Legal Ethics, Jan 26, 2021;

Prof: Atty. L. Deslate-Delicana

Rule 138-A; Law Student Practice

The limited practice of law by law students certified by this Rule covers appearances, drafting and
submission of pleadings and documents before trial and appellate courts and quasi-judicial
and administrative bodies, assistance in mediation and other alternative modes of dispute
resolution, legal counselling and advice, and such other activities that may be covered by the
Clinical Legal Education Program of the law school.

 Are the law schools required to observe this Rule, i.e, develop Clinical Education Program?
Yes. See Section 9 and the last “whereas” clause.
 Who can apply for certification to practice law limited to this Rule? See Section 3.
 What are types of certifications that can be issued to qualified law students and what practice
areas each of the certification authorizes? See Section 4.
 Can a law student duly certified under this Rule can practice law as limited in this same Rule
without a supervising lawyer? No. See Section 13 (i).

Rule 138, Section 34; Non-lawyers practicing law

In a municipal court or a court of the justice of the peace, an agent or a friend appointed by one who
is under litigation can represent him and conduct the litigation on his behalf.

However, in any other courts, litigation can be done only by him personally or by an aid of an
attorney.

 Are non-lawyers also restricted by the same rules the same with practicing lawyers? Yes.
But the one who is defending or representing himself with Court is not considered as the one
who is practicing law, therefore; rules to lawyers will not apply to him.

 Are law students practicing in accordance with the Law Student Practice can appear before
the municipal court without supervision and control by a member of the Bar? Yes, provided
that they are appearing to be a friend or an agent to the party of the case. Furthermore, Rule
138, Sec. 34 authorizes either a friend or an agent to represent on behalf of the one to whom
litigation is being conducted in any courts of justice of the peace.

Defending oneself in criminal prosecutions is allowed

Sec 14, Article III of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of the due process of
law when being faced with criminal offenses. It further provides that he is entitled to speedy and
impartial and public trial.

In consonance to above constitutional provision, the accused under Rule 115 may be allowed to
defend himself in person upon motion when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly
protect his right without the assistance of counsel.

Non-lawyer appearance to quasi-judicial agencies

A party facing charges before the DARAB can seek legal counsel from non-lawyers provided that
such non-lawyer is:
1) Himself as a party to the case;
2) Represents the party’s organization by which he has interest;
3) Law Student certified under Law Student Practice Rule and completed his Third-Year regular
courses; and
4) DAR Legal Officer duly authorized by the Head of Office of DAR.

1
Legal Ethics, Jan 26, 2021;
Prof: Atty. L. Deslate-Delicana

Moreover, non-lawyers can also appear before the Commission on Labor or any Labor Arbiter
only:
1) If they are representing themselves to the case
2) If they are representing their organization or members thereof who are the parties of the case

Appearance of lawyers is not allowed in barangay proceedings and small claims proceedings
except for valid causes

 In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties must appear in person without the
assistance of counsel or representative, except for minors and incompetents who may be
assisted by their next-of-kin who are not lawyers. (Sec. 415, Local Government Code)

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 incompetents are parties. There can be no quibbling that laymen of goodwill can easily agree to
conciliate and settle their disputes between themselves without what sometimes is the unsettling
assistance of lawyers whose presence could sometimes obfuscate and confuse issues. Worse
still, 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. (A.C. No. 6296)

 The parties shall personally appear on the designated date of hearing. Appearance through
a representative must be for a valid cause. The representative of an individual-party must not
be a lawyer and must be related to or next-of-kin of the individual-party. Juridical entities
shall not be represented by a lawyer in any capacity. (Sec 18, Revised Rules of Procedure
for Small Claims Cases)

However, if the lawyer himself is the party of the case, it is allowed.

Prohibited practice of non-lawyers and appearance without authority; contempt

Section 21. Authority of attorney to appear. — an attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to

represent any cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney is required to authorize
him to appear in court for his client, but the presiding judge may, on motion of either party and on
reasonable grounds therefor being shown, require any attorney who assumes the right to appear in
a case to produce or prove the authority under which he appears, and to disclose, whenever
pertinent to any issue, the name of the person who employed him, and may thereupon make such
order as justice requires. An attorneys wilfully appear 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 misbehaved in his official transactions.

Section 22. Attorney who appears in lower court presumed to represent client on appeal. — An
attorney who appears de parte in a case before a lower court shall be presumed to continue
representing his client on appeal, unless he files a formal petition withdrawing his appearance in the
appellate court.

Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. — After a charge in writing
has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period
as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the
following acts may be punished for indirect contempt;

2
Legal Ethics, Jan 26, 2021;
Prof: Atty. L. Deslate-Delicana

(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official
transactions;

(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court,

including the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property
by the judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or
induces another to enter into or upon such real property, for the purpose of executing acts of
ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given to the person
adjudged to be entitled thereto;

(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court
not constituting direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule;

(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
administration of justice;

(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without

authority;

(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;

(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the custody of an officer by
virtue of an order or process of a court held by him.

But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent the court from issuing process to bring
the respondent into court, or from holding him in custody pending such proceedings. (3a)

What is contempt of court?

Contempt of court has been defined as a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority. In its
broad sense, contempt is a disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a legislative or
judicial body or an interruption of its proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language in its
presence or so near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to impair the respect due to such a body.
In its restricted and more usual sense, contempt comprehends a despising of the authority, justice,
or dignity of a court. The phrase contempt of court is generic, embracing within its legal signification
a variety of different acts.

Penalties for contempt of court: See Rule 71.

Prohibited public officials who are not allowed to practice law while in office

1. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or
assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or
employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly,
practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any
contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of
their office.

3
Legal Ethics, Jan 26, 2021;
Prof: Atty. L. Deslate-Delicana

2. No Member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other office
or employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the active
management or control of any business which in any way be affected by the functions of his
office, nor shall he be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in
any franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries.
3.  No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or
employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term
without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been
created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected.

4. 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.

5. Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or

teach in schools except during session hours: Provided, That sanggunian members who are
also 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.
(c) Doctors of medicine may practice their profession even during official hours of
work only on occasions of emergency: Provided, That the officials concerned do not
derive monetary compensation therefrom. (Sec. 90, R.A.7160)

6. No judge or other official or employee of the superior courts or of the Office of the
Solicitor General, shall engage in private practice as a member of the bar or give
professional advice to clients. (Rule 138, Sec. 35)

7. The Commissioners of the Philippine Competition Commission shall not, during their
tenure, hold any other office or employment. They shall not, during their tenure, directly or
indirectly practice any profession, except in a teaching capacity, participate in any business,
or be financially interested in any contract with, or any franchise, or special privileges granted
by the government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including
government owned and-controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid
conflict of interest in the conduct of their office. They shall not be qualified to run for any
office in the election immediately succeeding their cessation from office. Provided, that the
election mentioned hereof is not a Barangay election or a Sangguniang Kabataan election.
Provided they shall not be allowed to personally appear or practice as counsel or agent on
any matter pending before the Commission for two (2) years following their cessation from
office. (Sec. 8, Philippine Competition Act)

4
Legal Ethics, Jan 26, 2021;
Prof: Atty. L. Deslate-Delicana

Retired judges of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals cannot further engage in law practice
where the adverse party is the Government

When a Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals who has rendered at least
twenty years' service either in the judiciary or in any other branch of the Government, or in both,
(a) retires for having attained the age of seventy years, or (b) resigns by reason of his incapacity
to discharge the duties of his office, he shall receive during the residue of his natural life, in the
manner hereinafter provided, the salary which he was receiving at the time of his retirement or
resignation. And when a Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals has attained
the age of fifty-seven years and has rendered at least twenty-years' service in the Government,
ten or more of which have been continuously rendered as such Justice or as judge of a court of
record, he shall be likewise entitled to retire and receive during the residue of his natural life, in
the manner also hereinafter prescribed, the salary which he was then receiving. It is a
condition of the pension provided for herein that no retiring Justice during the time that
he is receiving said pension shall appear as counsel before any court in any civil case
wherein the Government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof is the adverse
party, or in any criminal case wherein and officer or employee of the Government is
accused of an offense committed in relation to his office, or collect any fee for his
appearance in any administrative proceedings to maintain an interest adverse to the
Government, insular, provincial or municipal, or to any of its legally constituted officers.
(Sec 1, RA 910)

Sec. 12, Rule VIII of the Civil Service Rules provides that, No officer or employee shall engage
directly in any private business, vocation, or profession or be connected with any
commercial, credit, agricultural or industrial undertaking without a written permission from
the head of Department: Provided, That this prohibition will be absolute in the case of those
officers and employees whose duties and responsibilities require that their entire time be at the
disposal of the Government: Provided, further, That if an employee is granted permission to engage,
in outside activities, the time so devoted outside of office hours should be fixed by the chief of the
agency to the end that it will not impair in any way the efficiency of the officer or employee:
And provided, finally, That no permission is necessary in the case of investments, made by an
officer or employee, which do not involve any real or apparent conflict between his private interests
and public duties, or in any way influence him in the discharge of his duties, and he shall not take
part in the management of the enterprise or become an officer or member of the board of directors

Can the members or employees of the Judiciary Department can apply for the above-rule?
No. The Court expressed the view that the provisions of Memorandum Circular No. 17 of the
Executive Department are not applicable to officials or employees of the courts considering the
express prohibition in the Rules of Court and the nature of their work which requires them to serve
with the highest degree of efficiency and responsibility, in order to maintain public confidence in the
Judiciary. The same policy was adopted in Administrative Matter No. 88-6-002-SC, June 21, 1988,
where the court denied the request of Ms. Esther C. Rabanal, Technical Assistant II, Leave Section,
Office of the Administrative Services of this Court, to work as an insurance agent after office hours
including Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. Indeed, the entire time of Judiciary officials and
employees must be devoted to government service to insure efficient and speedy administration of
justice.

Exception: (See A.M. No. 202, Ramos v. Rada)

5
Legal Ethics, Jan 26, 2021;
Prof: Atty. L. Deslate-Delicana

Code of Professional Responsibility, 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. See A.C. No. 5738,
Catu v. Rellosa)

A.M 202, Ramos v. Rada, July 22, 1975

Facts:
Moises R. Rada a messenger in the Court of First Instance was charged of a violation of Sec. 12,
Rules VIII of the Civil Service Procedures by Rene Ramos when the former accepted the
appointment and discharged the duties of being an administrator of Avesco Marketing Corporation.
After being charged with a violation, he requested for a permission to accept his appointment in the
said corporation.

Issue:
Whether the request for permission to conduct business outside the Court can be appreciated in his
favor despite the issued Administrative Matter by the Supreme Court which absolutely prohibits
official and employees of Court to engage in another business or to practice their profession?

Ruling:
Yes. The duties of messenger Rada are generally ministerial which do not require that his entire day
of 24 hours be at the disposal of the Government. Such being his situation, it would be to stifle his
willingness to apply himself to a productive endeavor to augment his income, and to award a
premium for slothfulness if he were to be banned from engaging in or being connected with a private
undertaking outside of office hours and without foreseeable detriment to the Government service.
His connection with Avesco Marketing Corporation need not be terminated, but he must secure a
written permission from the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte, who
is hereby authorized to grant or revoke such permission, under such terms and conditions as will
safeguard the best interests of the service, in general, and the court, in particular.

G.R. No. L-19450, People v. Villanueva, May 27, 1965

Facts:
In a criminal complaint against Simplicio Villanueva charging him of the crime of malicious mischief,
the complainant in this case was being represented by City Atty. Ariston Fule.

The appearance of a City Attorney as a private prosecutor was questioned by the accused invoking
that when an attorney had been appointed to the position of Assistant Provincial Fiscal or City Fiscal
and therein qualified, by operation of law, he ceased to engage in private law practice. However, this
was sustained by the court of the justice of peace.

Another motion was filed from the accused invoking Sec. 5, Rule 138 where it states that no judge or
other official or employee of the superior courts or of the Office of the Solicitor General, shall engage
in private practice as a member of the bar or give professional advice to clients. This was again
denied by the JP Court ruling that Fule was not engaged in the private practice of law.

On appeal, the CFI rendered judgment in allowing the further appearance of Fule as private
prosecutor in the criminal case as agent of friend of the offended party.

6
Legal Ethics, Jan 26, 2021;
Prof: Atty. L. Deslate-Delicana

Issue:
Whether City Attorney Fule was engaged into private practice of law when he appeared as the
private prosecutor in the criminal case?

Ruling:
No. The Court believe that the isolated appearance of City Attorney Fule did not constitute private
practice within the meaning and contemplation of the Rules. Practice is more than an isolated
appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary actions, a succession of acts of the same kind.
In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise (State vs. Cotner, 127, p. 1, 87 Kan. 864, 42 LRA,
M.S. 768). Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute has been interpreted as customarily
or habitually holding one's self out to the public, as customarily and demanding payment for such
services (State vs. Bryan, 4 S.E. 522, 98 N.C. 644, 647). The appearance as counsel on one
occasion is not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private practice of law. The
following observation of the Solicitor General is noteworthy:

Essentially, the word private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to
be in the active and continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional
services are available to the public for a compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in
consideration of his said services.

A.C. No. 5738, Catu v. Rellosa, February 19, 2008

Facts:
The failure to arrive to an amicable settlement regarding land possession disputes among Regina
Catu and Antonio Catu against Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu and Antonio Pastor caused Atty. Rellosa, the
punong-barangay, to issue certification for the filing of appropriate action in court.

When Regina and Antonio filed a complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth and Antonio, Atty.
Rellosa appear as a counsel of the defedants before the Court. Because of this, complainant filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Rellosa claiming that he committed an act of impropriety as a
lawyer and as a public officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he
presided over the conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong barangay. This complaint
was referred to IBP.

The IBP imposed the following violations against Atty. Rellosa:

1. Violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that lawyers
after leaving government service shall not accept engagement with any matter in which he
intervened in his office
2. Violation Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713 which states public officials and employees during their
incumbency shall not engage engage in the private practice of profession unless authorized
by the Constitution or law

Moreover, the IBP receommended that Atty. Rellosa be suspended from practice of law.

Issue:
1. Whether the imposed violations of the IBP against Atty. Rellosa is correct?
2. Assuming that the imposed violation of the IBP is incorrect, what is the governing law
applicable to the case of Atty. Rellosa?

7
Legal Ethics, Jan 26, 2021;
Prof: Atty. L. Deslate-Delicana

Ruling:
1. No. Respondent cannot be found liable for violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. As worded, that Rule applies only to a lawyer who has left government
service and in connection "with any matter in which he 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.

No. For elective local government officials, Section 90 of RA 7160 governs and not Section
7(b)(2) of RA 6713 because the latter is the general law for public official and employees.
However, under RA 7160, certain local elective officials (like governors, mayors, provincial
board members and councilors) are expressly subjected to a total or partial proscription to
practice their profession or engage in any occupation, no such interdiction is made on
the punong barangay and the members of the sangguniang barangay.

Accordingly, as punong barangay, respondent was not forbidden to practice his profession.
However, he should have procured prior permission or authorization from the head of his
Department, as required by civil service regulations.

2. A civil service officer or employee whose responsibilities do not require his time to be fully at
the disposal of the government can engage in the private practice of law only with the written
permission of the head of the department concerned. This is in accordance to Sec. 12, Rule
VIII of Civil Service Procedures.

As punong barangay, respondent should have therefore obtained the prior written
permission of the Secretary of Interior and Local Government before he entered his
appearance as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor. This he failed to do.

The failure of respondent to comply with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service
Rules constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer: to obey the laws. Also the failure to
comply with the above law constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.