lawyers Oath, as he has
sworn 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] clients. The Court is not against lawyers
raising grievances against erring judges but the rules clearly provide for the proper venue and
procedure for doing so, precisely because respect for the institution must always be maintained.
Thus, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year effective upon finality of this
Decision, with a STERN WARNING,”, Re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo 535 SCRA
201.
CHAPTER IV. THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT
Nature of relation of an Attorney-Client Relationship:
◆ Strictly personal - The relationship involves mutual trust and confidence to the highest
degree. The personal character of the relation prohibits its delegation in favor of another
attorney without the client’s consent. The client can terminate the relationship at anytime with or
without cause but a lawyer being an officer of the court enjoys no similar right. He may be
permitted to withdraw from the case only with the consent of the client or that of the court. It also
terminates upon the death of either the client or the attorney.
◆ Highly confidential and Fiduciary - It demands undivided allegiance, a high degree of good
faith, candor, fairness, loyalty, fidelity and absolute integrity in all his dealings with his clients
and utter renunciation of every personal advantage conflicting with the interest of the client.
Creation of relation:
∎ Oral - counsel is employed without a written agreement but the conditions and amount of
attorney’s fees are
agreed upon.
∎ Express- terms and conditions of engagement are evidence by a written contract. ∎ Implied-
there is no agreement, but the client allowed the lawyer to render legal services not intended to
be
gratuitous without objection and the client is benefited by reason thereof.
Rule 138, Section 21- An attorney willfully appearing in court for a person without being
employed, unless by leave of the court, may be punished for contempt as an officer of the court
who has misbehave in the official transactions.
✓ CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THE NEEDY.
A private practitioner is not obliged to act as counsel for a person who may wish to become his
client. He has the right to decline employment. But Canon 14 provides the exceptions to the
general rule and emphasizes the lawyer’s responsibility of rendering legal services to the needy
and the oppressed who are unable to pay attorney’s fees. In such cases, refusal is the
exception rather than the rule.
Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the latter's
race, sex. creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of said
person.
The administration of justice does not discriminate against any one on grounds of nationality,
religion, sex or status of life.
Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient cause, an appointment
as counsel de officio or as amicus curiae, or a request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
or any of its chapters for rendition of free legal aid.
Counsel de oficio- A counsel, appointed or assigned by the court, from among such members of
the bar in good standing who by reason of their experience and ability, may adequately defend
the accused.
Amicus Curiae- A friend of the court, a bystander (usually a counselor) who interposes or
volunteers information upon some matter of law in regard to which the judge may be doubtful or
might go wrong; acts merely as consultant to guide the court in a doubtful question or issue
pending before it. The amicus curiae serves without compensation.
Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent client except if:
(a) he is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or competently; (b) he labors under a
conflict of interest between him and the prospective client or between a present client and the
prospective client.
Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his professional fees
shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his relations with paying clients.
Amount of attorney’s fees or client’s financial capability to pay should not serve as a test to
determine the extent of the lawyer’s devotion to his client’s cause.
CANON 1-14 CPR, MIDTERM Review for Legal Ethics -ATTY. LOOD Book reference: Pineda,
with assigned cases N.M.