1. The defense of Atty. Palagi is untenable. Atty.

Palagi's actions demonstrated grave

misconduct for having been authored the falsification of an inexistent decision of a court. By
doing such, he has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility under Rule 1.01 which
requires lawyers to not engage in any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.
Lawyers are also required under Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility to uphold at
all times the dignity and integrity of the Legal Profession and Rule 7.03 which also requires a
lawyer to not engage in any conduct that could adversely relflect 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.

Atty. Palagi's actions in the present case, does not, in any way, reflect the conduct required of
him as a lawyer pursuant to the rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Therefore, the petition to disbar Atty. Palagi is with merit.

2. In view of the foregoing facts, Atty. Hindi C. Bagay's negligence by leaving his office open
despite his absence and with his secretary left in-charge, he allowed his secretary to notarized
documents without any restraint which reflects a violation of Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to not directly or indirectly assist in the
unauthorized practice of law.

He must fully bear the consequences of his negligence. He who is commissioned as a notary
public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register.

Therefore, Atty. Bagay is liable for the acts of his secretary.

3. Atty. Palagi's admission in instructing his secretary to sign pleadings and communications on
his behalf clearly violates the required conduct expected of him as a lawyer pursuant to Rule
9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires a lawyer to 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 permissive right conferred on him as a lawyer is an individual and limited privilege subject
to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct. He
may only delegate the signing of a pleading to another lawyer but not to a non-lawyer.
Q: Can a lawyer, having once held public office or having been in the public employ, after his
retirement, accept employment in connection with any matter he has investigated or passed
upon while in such office or employ? Explain with legal basis, taking into account all the
nuances of a lawyer’s privilege to practice law and their constitutional right to their
employment (as property right).

Yes.
Pursuant to Republic Act 6713, Section 7 which states that:

"x x x
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. – Public officials and employees
during their incumbency shall not:
xxx
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or
law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official
functions; or
xxx

These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after resignation,
retirement, or separation from public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above,
but the professional concerned cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter
before the office he used to be with, in which case the one-year prohibition shall likewise
apply."

Therefore, a lawyer having once held public office or having been in the public employ, after
his retirement, can accept employment in connection with any matter he has investigated or
passed upon while in such office or employ given that the 1-year prohibition had passed.

DUTIES OF A LAWYER TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION

Views: 183Replies: 4

Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Membership and Dues (Rule 139-A)

Upholding the dignity and integrity of the profession (Canon 7)
Courtesy, fairness and candor towards professional colleagues (Canon 8)
No assistance in unauthorized practice of law (Canon 9)

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (Rule 139-A)

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines is the national organization of lawyers created on 16
January 1973 under Rule 139-A, Rules of Court and constituted on 4 May 1973 into a body
corporate by P.D. No. 181. The IBP is essentially a semi-governmental entity, a private
organization endowed with certain governmental attributes. While it is composed of lawyers
who are private individuals, the IBP exists to perform certain vital public functions and to
assist the government particularly in the improvement of the administration of justice, the
upgrading of the standards of the legal profession, and its proper regulation.

Statutory Basis

RA 6397. The Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the
Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit in order to raise the standards of the
legal profession improve the administration of justice and enable the bar to discharge its
public responsibility more effectively.

Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a
member. He became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar examinations. All that
integration actually does is to provide an official national organization for the well-defined
but unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is already a member. [In the
matter of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, (1973)]

GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF THE IBP

(1) To elevate the standards of the legal profession

(2) To improve the administration of justice
(3) To enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.

PURPOSE OF THE IBP

(1) Assist in the administration of justice;

(2) Foster and maintain on the part of its members high ideals of integrity, learning,
professional competence, public service and conduct;
(3) Safeguard the professional interest of its members;
(4) Cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood;
(5) Provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law reform, pleading, practice
and procedure, and the relations of the Bar to the Bench and to the public, and publish
information relating thereto;
(6) Encourage and foster legal education;
(7) Promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and adjective law, and
make reports and recommendations thereon.

Note: The Integrated Bar shall be strictly non-political, and every activity tending to impair
this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly. (Rule 193-A, Sec.
13)
The basic postulate of the IBP is that it is non-political in character and that there shall be
neither lobbying nor campaigning in the choice of the IBP Officers. The fundamental
assumption is that the officers would be chosen on the basis of professional merit and
willingness and ability to serve. The unseemly ardor with which the candidates pursued the
presidency of the association detracted from the dignity of the legal profession. The spectacle
of lawyers bribing or being bribed to vote did not uphold the honor of the profession nor
elevate it in the public’s esteem. [In re 1989 Elections of the IBP, (1989)]

Note: Election by Exclusion.- Election through ‘rotation by exclusion’ is the more established
rule in the IBP. The rule prescribes that once a member of the chapter would be excluded in
the next turn until all have taken their turns in the rotation cycle. Once a full rotation cycle
ends and a fresh cycle commences, all the chapters in the region are once again entitled to
vie but subject again to the rule on rotation by exclusion. [In the Matter of the Brewing
Controversies in the Elections of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, 686 SCRA 791 (2012)]

MEMBERSHIP and DUES

Statutory Basis

Rules of Court, Rule 139-A, Section 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 collection 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.
Section 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.

Membership in the National IBP is mandatory. It is not violative of a lawyer’s freedom to

choose to associate. (In re: Edillion, A.M. No. 1928 August 3, 1978)

We see nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Court, under its constitutional power
and duty to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law and the
integration of the Philippine Bar (Article X, Section 5 of the 1973 Constitution) — which
power the respondent acknowledges — from requiring members of a privileged class, such as
lawyers are, to pay a reasonable fee toward defraying the expenses of regulation of the
profession to which they belong. It is quite apparent that the fee is indeed imposed as a
regulatory measure, designed to raise funds for carrying out the objectives and purposes of
integration. (In re: Edillion, A.M. No. 1928 August 3, 1978)