2022 Notes in Legal and Judicial Ethics

Atty. Cecilio D. Duka, Ed.D.

Legal Ethics
It is the embodiment of all principles of morality and refinement that should
govern the conduct of every member of the Bar. It is embodied in the Constitution,
Rules of Court, Code of Professional Responsibility, jurisprudence, moral laws and
special laws.

Supervision of Lawyers

The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: …

Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of
law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. (Sec. 5(5), Article
VIII, 1987 Constitution)

Lawyer’s Oath

I, ______________________ of ___________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain

allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the
laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the
same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the
courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

The importance of ethics

Why are ethical principles important for any profession? They are the basis for
the rules of the profession. Without an ethical yardstick, it is impossible to set standards
that regulate the exercise of a profession and distinguish it from amateurism or
quackery.

Lawyer
Black's Law Dictionary - A person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel or
solicitor; a person who is practicing law. Any person who, for fee or reward, prosecutes
or defends causes in courts of record or other judicial tribunals or whose business it is
to give legal advice in relation to any cause or matter whatever.

Practice of Law
It covers any activity, in or out of court which requires the application of law, legal
principles, practice or procedure and calls for legal knowledge, training and experience.
(Phil. Lawyer’s Association vs. Agrava, Feb. 16, 1959)
Atty. C.D. Duka, Ed.D. 1
 Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which
device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill (Cayetano
vs. Monsod, Sept. 3, 1991)

Bar Matter No. 1153, March 9, 2010

Section 5, Rule 138 is amended.
A Filipino citizen “who graduated from a foreign law school shall be admitted to
the bar examination only upon submission to the Supreme Court of certifications
showing: (a) completion of all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its
equivalent degree; (b) recognition or accreditation of the law school by the proper
authority; and (c) completion of all fourth year subjects in the Bachelor of Laws
academic program in a law school duly recognized by the Philippine Government.” A
Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her degree in Bachelor of Laws or its
equivalent in a foreign law school must also present proof of completion of a separate
bachelor’s degree.

Bar Matter No. 3454, Sept. 11, 2018

Those who are required to take the fourth year refresher course shall be required
to complete the same within a maximum period of two years beginning their initial
enrollment; Those who have completed the fourth year refresher course shall be given
a maximum period of up to three years within which to take the Bar Examinations.

Pimentel vs. Legal Education Board, Sept. 10, 2019, Nov. 9, 2021
The act and practice of the Legal Education Board of excluding, restricting, and
qualifying admissions to law schools in violation of the institutional academic freedom
on who to admit via PHILSAT is unconstitutional. The act and practice of the Legal
Education Board of dictating the qualifications and classification of faculty members,
dean, and dean of graduate schools of law in violation of institutional academic freedom
on who may teach is unconstitutional.

The field of legal ethics is bounded by a four-fold relation.

The lawyer and the courts. The lawyer and his clients. The lawyer and the bar.
The lawyer and the public

Lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not merchants.

Law advocacy is not capital that yields profits. The returns it births are simple
rewards for a job done or service rendered. It is a calling that, unlike mercantile pursuits
which enjoy a greater deal of freedom from governmental interference, is impressed
with a public interest, for which it is subject to state regulation. (Sesbreno vs. CA, April
16, 2008)

The practice of law is a privilege

The practice of law is basically a privilege because it is limited to persons of good
moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The practice of

Atty. C.D. Duka, Ed.D. 2

law is not a natural, property or constitutional right but a mere privilege. (In Re:
Argosino, July 13, 1995)

Khan vs. Simbillo, August 19, 2003

The following elements distinguish the legal profession from a 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” to the administration of justice involving thorough 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 unwillingness to resort to
current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing
directly with their clients.

Freeman vs. Reyes, Nov. 15, 2011

The relation between attorney and client is highly fiduciary in nature. Being such,
it requires utmost good faith, loyalty, fidelity, and disinterestedness on the part of the
attorney. Its fiduciary nature is intended for the protection of the client.

Santos v. Llamas, January 20,2000

The exemption granted by R.A. 7432 to senior citizens from paying individual
income tax does not exempt lawyers who are likewise senior citizens from paying IBP
dues and privilege tax

Judge Alpajora vs. Atty. Calayan, January 10, 2018

As officers of the court, lawyers are duty-bound to observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and judicial officers. They are to abstain from offensive or
menacing language or behavior before the court and must refrain from attributing to a
judge motives that are not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.

IBP is a Sui Generis Institution

Due to this peculiar manner of creation, it now becomes reasonable for the Court
to conclude that the IBP is a sui generis public institution deliberately organized, by both
the legislative and judicial branches of government and recognized by the present and
past Constitutions, for the advancement of the legal profession. Hence, the IBP
Commissioners, being officers of the IBP, are private practitioners performing public
functions delegated to them by this Court in the exercise of its constitutional power to
regulate the practice of law. - Tabuzo v. Gomos, July 23, 2018

MCLE - Bar Matter No. 850, October 2, 2001

To ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and
jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the
practice of law.

Atty. C.D. Duka, Ed.D. 3

BM 1992, Jan. 14, 2014
AMEND the June 3, 2008 resolution by repealing the phrase "Failure to disclose
the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of
the pleadings from the records" and replacing it with "Failure to disclose the required
information would subject the counsel to appropriate penalty and disciplinary action”

Fine
i) The lawyer shall be imposed a fine of P2,000.00 for the first offense, P3,000.00
for the second offense and P4,000.00 for the third offense; (ii) In addition to the fine,
counsel may be listed as a delinquent member of the Bar pursuant to Section 2, Rule 13
of Bar Matter No. 850 and its implementing rules and regulations; and (iii) 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.

Mapalad vs. Echanez, June 6, 2017

In using a false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings, respondent also put
his own clients at risk. Such deficiency in pleadings can be fatal to the client's cause as
pleadings with such false information produce no legal effect. In so doing, respondent
violated his duty to his clients in Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR. Court orders should be
respected not only because the authorities who issued them should be respected, but
because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to the judicial branch
of the government, which is absolutely essential if our government is to be a
government of laws and not of men. WHEREFORE, respondent Anselmo S. Echanez is
hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law, and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN
FROM THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS.

Belo vs. Guevarra, December 01, 2016

In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts on his Facebook account, a popular
online social networking site, insulting and verbally abusing complainant. His posts
include the following excerpts: Argee Guevarra Quack Doctor Becky Belo: I am out to
get Puwitic Justice here! Kiss My Client's Ass, Belo. Senator Adel Tamano, don't kiss
Belo's ass. In view of the foregoing, respondent's inappropriate and obscene language,
and his act of publicly insulting and undermining the reputation of complainant through
the subject Facebook posts are, therefore, in complete and utter violation of the
following provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility: WHEREFORE,
respondent Atty. Roberto "Argee" C. Guevarra is found guilty of violation of Rules 7.03,
8.01, and 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon his receipt of this
Decision, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be
dealt with more severely.

Atty. C.D. Duka, Ed.D. 4

Bar Matter No. 1645, Oct. 15, 2015
Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be
taken by the Supreme Court motu propio, or upon the filing of a verified complaint of
any person before the Supreme Court or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The
complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be
supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein
alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts. The IBP shall
forward to the Supreme Court for appropriate disposition all complaints for disbarment,
suspension and discipline filed against incumbent Justices of the Court of Appeals,
Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals and judges of lower courts, or against lawyers in
the government service, whether or not they are charged singly or jointly with other
respondents, and whether or not such complaint deals with acts unrelated to the
discharge of their official functions.

Grounds for Discipline - Rule 138 Section 27, Rules of Court

A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney
by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, other gross misconduct in such
office, grossly immoral conduct, by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude (Jimenez v. Francisco, Dec. 10, 2014)

Moral turpitude
Moral turpitude, includes any act deemed contrary to justice, honesty or good
morals. Among the examples given of crimes of this nature by former Chief Justice
Moran are the crimes of seduction and the crime of concubinage. Indeed, it is well-
settled that embezzlement, forgery, robbery, and swindling are crimes which denote
moral turpitude and, as a general rule, all crimes of which fraud is an element are
looked on as involving moral turpitude. (De Jesus-Paras vs. Vailoces, April 12, 1961)

Bengco vs. Atty. Bernardo, June 13, 2012

It is first worth mentioning that the respondent’s defense of prescription is
untenable. The Court has held that administrative cases against lawyers do not
prescribe. The lapse of considerable time from the commission of the offending act to
the institution of the administrative complaint will not erase the administrative culpability
of a lawyer. Otherwise, members of the bar would only be emboldened to disregard the
very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private
complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely
exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for.

Suspension of Lawyers
During the suspension period and before the suspension is lifted, a lawyer must
desist from practicing law. (Paras vs. Paras, March 13, 2017)

After Suspension Period the Lawyer Cannot Immediately Resume Practicing

It must be stressed, however, that a lawyer's suspension is not automatically
lifted upon the lapse of the suspension period. The lawyer must submit the required

Atty. C.D. Duka, Ed.D. 5

documents and wait for an order from the Court lifting the suspension before he or she
resumes the practice of law. (Paras vs. Paras, March 13, 2017)

Guidelines on the lifting of orders of suspension

Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn
Statement with the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein that he
or she has desisted from the practice of law and has not appeared in any court during
the period of his or her suspension. Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to
the Local Chapter of the IBP and to the Executive Judge of the courts where respondent
has pending cases handled by him or her, and/or where he or she has appeared as
counsel; Tan vs. Atty. Gumba, Jan. 10, 2018

Reinstatement of Disbarred Lawyers

The power of the Supreme Court to reinstate the privilege to a practice law to a
disbarred lawyer is anchored on its constitutional prerogative to promulgate rules on the
admission of applicants to the practice of law.

Nuñez vs. Atty. Ricafort, March 2, 2021

As case law states, membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions. It is not a natural, absolute or constitutional right granted to everyone who
demands it, but rather, a special privilege granted and continued only to those who
demonstrate special fitness in intellectual attainment and in moral character. The same
reasoning applies to reinstatement of a disbarred lawyer. When exercising its inherent
power to grant reinstatement, the Court should see to it that only those who establish
their present moral fitness and knowledge of the law will be readmitted to the Bar. Thus,
though the doors to the practice of law are never permanently closed on a disbarred
attorney, the Court owes a duty to the legal profession as well as to the general public
to ensure that if the doors are opened, it is done so only as a matter of justice."

Clemency Guidelines for Disbarred Lawyers

1. A lawyer who has been disbarred cannot file a petition for judicial clemency
within a period of five (5) years from the effective date of his or her disbarment, unless
for the most compelling reasons based on extraordinary circumstances, a shorter period
is warranted. (Nuñez vs. Atty. Ricafort, March 2, 2021)
2. Upon the lapse of the said five (5)-year period, or earlier if so permitted by the
Court, a disbarred lawyer becomes eligible to file a verified petition for judicial clemency.
The petition, together with its supporting evidence appended thereto, must show on its
face that the following criteria have been met: (Nuñez vs. Atty. Ricafort, March 2, 2021)
(a) The petitioner has fully complied with the terms and conditions of all prior
disciplinary orders, including orders for restitution, as well as the five (5)-year period to
file, unless he or she seeks an earlier filing for the most compelling reasons based on
extraordinary circumstances (Nuñez vs. Atty. Ricafort, March 2, 2021)
(b) The petitioner recognizes the wrongfulness and seriousness of the
misconduct for which he or she was disbarred. For petitions already filed at the time of
this Resolution, it is required that the petitioner show that he or she genuinely attempted

Atty. C.D. Duka, Ed.D. 6

in good faith to reconcile with the wronged private offended party in the case for which
he or she was disbarred (if any), or if such is not possible, the petitioner must explain
with sufficient reasons as to why such attempt at reconciliation could not be made;
(Nuñez vs. Atty. Ricafort, March 2, 2021)
(c) Notwithstanding the conduct for which the disbarred lawyer was disciplined,
the disbarred lawyer has the requisite integrity and competence to practice law.
(Nuñez vs. Atty. Ricafort, March 2, 2021)

3. Upon the filing of the verified petition for clemency, together with its
attachments, the Court shall first conduct a preliminary evaluation and determine if the
same has prima facie merit based on the criteria above-stated. (Nuñez vs. Atty.
Ricafort, March 2, 2021)
4. If the petition has prima facie merit based on the above-criteria, the Court shall
refer the petition to the OBC (or any other fact-finding body the Court so designates) in
order to verify the details and the authenticity of the statements made and the evidence
attached to the clemency petition. If the petition fails to show any prima facie merit, it
should be denied. (Nuñez vs. Atty. Ricafort, March 2, 2021)
5. After its investigation, the OBC (or such other fact-finding body designated by
the Court) shall submit its fact-finding report to the Court, which shall ultimately resolve
the clemency petition based on the facts established in the said report. The threshold of
evidence to be applied is clear and convincing evidence since it is incumbent upon the
petitioner to hurdle the seriousness of his or her established past administrative
liability/ies, the gravity of which had warranted the supreme penalty of disbarment.
(Nuñez vs. Atty. Ricafort, March 2, 2021)
6. Unless otherwise resolved by the Court sitting En Banc, these guidelines and
procedure shall apply to pending petitions for judicial clemency, as well as to those filed
after the promulgation of this Resolution. (Nuñez vs. Atty. Ricafort, March 2, 2021)

Effect of Death of Lawyer during pendency of Disciplinary Action

1. Renders action moot and academic, 2. Court may still receive case on merit in
order to clear publicly the name of the lawyer

Sec. 24, IBP By-Laws

Any member who has not paid his membership dues shall be considered as
dues-delinquent members. If the delinquency continues the Board of Governors shall by
Resolution forthwith suspend all his membership privileges other than the practice of
law. A copy of such Resolution shall be sent by registered mail to the member and to
the secretary of the Chapter concerned. The Board shall promptly inquire into the cause
or causes of the delinquency and take whatever action it shall deem appropriate,
including a recommendation to the Supreme Court for the suspension of the delinquent
member from the practice of law.

Atty. C.D. Duka, Ed.D. 7

Petition of Atty. Dacanay, Dec. 7, 2007
May a lawyer who lost Filipino citizenship still practice law in the Philippines?
No. The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions in the Philippines shall
be limited to Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed by law. Under RA 9225, if a
person intends to practice the legal profession in the Philippines and he reacquires his
Filipino citizenship pursuant to its provisions: (a) the updating and payment in full of the
annual membership dues in the IBP; (b) the payment of professional tax; (c) the
completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education; this is
specially significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws
and update him of legal developments and (d) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which
will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of
the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines. Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as a
member of the Philippine bar.

When Does Attorney - Client Relationship Start?

A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first moment
respondent discussed with complainant the labor case of her husband and advised her
as to what legal course of action should be pursued therein. By respondent's
acquiescence with the consultation and her drafting of the position paper which was
thereafter submitted in the case, a professional employment was established between
her and complainant. To constitute professional employment, it is not essential that the
client employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion, or that any
retainer be paid, promised, or charged. (Zamora v. Atty. Gallanosa, Sept. 14, 2020)

Requisites of privileged communication

1. Matters disclosed by a prospective client to a lawyer are protected by the rule
on privileged communication even if the prospective client does not thereafter retain the
lawyer or the latter declines the employment. The reason for this is to make the
prospective client free to discuss whatever he wishes with the lawyer without fear that
what he tells the lawyer will be divulged or used against him, and for the lawyer to be
equally free to obtain information from the prospective client. 2. The client made the
communication in confidence. The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a
presumption of confidentiality. The client must intend the communication to be
confidential. (3) The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his professional
capacity. The communication made by a client to his attorney must not be intended for
mere information, but for the purpose of seeking legal advice from his attorney as to his
rights or obligations. The communication must have been transmitted by a client to his
attorney for the purpose of seeking legal advice. (Adela Properties v. Atty. Mendoza,
Oct. 16, 2019)

Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, Sept. 4, 2009

RULE 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any
suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause. This rule proscribes "ambulance chasing"
(the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or

Atty. C.D. Duka, Ed.D. 8

through an agent in order to gain employment) as a measure to protect the community
from barratry and champerty.

Ambulance chasing
Ambulance chasing, or the solicitation of almost any kind of business by an
attorney, personally or through an agent, in order to gain employment, is proscribed.
(Zamora v. Atty. Gallanosa, Sept 14, 2020)

Barratry
The offense of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels and suits either at law
or otherwise.

Champerty
Champerty is characterized by "the receipt of a share of the proceeds of the
litigation by the intermeddler.” Some common law court decisions, however, add a
second factor in determining champertous contracts, namely, that the lawyer must also,
"at his own expense maintain, and take all the risks of, the litigation. The rule of the
profession that forbids a lawyer from contracting with his client for part of the thing in
litigation in exchange for conducting the case at the lawyer’s expense is designed to
prevent the lawyer from acquiring an interest between him and his client. To permit
these arrangements is to enable the lawyer to acquire additional stake in the outcome of
the action which might lead him to consider his own recovery rather than that of his
client or to accept a settlement which might take care of his interest in the verdict to the
sacrifice of that of his client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to his client’s
cause. (Cadavedo vs. Lacaya, Jan. 25, 2014)

Contingency Fee Arrangements

A contingent fee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction and is generally
recognized as valid and binding but must be laid down in an express contract. The
amount of contingent fee agreed upon by the parties is subject to the stipulation that
counsel will be paid for his legal services only if the suit or litigation prospers. A much
higher compensation is allowed as contingent fee in consideration of the risk that the
lawyer may get nothing if the suit fails. (Cortez vs. Atty. Cortes, March 12, 2018)

Attorney’s Fees
In the ordinary sense, attorney's fees represent the reasonable compensation
paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter; while in
its extraordinary concept, they may be awarded by the court as indemnity for damages
to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party. (PNCC vs. APAC Mktg. June 5,
2013)

Villarama v. Atty. De Jesus, April 17, 2017

The duty of the court is not alone to see that a lawyer acts in a proper and lawful
manner; it is also its duty to see that a lawyer is paid his just fees. With his capital
consisting of his brains and with his skill acquired at tremendous cost not only in money

Atty. C.D. Duka, Ed.D. 9

but in expenditure of time and energy, he is entitled to the protection of any judicial
tribunal against any attempt on the part of his client to escape payment of his just
compensation. It would be ironic if after putting forth the best in him to secure justice for
his client he himself would not get his due.

Dalisay vs. Mauricio, April 22, 2005

Just like any other professional, a lawyer is entitled to collect fees for his
services. However, he should charge only a reasonable amount of fees. Canon 20 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that “A lawyer shall charge only fair
and reasonable fees.” There is, however, no hard and fast rule which will serve as guide
in determining what is or what is not a reasonable fee. That must be determined from
the facts of each case. The power to determine the reasonableness or the
unconscionable character of a lawyer’s fee is a matter falling within the regulatory
prerogative of the Court.

Timado vs. Rural Bank of San Jose, July 11, 2016

The general rule is that attorney’s fees cannot be recovered as part of damages
because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. The
award of attorney’s fees to the party lies within the discretion of the court, taking into
account the circumstances of each case. This means that such an award should have
factual, legal, and equitable basis, not founded on pure speculation and conjecture.

Acceptance Fee
Acceptance fee refers to the charge imposed by the lawyer for mere acceptance
of the case. The rationale for the fee is because once the lawyer agrees to represent a
client, he is precluded from handling cases of the opposing party based on the
prohibition on conflict of interest. However, since acceptance fee compensates the
lawyer only for lost opportunity, the same is not measured by the nature and extent of
the legal services rendered. (Ignacio vs. Atty. Alviar, July 17, 2017)

Quantum meruit principle

Quantum meruit literally meaning as much as he deserves is used as basis for
determining an attorney’s professional fees in the absence of an express agreement.
(NPC vs. Heirs of Macabangkit, Aug. 24, 2011)

The recovery of attorney's fees on the basis of quantum meruit is a device that
prevents an unscrupulous client from running away with the fruits of the legal services of
counsel without paying for it and also avoids unjust enrichment on the part of the
attorney himself. An attorney must show that he is entitled to reasonable compensation
for the effort in pursuing the client's cause, taking into account certain factors in fixing
the amount of legal fees. (Villarama v. Atty. De Jesus, April 17, 2017)

Assumpsit
A common law principle. An action to recover damages for breach of an express
or implied contract or agreement that was not under seal.

Atty. C.D. Duka, Ed.D. 10

 The action of assumpsit which was the instrument for giving effect to this
obligation was found to be a useful remedy; and presently this action came to be used
for the enforcement of common-law debts. The result was to give to our contract law the
superficial appearance of being based more or less exclusively upon the notion of the
obligation of promise. (Leung Ben v. O’Brien, April 6, 1918)

Attorney's Lien
An attorney's lien is of two kinds: retaining lien and charging lien. Under the rules,
this lien, whether retaining or charging, takes legal effect only from and after, but not
before, notice of said lien has been entered in the record and served on the adverse
party (De Caiña vs. Victoriano, February 26, 1959)

Counsel de oficio
A court appointed lawyer. The court, considering the gravity of the offense and
the difficulty of the questions that may arise, shall appoint as counsel de oficio only such
members of the bar in good standing who, by reason of their experience and ability may
adequately defend the accused. But in localities where such 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. (Sec. 7, Rule 116, Rules on Criminal
Procedure)

Amicus Curiae
An amicus curiae (friend of the court; plural: amici curiae) is someone who is not
a party to a case who assists a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that
has a bearing on the issues in the case.

Falcis v. Civil Registrar General, Sept. 3, 2019

Lawyers, especially those engaged in public interest litigation, should always be
mindful that their acts and omissions before the courts do not only affect themselves. By
thrusting themselves into the limelight to take up the cudgels on behalf of a minority
class, public interest lawyers represent the hopes and aspirations of a greater mass of
people, not always with the consent of all the members of that class. Their errors and
mistakes, their negligence and lethargy have a ripple effect even on persons who have
no opportunity to consent to the stratagems and tactics employed by ill-prepared and
sophomoric counsels.

Withdrawal as counsel
Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides the proper procedure for a
lawyer’s withdrawal as counsel in a case. Unless the procedure prescribed in the
abovementioned section is complied with, the attorney of record is regarded as the
counsel who should be served with copies of the judgments, orders and pleadings and
who should be held responsible for the case. For its part, the court could recognize no
other representation on behalf of the client except such counsel of record until a formal
substitution of attorney is effected. (Briones vs. Atty. Zapanta, Nov. 16, 2006)

Atty. C.D. Duka, Ed.D. 11

Francisco vs. Atty. Portugal, March 14, 2006
The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to terminate the
attorney-client relation at any time with or without cause. The right of an attorney to
withdraw or terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is, however,
considerably restricted. Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an
attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its
conclusion. He is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable cause. A lawyer’s right
to withdraw from a case before its final adjudication arises only from the client’s written
consent or from a good cause.

Notary Public
Not every member of the bar is a notary public because a lawyer requires a
commission or appointment to be designated a notary public.

Qualifications of Notary Public

Must be citizen of the Philippines. Must be over twenty-one (21) years of age.
Must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one (1) year and maintains a regular
place of work or business in the city or province where the commission is to be issued
Must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing with clearances from the
Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. Must not have been convicted in the first instance of any crime involving
moral turpitude.

Term of Office of Notary Public

For a period of two (2) years commencing on the 1st day of January of the year
in which the commissioning is made unless earlier revoked or the notary public has
resigned according to these Rules and the Rules of Court.

Powers
A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common
of which are the acknowledgment and affirmation of a document or instrument. In the
performance of such notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the significance
of the notarial seal as affixed on a document. The notarial seal converts the document
from private to public, after which it may be presented as evidence without need for
proof of its genuineness and due execution. (Iringan vs. Atty. Gumangan, Aug. 16,
2017)

Prohibitions
General Rule: A notary public shall not perform a notarial act outside his regular
place of work or business. The jurisdiction of a notary public in the City of Manila shall
be co-extensive with the said city. No notary shall, possess authority to do any notarial
act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction. (Sec. 2, Notarial Practice Rule, 2004)

Atty. C.D. Duka, Ed.D. 12

Exceptions
A notarial act may be performed at the request of the parties in the following sites
located within his territorial jurisdiction: Public offices, convention halls and similar
places where oaths of office may be administered; Public function areas in hotels and
similar places for the signing of instruments or documents requiring notarization;
Hospitals and medical institutions where a party to the instrument or document is
confined for treatment; and Any place where a party to the instrument or document
requiring notarization is under detention.

Prohibited Notarial Acts

1. The person involved as signatory to the instrument or document: a. Is not in
the notary’s presence at the time of the notarization; and b. Is not personally known to
the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules 2. Notarizing a certificate containing an
information known or believed to be false; and 3. he shall not affix an official signature
or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete.

Sec. 3. Notarial Practice Rule

A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he: (a) is a party to
the instrument or document that is to be notarized; (b) will receive, as a direct or
indirect result, any commission, fee, advantage, right, title, interest, cash, property, or
other consideration, except as provided by these Rules and by law; or (c) is a spouse,
common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of
the principal within the fourth civil degree.

CTC is not a competent evidence of identity

CTC’s no longer qualifies as competent evidence of the parties' identity as
defined under Rule II, Section 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. In Baylon v.
Almo, considering the ease with which a CTC could be obtained these days and
recognizing the established unreliability of a CTC in proving the identity of a person who
wishes to have his document notarized, the Court did not include the CTC in the list of
competent evidence of identity that notaries public should use in ascertaining the
identity of persons appearing before them to have their documents notarized. (Iringan
vs. Atty. Gumangan, Aug. 16, 2017)

Entries in the Notarial Register

Sec. 2, Notarial Practice Rule of 2004
(a) For every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the
time of notarization the following: (1) the entry number and page number; (2) the date
and time of day of the notarial act; (3) the type of notarial act; (4) the title or description
of the instrument, document or proceeding; (5) the name and address of each principal;
(6) the competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules if the signatory is not
personally known to the notary; (7) the name and address of each credible witness
swearing to or affirming the person's identity (8) the fee charged for the notarial act; (9)
the address where the notarization was performed if not in the notary's regular place of

Atty. C.D. Duka, Ed.D. 13

work or business; and (10) any other circumstance the notary public may deem of
significance or relevance. (Iringan vs. Atty. Gumangan, Aug. 16, 2017)

Effects of Defective Notarization

It is worthy to mention that any defect in the notarization of the Contract of Lease
did not affect its validity and it continued to be binding between the parties to the same.
The irregularity in the notarization was not fatal to the validity of the Contract of Lease
since the absence of such formality would not necessarily invalidate the lease, but
would merely render the written contract a private instrument rather than a public one.
(Iringan vs. Atty. Gumangan, Aug. 16, 2017)

Judicial ethics is part of the larger legal category of legal ethics

Judicial ethics consists of the standards and norms that bear on judges and
covers such matters as how to maintain independence, impartiality, and avoid
impropriety.

Source of Judicial Ethics

New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary - Promulgated April 27,
2004; effective June 1, 2004.
Based on the Bangalore Draft adopted by the Judicial Group on Strengthening
Judicial Integrity, intended to be the Universal Declaration of Judicial Standards, as
revised by the Round Table Conference of Chief Justices held at The Hague on
November 25-26, 2002.

Office of the Court Administrator v. Gines, July 5, 1993

Judicial office demands competence and diligence. “The administration of justice,
is a sacred task ... And upon assumption to office, a judge ceases to be an ordinary
mortal.”

OCA vs. Judge Sanchez, June 26, 2001

A judge is the visible representation of the law and, more importantly, of justice.
He must be first in observing the law scrupulously. Any appearance of criminal violation
of the law, in any way or capacity, directly or indirectly, principal or accessing, will
warrant the judge to be disrobed. We cannot tolerate a discordant robe in the judiciary.

DOJ vs. Judge Mislang, July 26, 2016

Though not every judicial error bespeaks ignorance of the law and that, if
committed in good faith, does not warrant administrative sanction, the same applies
only in cases within the parameters of tolerable misjudgment. Where the law is
straightforward and the facts so evident, failure to know it or to act as if one does not
know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. A judge is presumed to have acted with
regularity and good faith in the performance of judicial functions. But a blatant disregard
of the clear and unmistakable provisions of a statute, as well as Supreme Court
circulars enjoining their strict compliance, upends this presumption and subjects the
magistrate to corresponding administrative sanctions.

Atty. C.D. Duka, Ed.D. 14

Impartiality
Also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness is a principle of justice holding
that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias,
prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons.

Tan vs. Rosete, September 8, 2004

The exacting standards of conduct demanded from judges are designed to
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary because the
peoples confidence in the judicial system is founded not only on the magnitude of legal
knowledge and the diligence of the members of the bench, but also on the highest
standard of integrity and moral uprightness they are expected to possess.

Angping vs. Judge Ros, December 10, 2012

Well-known is the judicial norm that “judges should not only be impartial but
should also appear impartial.” Jurisprudence repeatedly teaches that litigants are
entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. The other elements
of due process, like notice and hearing, would become meaningless if the ultimate
decision is rendered by a partial or biased judge. Judges must not only render just,
correct and impartial decisions, but must do so in a manner free of any suspicion as to
their fairness, impartiality and integrity.

Disqualification of the Judge - Rule 137, Rules of Court

Section 1. Disqualification of judges. — No judge or judicial officer shall sit in
any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee,
creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of
consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to
the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian,
trustee or counsel, or in which he has been presided in any inferior court when his ruling
or decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in interest,
signed by them and entered upon the record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from
sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.

The first paragraph refers to mandatory disqualification and necessarily excludes

the exercise of discretion. The second paragraph refers to permissive disqualification
and leaves the matter of disqualification to the sound discretion of the judge. (People v.
Judge Serrano, Oct. 28, 1991)

Objection of the Disqualification of the Judge – Sec. 2, Rule 137, Rules of Court
If it be claimed that an official is disqualified from sitting as above provided, the
party objecting to his competency may, in writing, file with the official his objection,
stating the grounds therefor, and the official shall thereupon proceed with the trial, or
withdraw therefrom, in accordance with his determination of the question of his
disqualification. His decision shall be forthwith made in writing and filed with the other

Atty. C.D. Duka, Ed.D. 15

papers in the case, but no appeal or stay shall be allowed from, or by reason of, his
decision in favor of his own competency, until after final judgment in the case.

Canon 3, Section 5 – Code of Judicial Conduct

Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any proceedings in which
they are unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a
reasonable observer that they are unable to decide the matter impartially. Such
proceedings include, but are not limited to instances where:

a. The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal

knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings;
A judge who exhibits actions which give rise, fairly or unfairly, to perceptions of
bias, has no choice but to inhibit. (Garcia vs. Burgos, June 29, 1998)

(b) The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a material witness in the
matter in controversy;
A judge may be disqualified if he was formerly associated with one of the parties
or their counsel. (Austria vs. Masaquel, August 31, 1967)

(c) The judge or a member of his or her family, has an economic interest in the
outcome of the matter in controversy;
In the case of a municipal judge who filed complaints in his own court for robbery
and malicious mischief against a party for the purpose of protecting the property
interests of the judge’s co-heirs, and then issued warrants of arrest against the party,
was found guilty of serious misconduct and ordered dismissed from the bench before he
was able to recuse himself. (Oktubre vs. Velasco, July 20, 2004)

d) The judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the

case or matter in controversy, or a former associate of the judge served as counsel
during their association, or the judge or lawyer was a material witness therein;

(e) The judge's ruling in a lower court is the subject of review;

An Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals refused to inhibit himself from
reviewing the decision in a case which he had partially heard as a trial judge prior to his
promotion, on the ground that the decision was not written by him. (Sandoval vs. Court
of Appeals, August 1, 1996)


(f) The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the
sixth civil degree or to counsel within the fourth civil degree;
A judge was fined for presiding over a petition for correction of a birth record
where the petitioner was the judge’s daughter. (Villaluz vs. Mijares, April 3, 1998)

Atty. C.D. Duka, Ed.D. 16

 (g) The judge knows that his or her spouse or child has a financial interest, as
heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a
party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the
outcome of the proceedings.

Strict compliance with the rules on disqualification is required. (Marfil vs.

Cuachon, August 31, 1981)

Government vs. Heirs of Abella, September 8, 1926

The petition to disqualify a judge must be filed before rendition of the judgment,
and cannot be raised on appeal. Otherwise, the parties are deemed to have waived any
objection regarding the impartiality of the judge.

Contempt of Court
Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court,
such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into
disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties, litigant or their witnesses during
litigation.
There are two kinds of contempt punishable by law: direct contempt and indirect
contempt. Direct contempt is committed when a person is guilty of misbehavior in the
presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the
same, including disrespect toward the court, offensive personalities toward others, or
refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition
when lawfully required to do so. Indirect contempt or constructive contempt is that which
is committed out of the presence of the court. Any improper conduct tending, directly or
indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice would constitute
indirect contempt. (Baculi v. Judge Belen, April 20, 2009)

RCBC Corp. v. Serra, July 19, 2017

Contempt of court has been defined as a willful disregard or disobedience of a
public authority.1âwphi1 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.
There are two (2) kinds of contempt of court, namely: direct and indirect. Indirect
contempt or constructive contempt is that which is committed out of the presence of the
court. A person who is guilty of disobedience or of resistance to a lawful order of a court
or who commits any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct,
or degrade the administration of justice may be punished for indirect contempt.

Those who are in possession of this review material have the obligation to share it with
others for FREE! God bless you as you take the Bar Examinations – Atty. Cecilio D. Duka

Atty. C.D. Duka, Ed.D. 17