CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS

OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Canon 1 clearly mandates the obedience of every lawyer to laws and legal processes. A
lawyer, to the best of his ability, is expected to respect and abide by the law, and thus,
avoid any act or omission that is contrary to the same. A lawyer's personal deference to
the law not only speaks of his character but it also inspires the public to likewise respect
and obey the law. Rule 1.01, on the other hand, states the norm of conduct to be
observed by all lawyers. Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or
unauthorized by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law is unlawful. To
this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend
to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity
of the profession. (Sioson vs Apoya Jr July 23, 2018)

All lawyers must bear in mind that their oaths are neither mere words nor an empty
formality. When they take their oath as lawyers, they dedicate their lives to the pursuit of
justice.  They accept the sacred trust to uphold the laws of the land. (Atty. Alonso v.
Atty. Relamida 3 August 2010)

The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the administration of justice. To
that end, their clients’ success is wholly subordinate. The conduct of a member of the
bar ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any
means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the
pursuit of his devotion to his client’s cause, is condemnable and unethical. (Jimenez vs.
Verano, Adm. Case No. 8108 July 15, 2014)

Lawyers should always keep in mind that, although upholding the Constitution and
obeying the law is an obligation imposed on every citizen, a lawyer’s responsibilities
under Canon 1 mean more than just staying out of trouble with the law. As servants of
the law and officers of the court, lawyers are required to be at the forefront of observing
and maintaining the rule of law. They are expected to make themselves exemplars
worthy of emulation. This, in fact, is what a lawyer’s obligation to promote respect for
law and legal processes entails. (Re: Financial Audit of Atty. Kho 13 April 2007)

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

Unlawful
By definition, any act or omission contrary to law is unlawful. It does not necessarily
imply the element of criminality although it is broad enough to include it. Thus, the
presence of evil intent on the part of the lawyer is not essential in order to bring his act
or omission within the terms of Rule 1.01 which specifically prohibits lawyers from
engaging in unlawful conduct. (Re: Financial Audit of Atty. Kho 13 April 2007)
Dishonest
To be dishonest means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud, or betray; be
unworthy; lacking in integrity, honesty, probity, integrity in principle, fairness, and
straightforwardness, while conduct that is deceitful means the proclivity for fraudulent
and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice or device that is used upon another who is
ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and damage of the party imposed upon.
(Gonzales vs. Banarez, June 20, 2018)

Deceitful
Deceitful conduct involves moral turpitude and includes anything done contrary to
justice, modesty or good morals. It is an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the
private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen or to society in general,
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. (Overgaard v. Valdez 30
September 2008)

Immoral
Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a
moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the
community. Immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal
act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed
under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the community’s sense
of decency. (Ventura vs. Samson 686 SCRA 430)

A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional or

private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to
continue as an officer of the court.
Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, not just in their
dealings with their clients but also in their dealings with the public at large, and a
violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the
appropriate penalty, including suspension and even disbarment. (Roa v. Atty Moreno 21
April 2010)

examples
1. Failure to return the monies received from complainant despite repeated
demands constitute gross misconduct.
In his bid for exoneration, therein respondent attempted to mislead the Court by
claiming that he has not yet received the registry return card of the notice to
vacate hence his failure to file the ejectment suit. However, the records
indubitably showed that he had already received the same. Moreover, therein
respondent likewise refused to return the monies he received from the
complainant despite repeated demands. The Court thus concluded that therein
respondent's actions constitute gross misconduct. (Anacta vs Resurreccion A.C.
No. 9074. August 14, 2012)

2. The settled rule is that betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or sexual
relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it
 manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows
protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.
Respondent did not deny the accusation that he abandoned his legal family to
cohabit with his mistress with whom he begot four children notwithstanding that
his moral character as well as his moral fitness to be retained in the Roll of
Attorneys has been assailed. Consequently, We find no reason to disturb the
IBP’s finding that respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1
of the Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in “unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.” (Tumbokon vs. Pefianco, August 1 2012)

3. Respondent’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the

Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Failure to
comply with Court directives constitutes gross misconduct, insubordination or
disrespect which merits a lawyer’s suspension or even disbarment. (Santeco v.
Avance 22 February 2011)

4. The deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless
checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with
suspension from the practice of law. (A-1 Financial Services vs. Valerio)

5. Respondent’s act of asking money from complainant in consideration of the

latter’s pending application for visas is violative of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of the Bar from engaging
or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts—said acts likewise
constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code which bars lawyers in government
service from promoting their private interest. (Huyssen v. Gutierrez 24 March
2006)

6. Respondent's failure to properly perform his duty as a notary public resulted

not only in damage to those directly affected by the notarized document, but also
in undermining the integrity of the office of a notary public and in degrading the
function of notarization. He should thus be held liable for such negligence not
only as a notary public but also as a lawyer. (Unite v Guzman July 2, 2018)

Note:
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court expressly states that a member of the bar
may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for,
among others, any deceit, grossly immoral conduct, or violation of the oath that he is
required to take before admission to the practice of law.

It bears to stress that membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. As
a privilege bestowed by law through the Supreme Court, membership in the Bar can be
withdrawn where circumstances concretely show the lawyer’s lack of the essential
qualifications required of lawyers. (Ventura vs. Samson 686 SCRA 430)
 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 give advice to any client which will involve
defiance of the laws which he is bound to uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists a
client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an act which
justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer. (Donton vs. Tansingco, A.C. No. 6057.
June 27, 2006.)

Examples of activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the

legal system.
1. Knowingly drafting and notarizing a deed of sale to further his client’s
intention of concealing the actual purchase price so as to avoid paying
government taxes.
With his admission that he drafted and notarized another instrument that did not
state the true consideration of the sale so as to reduce the capital gains and
other taxes due on the transaction, respondent cannot escape liability for making
an untruthful statement in a public document for an unlawful purpose.  As the
second deed indicated an amount much lower than the actual price paid for the
property sold, respondent abetted in depriving the Government of the right to
collect the correct taxes due. (Verzonilla vs. Pascua, October 11, 2011)

2. Knowingly preparing and notarizing the Occupancy Agreement to evade

the law against foreign ownership of lands.
Respondent had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated his oath and
the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade
the law against foreign ownership of lands. Respondent used his knowledge of
the law to achieve an unlawful end. Such an act amounts to malpractice in his
office, for which he may be suspended. (Donton vs. Tansingco, A.C. No. 6057.
June 27, 2006.)

3.

Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man's cause.

REASON:
The CPR explicitly states that "[a] lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
designed primarily to solicit legal business." Corollary to this duty is for lawyers not to
encourage any suit or proceeding for any corrupt motive or interest. Thus, "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.(Palencia vs. Linsangan,
A.C. No. 10557, July 10, 2018)
To prevent barratry and ambulance chasing. A lawyer owes to the society and to the
court the duty not to stir up litigation. (Linsangan vs. Tolentino September 04, 2009)
Under Rule 138, Sec. 20(g) of the Rules of Court, it is the duty of an attorney 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.

Barratry
The offense of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels and suits. (Black’s Law
Dictionary)

Ambulance Chasing
The solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or
through an agent in order to gain employment. (Linsangan vs. Tolentino September 04,
2009) (Palencia v Linsangan July 10, 2018)

In the case of Abella vs. Barrios (Adm. Case No. 7332, June 18, 2013), the Court held
that deliberate failure of respondent Labor Arbiter to act upon the complainant’s efforts
to execute the CA decision until the latter agreed to give him the portion of the monetary
award thereof constitutes violation of Rule 1.03. A similar substantial facts and ruling
can be found in the case of Gradiola vs. Atty. Delez (Adm. Case No. 7332, June 18,
2013)

In Palencia v Linsangan (A.C. No. 10557, July 10, 2018), respondent was held guilty of
malpractice when he went to Manila Doctors Hospital several times to convince,
complainant who was confined then, to file a lawsuit against the latter’s employers.

Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.

General Rule:
Attorneys have authority to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in relation
thereto made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial
procedure. (Rule 138, Sec. 23 of the Rules of Court)

Exception:
But they cannot, without special authority, compromise their client's litigation, or receive
anything in discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in cash. (Rule 138, Sec. 23
of the Rules of Court)

CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES 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 valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed.

Defenseless
Those who are not in the position to defend themselves due to poverty, weakness,
ignorance or other similar reasons.

Oppressed
The victims of cruelty, unlawful exaction, domination or excess use of authority.

Under Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution, free access to the courts and adequate
legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

Under Rule 138, Sec. 20(h) of the Rules of Court, it is the duty of an attorney never to
reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or
oppressed.

Rule 2.02 - In such cases, 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 rights.

Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily
to solicit legal business.

REASON:
The prescription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business
rests on the fundamental postulate that the practice of law is a profession. (Ulep vs
Legal Clinic June 17, 1993)

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 that 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, Jr vs
Simbillo Aug 19, 2003)

1. A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation.

Impropriety arises, though, when the 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. Tabalingcos 10 July 2012)

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. (Khan, Jr vs Simbillo Aug 19, 2003)

Nonetheless, 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 well as advertisement in legal
periodicals bearing the same brief data, are permissible. Even the use of calling cards is
now acceptable. Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the
standards of conduct imposed by the canon, of brief biographical and informative data is
likewise allowable. (Khan, Jr vs Simbillo Aug 19, 2003)

Note:
Under Rule 138 Sec 27 of the Rules of Court, the practice of soliciting cases at law for
the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.

Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily
prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.

CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN 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.
A lawyer’s best advertisement is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust based on his character and conduct.(Linsangan vs. Tolentino, September
4, 2009)

For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by publication in
reputable law lists or use of simple professional cards.

Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:

(a) lawyer’s name;

(b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;

(c) address;

(d) telephone number and

(e) special branch of law practiced.

As held in Ulep vs Legal Clinic, the use of an ordinary simple professional card is also
permitted. The 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. The publication of a simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of
changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the
convenience of the profession, is not objectionable. He may likewise have his name
listed in a telephone directory but not under a designation of special branch of law.

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.

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.

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.