3 DIGESTS Basic Legal Ethics

Basic and Legal Judicial Ethics
MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305
SECTION 11
Responsibilities of a supervised lawyer
A supervised lawyer acting under the direction of the supervising lawyer, managing partner, or
other partners of the firm is nevertheless bound by this Code.
SECTION 12
Conflict of interest. — A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
informed consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts.
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent or opposing interests of two
or more persons. The test is whether or not on behalf of one client it is the lawyer’s duty to fight
for an issue or claim, but which is his or her duty to oppose for the other client.
SECTION 13
Prohibition against conflict-of-interest representation; current clients. — In relation to
current clients, the following rules shall be observed:
(a) A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an
ownership, possessory, security, or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless:
(1) it is shown that the transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest
are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing in a
manner that can be reasonably understood by the client;
(2) the client is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking, and is given a reasonable
opportunity to seek, the advice of another independent lawyer on the transaction; and
(3) the client gives written informed consent to the essential terms of the transaction and
the lawyer’s role in the transaction, including whether the lawyer is representing the
client in the transaction. (ABA Model Rules, Rule 1.8(a))50
(b) A lawyer shall not use confidential information relating to the representation of a client unless
the client gives written informed consent, or as permitted or required by law or this Code. (ABA
Model Rules, Rule 1.8(b))51
(c) A lawyer shall not, by undue influence, acquire any substantial gift from a client, including a
testamentary gift, or prepare on behalf of a client an instrument giving the lawyer such gift,
directly or indirectly. (ABA Model Rules, Rule 1.8(c))52
(d) Unless with the written informed consent of the client and subject to the application of the
sub judice rule, a lawyer shall not make or negotiate an agreement giving the lawyer literary or
media rights to a portrayal or account based in substantial part on information relating to the
representation. (ABA Model Rules, Rule 1.8(d))53
(e) A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from any person other than
the client, unless:
(1) the client gives written informed consent;
(2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence or professional judgment or
with the lawyer-client relationship; or
(3) the information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by the
rule on privileged communication. (ABA Model Rules, Rule 1.8(f))54
(f) A lawyer, who represents two or more clients in the same case, in case there is a settlement
or plea-bargaining, shall disclose to all the clients the existence and nature of all the claims or
pleas involved and the participation of each client in the settlement or plea-bargaining. (ABA
Model Rules, Rule 1.8(k))55 A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of the client, except:
(1) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument,

and the like; or
(2) on substantial matters, in cases where the testimony is essential to the ends of
justice, in which event the lawyer must, during the testimony, entrust the trial of the case
to another counsel. (12.08a)56
(h) The prohibitions in paragraphs (a) to (g) shall apply to all lawyers who are associated in a
law firm. (ABA Model Rules, Rule 1.8(k))
Northwestern Univ., Inc. vs. Arquillo, A.C. No. 6632. Aug 2, 2005
FACTS:
Ben A. Nicolas, in behalf of Northwestern University, filed a letter-complaint to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines allegedly reporting that Atty. Macario Arquillo had engaged in conflicting
interest by acting as counsel for both complainant and respondent in the very same
consolidated case filed to the National Labor Relations Commission. Respondent claims that
there is no conflict-of-interests as all parties are said to be on the same side.
For failing to appear in scheduled hearings, Atty. Arquillo is deemed to have waived his right to
participate in the proceedings.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violating the conflict-of-interests rule under the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes.
The Court held that Atty. Arquillo is guilty of violating the conflict-of-interests rule under the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires
lawyers to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their
clients. Therefore, a lawyer may not represent conflicting interests without the written consent of
all parties involved, after disclosure of the facts. The Court did not agree with Arquillo’s
justification of his acts for he should have known that in representing opposing parties, there
would be an obvious conflict of interest, regardless of his belief that both parties are on the
same side.
Atty. Macario Arquillo was found guilty of misconduct and was hereby suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one year.
LOLITA ARTEZUELA VS. ATTY. RICARTE B. MADERAZO A.C. NO. 4354. APRIL 22,
2002
Facts: Artezuela filed before the Supreme Court a verified complaint for disbarment against the
respondent. She alleged that respondent grossly neglected his duties her lawyer in a damage
suit and failed to represent her interests with zeal and enthusiasm. According to her, when her
case was scheduled for pre-trial conference, respondent asked for its postponement although
all the parties were present. Notwithstanding complainant’s persistent and repeated follow-up,
respondent did not do anything to keep the case moving. He withdrew as counsel without
obtaining complainant’s consent.
Complainant also claimed that respondent engaged in activities inimical to her interests. While
acting as her counsel, respondent prepared Echavia’s Answer to the Amended Complaint. The
said document was even printed in respondent’s office. Complainant further averred that it was
respondent who sought the dismissal of the case, misleading the trial court into thinking that the
dismissal was with her consent.
Issue: Whether or not the lawyer should be disbarred.
Held: Yes. He is guilty of representing conflicting interests prohibited by Rule 15.03 of Canon 15
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
To be guilty of representing conflicting interests, a counsel-of-record of one party need not also
be counsel-of-record of the adverse party. He does not have to publicly hold himself as the
counsel of the adverse party, nor make his efforts to advance the adverse party’s conflicting
interests of record--- although these circumstances are the most obvious and satisfactory proof
of the charge. It is enough that the counsel of one party had a hand in the preparation of the
pleading of the other party, claiming adverse and conflicting interests with that of his original
client. To require that he also be counsel-of-record of the adverse party would punish only the
most obvious form of deceit and reward, with impunity, the highest form of disloyalty.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO Adm. Case No.
3701/ 243 SCRA 1 March 28, 1995
Case Nature: Violation of Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
FACTS:
The Philippine National Bank (PNB) charged respondent Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo, former Asst.
Vice-President of the Asset Management Group of complainant bank, with violation of Canon 6,
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, thus: “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.”
Complainant averred that while respondent was still in its employ, he participated in arranging
the sale of steel sheets (denominated as Lots 54-M and 55-M) in favor of Milagros Ong Siy for
P200, 000. He even “noted” the gate passes issued by his subordinate, Mr. Emmanuel Elefan,
in favor of Mrs. Ong Siy authorizing the pull-out of the steel sheets from the DMC Man Division
Compound. When a civil action arose out of this transaction between Mrs. Ong Siy and
complainant bank before the RTC of Makati, Branch 146, respondent who had since left the
employ of complainant bank, appeared as one of the counsels of Mrs. Ong Siy. Moreover, while
respondent was still the Asst. Vice President of complainant’s Asset Management Group, he
intervened in the handling of the loan account of the spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda
with complainant bank by writing demand letters to the couple. When a civil action ensued
between complainant bank and the Almeda spouses as a result of this loan account, the latter
were represented by the law firm “Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo &Associates” of which respondent is
one of the Senior Partners. In his Comment on the complaint, respondent admitted that he
appeared as counsel for Mrs. Ong Siy but only with respect to the execution pending appeal of
the RTC decision. He alleged that he did not participate in the litigation of the case before the
trial court.
With respect to the case of the Almeda spouses, respondent alleged that he never appeared as
counsel for them. He contended that while the said law firm is designated as counsel of record,
the case is actually handled only by Atty. Pedro Ferrer. Respondent averred that he did not
enter into a general partnership with Atty. Ferrer nor with the other lawyers named therein. They
are only using the aforesaid name to designate a law firm maintained by lawyers, who although
not partners, maintain one office as well as one clerical and supporting staff. On the other hand,
during the investigation conducted by the IBP, it was discovered that respondent was previously
fined by this Court in the amount of P1, 000.00 in connection with the cases entitled “Milagros
Ong Siy vs. Hon. Salvador Tensuan, et al.” for forum shopping, where respondent further found
that the charges against respondent were fully substantiated. In one of the hearings of the
Almeda spouses’ case, respondent attended the same with his partner Atty. Ferrer, and
although he did not enter his appearance, he was practically dictating to Atty. Ferrer what to say
and argue before the court.
Furthermore, during the hearing of the application for a writ of injunction in the same case,
respondent impliedly admitted being the partner of Atty. Ferrer, when it was made of record that
respondent was working in the same office as Atty. Ferrer. The IBP noted that assuming the
alleged set-up of the firm to be true, it is in itself a violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Rule 15.02) since the client’s secrets and confidential records and information
are exposed to the other lawyers and staff members at all times. The IBP thus recommended
the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for 3 Years.
ISSUE
Whether or not the act of Atty. Cedo as counsel of other party in a case against PNB, his former
employer, constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
HELD
YES.
The Court finds the occasion appropriate to emphasize the paramount importance of avoiding
the representation of conflicting interests. The alleged set-up of the firm is in itself a violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Having been an executive of complainant bank,
respondent now seeks to litigate as counsel for the opposite side, a case against his former
employer involving a transaction which he formerly handled while still an employee of
complainant, in violation of Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics on adverse influence
and conflicting interests.
ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to SUSPEND respondent ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO

from the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS, effective immediately.
TEODORO R. REGALA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, GR No. 105938, 1996-09-20
Facts:
The matters raised herein are an offshoot of the institution of the Complaint on July 31,
1987 before the Sandiganbayan by the Republic of the Philippines, through the Presidential
Commission on Good Government against Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., as one of the
principal... defendants, for the recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth, which includes shares of
stocks in the named corporations in PCGG Case No. 33 (Civil Case No. 0033), entitled
"Republic of the Philippines versus Eduardo Cojuangco, et al."[1]... partners of the law firm
Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz Law Offices (hereinafter referred to as the
ACCRA Law Firm). ACCRA Law Firm performed legal services for its clients, which
included, among others, the organization and acquisition of business... associations and/or
organizations, with the correlative and incidental services where its members acted as
incorporators, or simply, as stockholders.
As members of the ACCRA Law Firm, petitioners and private respondent Raul Roco admit
that they assisted in the organization and acquisition... of the companies included in Civil
Case No. 0033, and in keeping with the office practice, ACCRA lawyers acted as
nominees-stockholders of the said corporations involved in sequestration proceedings.[2]
Respondent PCGG based its exclusion of private respondent Roco as party-defendant on

his undertaking that he will reveal the identity of the principal/s for whom he acted as
nominee/stockholder in the companies involved in
PCGG Case No. 33.[4]... furtherance of legitimate lawyering.
incorporating or acquiring stockholders only and, as such, they do not claim any proprietary
interest in the said shares of stock.
Counter-Motion that respondent PCGG similarly grant the same treatment to them
(exclusion as parties-defendants) as accorded private respondent Roco
PCGG set the following conditions precedent for the exclusion of petitioners, namely: (a)
the disclosure of the identity of its clients; (b) submission of documents substantiating the
lawyer-client relationship; and (c) the submission of the... deeds of assignments petitioners
executed in favor of its clients covering their respective sharehold
Communications made to an attorney in the course of any personal employment, relating to

the subject thereof, and which may be... supposed to be drawn out in consequence of the
relation in which the parties stand to each other, are under the seal of confidence and
entitled to protection as privileged communications
Issues:
The Honorable Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in subjecting petitioners

ACCRA lawyers who undisputably acted as lawyers in serving as nominee-stockholders, to
the strict application of the law of agency.
The Honorable Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in not holding that,
under the facts of this case, the attorney-client privilege prohibits petitioners ACCRA
lawyers from revealing the identity of their client(s) and the other information requested by
the
PCGG.
revelation of the identity of the client is not within the ambit of the lawyer-client
confidentiality privilege, nor are the documents it required (deeds of assignment) protected,
because... they are evidence of nominee... whether or not this duty may be asserted in
refusing to disclose the name of petitioners' client(s) in the case at bar.
Ruling:
duty is explicitly mandated in Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which

provides that:
Canon 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him.
Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics also demands a lawyer's fidelity to client:...
affirmative
Notwithstanding these considerations, the general rule is however qualified by some

important exceptions.
The facts of the instant case bring it squarely within that exception to the general rule. Here
money was received by the government, paid by persons who thereby admitted they had
not paid a sufficient amount in income taxes some one or... more years in the past. The
names of the clients are useful to the government for but one purpose - to ascertain which
taxpayers think they were delinquent, so that it may check the records for that one year or
several years. The voluntary nature of the payment... indicates a belief by the taxpayers
that more taxes or interest or penalties are due than the sum previously paid, if any. It
indicates a feeling of guilt for nonpayment of taxes, though whether it is criminal guilt is
undisclosed. But it may well be the link that... could form the chain of testimony necessary
to convict an individual of a federal crime. Certainly the payment and the feeling of guilt are
the reasons the attorney here involved was employed - to advise his clients what, under the
circumstances, should be... done
From these conditions, particularly the third, we can readily deduce that the clients indeed
consulted the petitioners, in their capacity as lawyers,... We have no choice but to uphold
petitioners' right not to reveal the identity of their clients under pain of the breach of fiduciary
duty owing to their clients, because the facts of the i... ve no choice but to uphold
petitioners' right not to reveal the identity of their clients under pain of the breach of fiduciary
duty owing to their clients, because the facts of the instant case clearly fall within
recognized exceptions to the rule that the client's name is... not privileged information.
If we were to sustain respondent PCGG that the lawyer-client confidential privilege under
the circumstances obtaining here does not cover the identity of the client, then it would
expose the lawyers themselves to possible litigation by their clients in view of the strict...
fiduciary responsibility imposed on them in the exercise of their duties.
By compelling petitioners, not only to reveal the identity of their clients, but worse, to submit
to the PCGG documents substantiating the client-lawyer relationship, as well as deeds of
assignment petitioners executed in favor of its clients covering their respective...
shareholdings, the PCGG would exact from petitioners a link "that would inevitably form the
chain of testimony necessary to convict the (client) of a crime."
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE

Palalan Carp Farmers Multi-Purpose Coop, etc. v. Dela Rosa, A.C. No. 12008, August, 14
2019
Topic:Canon 15 –Duty of Candor, Fairness and Loyalty to the Client
Facts:
Complainant was the registered owner of a sizeable tract of prime agricultural land. As a
Cooperative, it held legal title to the land on behalf of its members as its beneficial owners of the
land. The Cooperative was sued by a bank and engaged respondent to represent it in the case.
Under their retainer agreement, Respondent and his law office were to be paid P3,339.00 a
month and a contingent fee of five percent (5%) of the settlement award, sale proceeds of the
sale of the land, disturbance compensation, or fair market value of the land.
The Cooperative executed a special power of attorney authorizing the Respondent to: (1)
negotiate the sale of the land; (2) execute any and all documents which may be necessary to
consummate the sale transaction; (3) open an account with a bank of Respondent’s choice, in
the name of the Coop; and (4) collect, accept, or demand all the sale proceeds on the land and
deposit the same to its account.
Seven years later, the Cooperative revoked the SPA. Respondent responded by presenting to
the Coop a copy of General Assembly Resolution No. 1 showing that members of the
Cooperative's new governing board had actually retained Respondent as the Cooperative's
counsel and "reconfirming all previous authorities granted him by the General Assembly."
General Assembly Resolution No. 1 and the other related General Assembly Resolutions
appeared to have been adopted by the new set of officers/board members led by one Lino D.
Sajol. For its part, the old set of officers/board members opposed to Sajol’s leadership. Back to
the case filed by the bank, it was dismissed. Not long after, the Coop’s land (111.1484 hectares)
got sold with Respondent, no less, brokering the sale.
Respondent did not reveal to the Cooperative the circumstances surrounding the sale, let alone,
the buyer's identity. He invariably claimed to have been bound to keep confidential the buyer's
identity. He did not dispute though that it was he who processed the sale and paid the
farmers-beneficiaries their respective shares in the purchase price. Believing that Respondent
was engaging in conflict of interest, the Cooperative charged him with gross misconduct for
multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The IBP-Board of Governors had the following findings:

1. Respondent violated Rule 15.03 11 of the CPR which prohibits a lawyer from engaging
in
conflict of interest. Respondent engaged in conflict of interest when he demanded that the sale
of the land be done only through his intervention.
2. Respondent breached his sworn duty to protect his client's interest when he refused to
divulge to the latter the identity of the buyer of the land in violation of Canons 15 12 and
17 13 and Rule 16.01 14 of the CPR.
3. Respondent verbally abused the farmer-beneficiaries, in violation of Rule 8.01 15 of the
CPR.
4. Respondent improperly compelled the Cooperative to sell the land at an extremely low
price of P30.00 per square meter in
Issue:
Did Respondent violate Rule 15.03 of the CPR?
Ruling:
YES.
The rule against conflict of interest is expressed in Canon 15, Rules 15.01 and 15.03 of the
CPR. It means the existence of a substantial risk that a lawyer's loyalty to or representation of a
client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer's own interest or the lawyer's
duties to another client, a former client, or a third person, during the various stages of the
professional relationship. The rule stipulates that a lawyer cannot act or continue to act for a
client when there is a conflict of interest, except as provided in Rule 15.03 itself — securing the
written consent of all the parties concerned after full disclosure to them of the facts. Conflicts
may also arise because of the lawyer's own financial interests, which could impair client
representation and loyalty. This is reasonably obvious where a lawyer is asked to advise the
client in respect of a matter in which the lawyer or a family member has a material direct or
indirect financial interest. The conflict of interest is exacerbated when the lawyer, without full and
honest disclosure to the client of the consequences of appointing him or her as an agent with
the power to sell a piece of property, willfully and knowingly accepts such an appointment.
The IBP-Board of Governors here correctly found that at its most basic element, Respondent's
conflict of interest hinges on the fact that while he may want a quick sale to be able to earn at
once,Complainant would want a sale that brings the most profit.
Respondent was obviously taking instructions from the unidentified buyer when he did not
reveal the latter's identity to his client which itself authorized him to forge the sale. Too, while he
may not be fully responsible in delaying Civil Case No. 95-086, he did not actively pursue its
quick end even though it was the most appropriate thing, he as a lawyer, should have done.
Respondent insisted and demanded that he alone negotiate for and effect the sale of the land.
But when the time to sell came, he did not reveal to his client and its farmers-beneficiaries the
details of the sale itself, let alone, the buyer's identity. Respondent even told the Coop that they
had a slim chance of winning against the bank and that if they do not accept the sale now, they
would end up with nothing at all. Respondent had proven himself disloyal to his client —
exploitative, untrustworthy, and a double-dealer. Disbarment is the appropriate penalty for
Respondent’s repeated professional infractions. This is the second time that respondent is being
accused of breaching his fiduciary duties all because of money.
Mabini Colleges vs. Pajarillo, 763 SCRA 288, July 22, 2015
FACTS:
Mabini Colleges, Inc., had a Board of Trustees which was divided into two opposing
factions. The first faction, called the Adeva Group, the other faction is called the Lukban
Group. It appointed the Atty. Jose D. Pajarillo as its corporate secretary. Adeva Group
issued a Board Resolution which authorized the Executive Vice President and Treasurer
of the complainant at that time, and the Vice President for Administration and Finance,
to apply for a loan with the Rural Bank of Paracale (RBP), Daet Branch, Camarines
Norte in favor of Mabini Colleges, Inc.
Lukban Group sent a letter to RBP to oppose the loan application because the Adeva
Group appointed Librado Guerra and Cesar Echano, who were allegedly not registered
as stockholders in the Stock and Transfer Book of the complainant, as members of the
Board of Trustees. The Lukban Group also alleged that Mabini Colleges, Inc. was
having financial difficulties. Atty. Pajarillo sent a letter to RBP to assure the latter of
Mabini College's financial capacity to pay the loan. RBP granted the loan application in
the amount of P200,000 which was secured by a Real Estate Mortgage over the
properties of the complainant. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued an
Order which nullified the appointment of Librado Guerra and Cesar Echano by the
Adeva Group as members of the Board of Trustees of the complainant. As a result,
complainant sent a letter to RBP to inform the latter of the SEC Order. RBP sent a letter
to the complainant acknowledging receipt of the SEC Order and informing the latter that
the SEC Order was referred to RBP's legal counsel, Atty. Pajarillo. Mabini Colleges
alleged that it was only upon receipt of such letter that it became aware that Atty.
Pajarillo is also the legal counsel of RBP. On April 18, 2000, Mabini Colleges and RBP
increased the loan to P400,000.
On April 23, 2002, RBP moved to foreclose the Real Estate Mortgage. Mabini Colleges
Inc. filed a complaint for Annulment of Mortgage with a Prayer for Preliminary Injunction
against RBP. Atty. Pajarillo entered his appearance as counsel for RBP. Mabini Colleges
filed the present complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pajarillo for allegedly
representing conflicting interests and for failing to exhibit candor, fairness, and loyalty.
Atty. Pajarillo raised three defenses against the complaint for disbarment. First, that
Marcel N. Lukban, Alberto I. Garcia Jr., and Ma. Pamela Rossana Apuya cannot
represent Mabini Colleges in this disbarment case because they were not duly
authorized by the Board of Directors to file the complaint. Second, that he is not covered
by the prohibition on conflict of interest which applies only to the legal counsel of
complainant. Atty. Pajarillo argued that he merely served as the corporate secretary of
Mabini Colleges and did not serve as its legal counsel. Third, that there was no conflict
of interest when he represented RBP in the case for annulment of mortgage because all
the documents and information related to the loan transaction between RBP and the
Mabini Colleges were public records. Thus, Atty. Pajarillo claimed that he could not
have taken advantage of his position as the mere corporate secretary of the Mabini
Colleges, Inc. On February 14, 2013, the Investigating Commissioner issued a Report
and Recommendation finding Atty. Pajarillo guilty of representing conflicting interests
and recommending that he be suspended from the practice of law for at least one year.
The Investigating Commissioner noted that respondent appeared for RBP in the case
for annulment of mortgage filed by his former client, the complainant herein. The
Investigating Commissioner cited cash vouchers from
1994 to 2001 showing that respondent was paid by complainant for his retained legal
services. According to the Investigating Commissioner, these vouchers debunk
respondent's claim that the complainant merely appointed him as its corporate
secretary. The Investigating Commissioner also held that the personality of
complainant's representatives to file this administrative case is immaterial since
proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the
Supreme Court motu proprio or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the
verified complaint of any person. The Board of Governors of the IBP issued a resolution
which affirmed the findings of the Investigating Commissioner and imposed a penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for one year against respondent. It denied the
motion for reconsideration filed by respondent.
ISSUE: whether Atty. Pajarillo is guilty of representing conflicting interests when he

entered his appearance as counsel for RBP in the case for annulment of mortgage filed
by Mabini Colleges, Inc. against RBP.
RULING:
Yes, he represented conflicting interests in violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that "[a] lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts." This rule prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose
interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties
in the same action or on totally unrelated cases. Respondent represented conflicting
interests when he served as counsel for RBP in the case for annulment of mortgage
filed by the complainant, respondent's former client, against RBP. The finding of the
Investigating Commissioner that respondent was compensated by complainant for his
retained legal services is supported by the evidence on record, the cash vouchers from
1994 to 2001.
Clearly, complainant was respondent's former client. And respondent appeared as

counsel of RBP in a case filed by his former client against RBP. This makes respondent
guilty of representing conflicting interests since respondent failed to show any written
consent of all concerned (particularly the complainant) given after a full disclosure of the
facts representing conflicting interests.[15] We also note that the respondent acted for
the complainant's interest on the loan transaction between RBP and the complainant
when he sent a letter to RBP to assure the latter of the financial capacity of the
complainant to pay the loan. But as counsel for RBP in the case for annulment of
mortgage, he clearly acted against the interest of the complainant, his former client.
Finally, we agree with the Investigating Commissioner that a complaint for disbarment is
imbued with public interest which allows for a liberal rule on legal standing. Under
Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, "[proceedings for the disbarment,
suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio,
or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any
person." Thus, in the present case, we find that Marcel N. Lukban, Alberto I. Garcia Jr.,
and Ma. Pamela Rossana A. Apuya can institute the complaint for disbarment even
without authority from the Board of Directors of the complainant.
Hilado vs. David, 84 Phil 569, 1949

FACTS:
In April 1945, Blandina Hilado filed a complaint to have some deeds of sale annulled against
Selim Assad. Attorney Delgado Dizon represented Hilado. Assad was represented by a certain
Atty. Ohnick. In January 1946, Atty. Vicente Francisco replaced Atty. Ohnick as counsel for
Assad and he thenafter entered his appearance in court. In May 1946 or four months later, Atty.
Dizon filed a motion to have Atty. Francisco be disqualified because Atty. Dizon found out that in
June 1945, Hilado approached Atty. Francisco to ask for additional legal opinion regarding her
case and for which Atty. Francisco sent Hilado a legal opinion letter.
Atty. Francisco opposed the motion for his disqualification. In his opposition, he said that no
material information was relayed to him by Hilado; that in fact, upon hearing Hilado’s story, Atty.
Francisco advised her that her case will not win in court; but that later, Hilado returned with a
copy of the Complaint prepared by Atty. Dizon; that however, when Hilado returned, Atty.
Francisco was not around but an associate in his firm was there (acertain Atty. Federico
Agrava); that Atty. Agrava attended to Hilado; that after Hilado left, leaving behind the legal
documents, Atty. Agrava then prepared a legal opinion letter where it was stated that Hilado has
no cause of action to file suit; that Atty. Agrava had Atty. Francisco sign the letter; that
Atty.Francisco did not read the letter as Atty. Agrava said that it was merely a letter explaining
why the firm cannot take on Hilado’s case. Atty. Francisco also pointed out that he was not paid
for his advice; that no confidential information was relayed because all Hilado brought was a
copy of the Complaint which was already filed in court; and that, if any, Hilado already waived
her right to disqualify Atty. Francisco because he was already representing Assad in court for
four months in the said case. Judge Jose Gutierrez David ruled in favor of Atty. Francisco.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Francisco should be disqualified in the said civil
Case.
HELD:
Yes. There already existed an attorney-client relationship between Hilado and Atty. Francisco.
Hence, Atty. Francisco cannot act as counsel against Hilado without the latter’s consent. As
ruled by the Supreme Court, to constitute an attorney-client relationship, it is not necessary that
any retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged for; neither is it material that the
attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the consultation was had.
If a person, in respect to his business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults with his attorney in
his professional capacity with the view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the
attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation, then the professional
employment must be regarded as established.
Further:
An attorney is employed-that is, he is engaged in his professional capacity as a lawyer or
counselor-when he is listening to his client’s preliminary statement of his case, or when he is
giving advice thereon, just as truly as when he is drawing his client’s pleadings, or advocating
his client’s cause in open court. Anent the issue of what information was relayed by Hilado to
Atty.Francisco:
It does not matter if the information relayed is confidential or not. So long as the attorney-client
relationship is established, the lawyer is proscribed from taking other representations against
the client. Anent the issue that the legal opinion was not actually written by Atty.Francisco but
was only signed by him:It still binds him because Atty. Agrava, assuming that he was the real
author, was part of the same law firm. An information obtained from a client by a member or
assistant of a law firm is information imparted to the firm, his associates or his employers. Anent
the issue of the fact that it took Hilado four months from the time Atty. Francisco filed his entry of
appearance to file a disqualification: It does not matter. The length of time is not a waiver of her
right. The right of a client to have a lawyer be disqualified, based on previous atty-client
relationship, as counsel against her does not prescribe. Professional confidence once reposed
can never be divested by expiration of professional employment
SECTION 14
Conflict of interest of a lawyer hired by a law firm. — When a lawyer joins a law firm,
it shall be the duty of the lawyer to disclose to the law firm, at the earliest possible
opportunity, his or her previous clients that may have a potential conflict of interest with
the current clients of the law firm. If there is a potential conflict of interest exists, the
lawyer shall not act on the case or cases of the affected current client.
Santiago vs. Atty. Rafanan, A.C. No. 6252, Oct. 5, 2004
FACTS:
Complainant Pike P. Arrieta prays for the disbarment of Atty. Joel A. Llosa for certifying under
oath a Deed of Absolute Sale. But somehow pulled back the complaint. In the Acknowledgment
of the Deed of Sale, respondent certified: “BEFORE ME, this 24th day of March, 1993 at
Dumaguete City, Philippines, personally appeared x x x Jesus Bonilla; x x x Leonardo Toledano;
x x x. Respondent claims that as a Notary Public, he asked the signatories whether the
signatures appearing above their respective names were theirs, and whether they voluntarily
executed the Deed of Absolute Sale. In order to ascertain their identities, respondent asked for
their respective residence certificates.
Except for Edelina T. Bonilla whose alleged death was not evidenced by a death certificate,
respondent certified in the acknowledgment that Jesus T. Bonilla and Leonardo P. Toledano
personally appeared before him. Respondent’s acts require the presence of the vendors to be
able to verify the authenticity of their signatures, the identities of the signatories and the
voluntariness of the execution of the Deed. It defies imagination and belief how these could
have happened. It would have been impossible, both physically and legally, for Jesus T. Bonilla
and Leonardo P. Toledano to have personally subscribed and sworn before respondent as to the
authenticity and validity of the Deed of Sale as they had already passed on to the Great Beyond
prior to the execution of the said documents.
ISSUE: What is required of a lawyer?
Ruling:
That respondent acted the way he did because he was confronted with an alleged urgent
situation is no excuse at all. As an individual, and even more so as a member of the legal
profession, he is required to obey the laws of the land AT ALL TIMES, to refrain from engaging
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct AT ALL TIMES, to uphold the integrity of his
profession AT ALL TIMES, to promote respect to his profession AT ALL TIMES, and to act with
justice AT ALL TIMES.
As a lawyer, respondent breached his professional responsibility by certifying under oath an

instrument fully knowing that some of the signatories thereto were long dead. It is worth
stressing that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those
who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the
conferment of such privilege. [M]embership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions.
There being no lifetime guaranty, a lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law only during
good behavior and can be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment
of the court after opportunity to be heard has been afforded him.
Pursuant to the foregoing, it is primarily required of lawyers to obey the Constitution and laws of
the land. They must refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
An attorney may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as an
attorney and counsellor, which include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court, all of these being broad enough to cover practically any misconduct of a
lawyer in his professional or private capacity.
Respondent’s act of certifying under oath a Deed of Absolute Sale knowing that some of the
vendors were already dead, they being his former clients, constitutes misconduct. But this
being his first administrative offense, such should not warrant the supreme penalty of
disbarment.
SECTION 15
Prohibition against dating, romantic or sexual relations with a client. — A lawyer
shall not have dating, romantic, or sexual relations with a client during the engagement,
unless the consensual relationship existed between them before the lawyer-client
relationship commenced.
SECTION 16
Prohibition against conflict-of interest representation; prospective clients. — In
relation to prospective clients, the following rules shall be observed:
(a) A lawyer shall, at the earliest opportunity, ascertain the existence of any conflict of
interest between a prospective client and current clients, and immediately disclose the
same if found to exist. (15.01a)58 In case of an objection by either the prospective or
current client, the lawyer shall not accept the new engagement.
(b) A lawyer shall maintain the private confidences of a prospective client even if no
engagement materializes and shall not use any such information to further his or her
own interest, or the interest of any current client
SECTION 17
Prohibition against conflict-of-interest representation; former clients. — In relation
to former clients, the following rules shall be observed:
(a) A lawyer shall maintain the private confidences of a former client even after the
termination of the engagement, except upon the written informed consent of the former
client, or as otherwise allowed under this Code or other applicable laws or regulations,
or when the information has become generally known. (21a)
(b) A lawyer shall not use information relating to the former representation, except as
this Code or applicable laws and regulations would permit or require with respect to a
current or prospective client, or when the information has become generally known.
(ABA Model Rules, Rule 1.9(c))60
(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter
represent another person in the same matter, or any matter arising therefrom or
necessarily connected therewith, in which that person’s interests are materially adverse
to the interests of the former client, unless the former client gives informed written
consent. (ABA Model Rules, Rule 1.9(a))61 (n)
SECTION 18
Corporate lawyers; conflict of interest. — In relation to organizational clients, a
lawyer who represents a corporation or any organization does not, by virtue of such
representation, necessarily represent any constituent or affiliated organization, such as
a parent or subsidiary. (ABA Model Rules, Rule 1.9 Comment)62 A lawyer for a
corporation or other organization, who is also a member of its board of directors or
trustees, shall determine whether the responsibilities of the two roles may conflict. In the
event of the latter, the lawyer shall disclose the conflict of interest to all concerned
parties. (ABA Model Rules, Rule 1.9 Comment)
SECTION 19
Legal services organization; conflict of interest. — A legal services organization is
any private organization, including a legal aid clinic, partnership, association, or
corporation, whose primary purpose is to provide free legal services. A lawyer-client
relationship shall arise only between the client and the handling lawyers of the legal
services organization. All the lawyers of the legal services organization who participated
in the handling of a legal matter shall be covered by the rule on conflict of interest.
SECTION 20
Lawyers in government service; conflict of interest. — A lawyer currently serving in
the government shall not practice law privately, unless otherwise permitted by law or
applicable Civil Service rules and regulations. If allowed, private practice shall be upon
the express authority of the lawyer’s superior, for a stated specified purpose or
engagement, and only during an approved leave of absence. However, the lawyer shall
not represent an interest adverse to the government.
SECTION 21
Public Attorney’s Office; conflict of interest. — The Public Attorney’s Office is the
primary legal aid service office of the government. In the pursuit of its mandate under its
charter, the Public Attorney’s Office shall ensure ready access to its services by the
marginalized sectors of society in a manner that takes into consideration the avoidance
of potential conflict of interest situations which will leave these marginalized parties
unassisted by counsel. A conflict of interest of any of the lawyers of the Public
Attorney’s Office incident to services rendered for the Office shall be imputed only to the
said lawyer and the lawyer’s direct supervisor. Such conflict of interest shall not
disqualify the rest of the lawyers from the Public Attorney’s Office from representing the
affected client, upon full disclosure to the latter and written informed consent.
Yumol vs Atty. Ferrer, Sr. A.C. No. 6585 April 21, 2005
Facts:
The petitioner, OIC of the Commission on Human Rights, files a disbarment case
against respondent, Attorney IV said commission on ground for grave misconduct. The
respondent was found to have issued 2 orders awarding custody of a child to a
complainant in the Commission, ordered a bank to reinstate the bank account of the
said complainant, engaging in private practice, notarizing public documents, and
attending court hearings while filling up his DTR at the Commission as present at the
same time. The case was referred to the IBP and the investigating commissioner
recommended suspension for 2 years which was modified by the IBP Board to 6
months.
ISSUE: WON respondent has committed gross misconduct arising from the following
alleged acts:
1. Engaging in the private practice of his profession while being a government
employee;
2. Falsifying his Daily Time Records;
3. Issuing unauthorized orders; and
4. Continuously engaging in private practice even after the filing of case against him for
engaging in private practice.
RULING:
The court held on the following:
1. CHR Resolution No. (III) A2002-133 authorizes CHR lawyers to engage in private
practice (adopting the Civil Service Commission Resolution) subject to some conditions
with indispensable requirement to secure approval from the CHR. In the absence of
such approval, the respondent is not allowed in private practice and proved to have
falsified his attendance in the DTR while appearing in court at the same time without
approved leave of absence.
2. The respondent has been notarizing even before the CHR authorized his practice as
a notary public.
3. The authority granted with the CHR in their function is merely to investigate all forms
of human rights violation. They cannot try and decide cases.
With the above constituting grounds for suspension of lawyers stated in Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, the court ruled to modify the suspension of 1 year as
sufficient sanction.
SECTION 22
Amicus curiae. — A lawyer shall not decline, without just cause, a request by any
court, tribunal, or other government agency to act as amicus curiae in any proceeding
relating to the lawyer’s expertise or field of specialization. (14.02a)
FACTS:
Chief Public Attorney filed an Urgent and Ex-Parte Motion to be Relieved as

Court-Appointed Counsel with the Special Division of the Sandiganbayan, praying that
she be relieved of her duties and responsibilities as counsel de oficio for the said
accused on the ground that she had a swelling workload consisting of administrative
matters and that the accused are not indigent persons; hence, they are not qualified to
avail themselves of the services of PAO. Respondent Court found the reasons of the
Chief Public Attorney to be plausible and relieved the Chief Public Attorney as counsel
de oficio of former President Joseph Estrada and Mayor Jose Estrada. The remaining
eight PAO lawyers filed an Ex-Parte Motion To Be Relieved As Court-Appointed
Counsels with respondent Court on the ground that the accused are not indigents;
therefore, they are not qualified to avail themselves of the services of PAO. Respondent
Court issued a Resolution denying the motion, but retaining two of the eight PAO
lawyers, namely, the petitioners Atty. Usita, Jr. and Atty. Andres.
Later, PAO filed a Manifestation and Compliance which informed the Court that
petitioners Atty. Usita and Atty. Andres were appointed as Assistant City Prosecutors of
the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office sometime in August 2002, and that PAO is left as
the lone petitioner in this case. PAO asserts that while its lawyers are also aware of their
duties under Rule 14.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, PAO lawyers are
limited by their mandate as government
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or

excess of jurisdiction in issuing the subject Resolutions retaining two PAO lawyers to act
as counsels de oficio for the accused who are not indigent persons.
HELD:
NO. Petition dismissed for being moot.

RATIO:
The Court holds that respondent did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the
subject Resolutions as the issuance is not characterized by caprice or arbitrariness. At
the time of PAO’s appointment, the accused did not want to avail themselves of any
counsel; hence, respondent exercised a judgment call to protect the constitutional right
of the accused to be heard by themselves and counsel during the trial of the cases.
Subsequently, respondent reduced the number of PAO lawyers directed to represent the
accused, in view of the engagement of new counsels de parte, but retained two of the
eight PAO lawyers obviously to meet such possible exigency as the accused again
relieving some or all of their private counsels.
In any event, since these cases of the accused in the Sandiganbayan have been finally
resolved, this petition seeking that PAO, the only remaining petitioner, be relieved as
counsel de oficio therein has become moot.
SECTION 23
Active involvement in legal education. — A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal
developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, and support efforts to
achieve standards of excellence in law schools as well as in the practical training of law
students. In addition, a lawyer shall assist the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, law
schools, law alumni associations, law associations, or civic organizations, in educating
the public on the law and jurisprudence. (5a)66 The IBP Chapters shall provide
supervising lawyers to the legal aid clinics in their jurisdiction.
SECTION 24
Support for legal internship, apprenticeship and training. — To prepare the next
generation of lawyers for ethical practice, lawyers shall support legal internship and
apprenticeship programs and accept law students for training. The lawyer shall treat the
apprentices as junior colleagues and future counsels, and shall conscientiously
supervise them.
Bar Matter No. 850, October 2, 2001

RESOLUTION
ADOPTING THE REVISED RULES ON THE CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

FOR MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
Considering the Rules on the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) for
members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), recommended by the IBP,
endorsed by the Philippine Judicial Academy, and reviewed and passed upon by the
Supreme Court Committee on Legal Education, the Court hereby resolves to approve,
as it hereby approves, the following Revised Rules for proper implementation:
Rule 1. PURPOSE
SECTION 1. Purpose of the MCLE. – Continuing legal education is required of

members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) 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.
Rule 2. MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
SECTION 1. Commencement of the MCLE. – Within two (2) months from the approval
of these Rules by the Supreme Court En Banc, the MCLE Committee shall be
constituted and shall commence the implementation of the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) program in accordance with these Rules.
SEC. 2. Requirements of completion of MCLE. – Members of the IBP not exempt under
Rule 7 shall complete every three (3) years at least thirty-six (36) hours of continuing
legal education activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36 hours:
(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics equivalent to six (6)
credit units.
(b) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial skills equivalent to
four (4) credit units.
(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute resolution
equivalent to five (5) credit units.
(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and
procedural laws, and jurisprudence equivalent to nine (9) credit units.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral advocacy
equivalent to four (4) credit units.
(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and international
conventions equivalent to two (2) credit units.
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may be
prescribed by the MCLE Committee equivalent to six (6) credit units.
Rule 3. COMPLIANCE PERIOD
SECTION 1. Initial compliance period. — The initial compliance period shall begin not
later than three (3) months from the adoption of these Rules. Except for the initial
compliance period for members admitted or readmitted after the establishment of the
program, all compliance periods shall be for thirty-six (36) months and shall begin the
day after the end of the previous compliance period.
SEC. 2. Compliance Groups. — Members of the IBP not exempt from the MCLE
requirement shall be divided into three (3) compliance groups, namely:
(a) Compliance group 1. — Members in the National Capital Region (NCR) or

Metro Manila are assigned to Compliance Group 1.
(b) Compliance group 2. — Members in Luzon outside NCR are assigned to

Compliance Group 2.
(c) Compliance group 3. — Members in Visayas and Mindanao are assigned to

Compliance Group 3.
Nevertheless, members may participate in any legal education activity wherever it may
be available to earn credit unit toward compliance with the MCLE requirement.
SEC. 3. Compliance period of members admitted or readmitted after establishment of

the program. – Members admitted or readmitted to the Bar after the establishment of
the program shall be assigned to the appropriate Compliance Group based on their
Chapter membership on the date of admission or readmission.
The initial compliance period after admission or readmission shall begin on the first day
of the month of admission or readmission and shall end on the same day as that of all
other members in the same Compliance Group.
(a) Where four (4) months or less remain of the initial compliance period after
admission or readmission, the member is not required to comply with the program
requirement for the initial compliance.
(b) Where more than four (4) months remain of the initial compliance period after
admission or readmission, the member shall be required to complete a number of hours
of approved continuing legal education activities equal to the number of months
remaining in the compliance period in which the member is admitted or readmitted.
Such member shall be required to complete a number of hours of education in legal
ethics in proportion to the number of months remaining in the compliance period.
Fractions of hours shall be rounded up to the next whole number.
Rule 4. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT UNITS(CU)
SECTION 1. Guidelines. – CREDIT UNITS ARE EQUIVALENT TO CREDIT HOURS.

CREDIT UNITS measure compliance with the MCLE requirement under the Rules,
based on the category of the lawyer’s participation in the MCLE activity. The following
are the guidelines for computing credit units and the supporting documents required
therefor:
PROGRAMS/ACTIVITY CREDIT UNITS SUPPORTING

DOCUMENTS
1. SEMINARS, CONVENTIONS,
CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA,
IN-HOUSE EDUCATION PROGRAMS,
WORKSHOPS, DIALOGUES, ROUND
TABLE DISCUSSIONS BY APPROVED
PROVIDERS UNDER RULE 7 AND
OTHER RELATED RULES
1.1 PARTICIPANT/ ATTENDEE 1 CU PER CERTIFICATE OF

HOUR OF ATTENDANCE WITH
ATTENDANCE NUMBER OF HOURS
1.2 LECTURER FULL CU FOR PHOTOCOPY OF

THE SUBJECT PLAQUE OR
PER SPONSOR’S
RESOURCE COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION
PERIOD
SPEAKER
1.3 PANELIST/REACTOR 1/2 OF CU CERTIFICATION

COMMENTATOR/ MODERATOR/ FOR THE FROM SPONSORING
COORDINATOR/ FACILITATOR SUBJECT PER ORGANIZATION
COMPLIANCE
PERIOD
2. AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND

REVIEW
2.1 LAW BOOK OF NOT LESS THAN FULL CU FOR PUBLISHED BOOK
100 PAGES THE SUBJECT
PER
COMPLIANCE
PERIOD
2.2 BOOK EDITOR 1/2 OF THE CU PUBLISHED BOOK

OF WITH PROOF AS
AUTHORSHIP EDITOR
CATEGORY
2.3 RESEARCH PAPER INNOVATIVE 1/2 OF CU DULY CERTIFIED/

PROGRAM/ CREATIVE PROJECT FOR THE PUBLISHED
SUBJECT PER TECHNICAL
COMPLIANCE REPORT/PAPER
PERIOD
2.4 LEGAL ARTICLE OF AT LEAST TEN 1/2 OF CU PUBLISHED ARTICLE

(10) PAGES FOR THE
SUBJECT PER
COMPLIANCE
PERIOD
2.5 LEGAL NEWSLETTER/ LAW 1 CU PER PUBLISHED

JOURNAL EDITOR ISSUE NEWSLETTER/JOUR
NAL
2.6 PROFESSORIAL CHAIR/ BAR FULL CU FOR CERTIFICATION OF

REVIEW LECTURE LAW TEACHING/ THE SUBJECT LAW DEAN OR BAR
PER REVIEW DIRECTOR
COMPLIANCE
PERIOD
Rule 5. CATEGORIES OF CREDIT UNITS

SECTION 1. Classes of Credit units. — Credit units are either participatory or

non-participatory.
SEC. 2. Claim for participatory credit units. — Participatory credit units may be claimed
for:
(a) Attending approved education activities like seminars, conferences,

conventions, symposia, in-house education programs, workshops, dialogues or round
table discussion.
(b) Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned panelist, reactor, commentator,

resource speaker, moderator, coordinator or facilitator in approved education activities.
(c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review class.
SEC. 3. Claim for non-participatory credit units. – Non-participatory credit units may be
claimed per compliance period for:
(a) Preparing, as an author or co-author, written materials published or accepted

for publication, e.g., in the form of an article, chapter, book, or book review which
contribute to the legal education of the author member, which were not prepared in the
ordinary course of the member’s practice or employment.
(b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.
Rule 6. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT HOURS (CH)
SECTION 1. Computation of credit hours. — Credit hours are computed based on

actual time spent in an education activity in hours to the nearest one-quarter hour
reported in decimals.
Rule 7. EXEMPTIONS
SECTION 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE. — The following members of the Bar
are exempt from the MCLE requirement:
(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries
and Undersecretaries of Executive Departments;
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent
and retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar
Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial Academy
program of continuing judicial education;
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of
the Department of Justice;
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate
Counsel;
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman
and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience
for at least ten (10) years in accredited law schools;
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors

and Professorial Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
SEC. 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE. – The following Members of the Bar
are likewise exempt:
(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.

(b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board
of Governors.
SEC. 3. Good cause for exemption from or modification of requirement -A member may
file a verified request setting forth good cause for exemption (such as physical disability,
illness, post graduate study abroad, proven expertise in law, etc.) from compliance with
or modification of any of the requirements, including an extension of time for
compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be established by the MCLE Committee.
SEC. 4. Change of status. – The compliance period shall begin on the first day of the
month in which a member ceases to be exempt under Sections 1, 2, or 3 of this Rule
and shall end on the same day as that of all other members in the same Compliance
Group.
SEC. 5. Proof of exemption. – Applications for exemption from or modification of the

MCLE requirement shall be under oath and supported by documents.
Rule 8. STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF
EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
SECTION 1. Approval of MCLE program. – Subject to the implementing regulations that

may be adopted by the MCLE Committee, continuing legal education program may be
granted approval in either of two (2) ways: (1) the provider of the activity is an
accredited provider and certifies that the activity meets the criteria of Section 2 of this
Rule; and (2) the provider is specifically mandated by law to provide continuing legal
education.
SEC. 2. Standards for all education activities. – All continuing legal education activities
must meet the following standards:
(a) The activity shall have significant current intellectual or practical content.
(b) The activity shall constitute an organized program of learning related to legal
subjects and the legal profession, including cross profession activities (e.g.,
accounting-tax or medical-legal) that enhance legal skills or the ability to practice law, as
well as subjects in legal writing and oral advocacy.
(c) The activity shall be conducted by a provider with adequate professional

experience.
(d) Where the activity is more than one (1) hour in length, substantive written
materials must be distributed to all participants. Such materials must be distributed at or
before the time the activity is offered.
(e) In-house education activities must be scheduled at a time and location so as

to be free from interruption like telephone calls and other distractions.
Rule 9. ACCREDITATION OF PROVIDERS
SECTION 1. Accreditation of providers. — Accreditation of providers shall be done by

the MCLE Committee.
SEC. 2. Requirements for accreditation of providers. – Any person or group may be

accredited as a provider for a term of two (2) years, which may be renewed, upon
written application. All providers of continuing legal education activities, including
in-house providers, are eligible to be accredited providers. Application for accreditation
shall:
(a) Be submitted on a form provided by the MCLE Committee;
(b) Contain all information requested in the form;
(c) Be accompanied by the appropriate approval fee.
SEC. 3. Requirements of all providers. — All approved accredited providers shall agree
to the following:
(a) An official record verifying the attendance at the activity shall be maintained
by the provider for at least four (4) years after the completion date. The provider shall
include the member on the official record of attendance only if the member’s signature
was obtained at the time of attendance at the activity. The official record of attendance
shall contain the member’s name and number in the Roll of Attorneys and shall identify
the time, date, location, subject matter, and length of the education activity. A copy of
such record shall be furnished the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(b) The provider shall certify that:
(1) This activity has been approved BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE in the amount of
________ hours of which ______ hours will apply in (legal ethics, etc.), as appropriate
to the content of the activity;
(2) The activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities
prescribed by these Rules and such regulations as may be prescribed by the MCLE
COMMITTEE.
(c) The provider shall issue a record or certificate to all participants identifying the
time, date, location, subject matter and length of the activity.
(d) The provider shall allow in-person observation of all approved continuing
legal education activity by THE MCLE COMMITTEE, members of the IBP Board of
Governors, or designees of the Committee and IBP staff Board for purposes of
monitoring compliance with these Rules.
(e) The provider shall indicate in promotional materials, the nature of the activity,
the time devoted to each topic and identity of the instructors. The provider shall make
available to each participant a copy of THE MCLE COMMITTEE-approved Education
Activity Evaluation Form.
(f) The provider shall maintain the completed Education Activity Evaluation Forms for a
period of not less than one (1) year after the activity, copy furnished the MCLE
COMMITTEE.
(g) Any person or group who conducts an unauthorized activity under this
program or issues a spurious certificate in violation of these Rules shall be subject to
appropriate sanctions.
SEC. 4. Renewal of provider accreditation. – The accreditation of a provider may be

renewed every two (2) years. It may be denied if the provider fails to comply with any of
the requirements of these Rules or fails to provide satisfactory education activities for
the preceding period.
SEC. 5. Revocation of provider accreditation. — the accreditation of any provider

referred to in Rule 9 may be revoked by a majority vote of the MCLE Committee, after
notice and hearing and for good cause.
Rule 10. FEE FOR APPROVAL OF ACTIVITY AND ACCREDITATION OF PROVIDER
SECTION 1. Payment of fees. – Application for approval of an education activity or

accreditation as a provider requires payment of the appropriate fee as provided in the
Schedule of MCLE Fees.
Rule 11. GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
SECTION 1. Compliance card. — Each member shall secure from the MCLE
Committee a Compliance Card before the end of his compliance period. He shall
complete the card by attesting under oath that he has complied with the education
requirement or that he is exempt, specifying the nature of the exemption. Such
Compliance Card must be returned to the Committee not later than the day after the
end of the member’s compliance period.
SEC. 2. Member record keeping requirement. — Each member shall maintain sufficient
record of compliance or exemption, copy furnished the MCLE Committee. The record
required to be provided to the members by the provider pursuant to Section 3(c) of Rule
9 should be a sufficient record of attendance at a participatory activity. A record of
non-participatory activity shall also be maintained by the member, as referred to in
Section 3 of Rule 5.
Rule 12. NON-COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
SECTION 1. What constitutes non-compliance. – The following shall constitute

non-compliance:
(a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance period;
(b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;
(c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of

exempt status) within the prescribed period;
(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such
compliance within sixty (60) days from receipt of non-compliance notice;
(e) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period;
(f) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to
circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE requirements.
SEC. 2. Non-compliance notice and 60-day period to attain compliance. -Members

failing to comply will receive a Non-Compliance Notice stating the specific deficiency
and will be given sixty (60) days from the date of notification to file a response clarifying
the deficiency or otherwise showing compliance with the requirements. Such notice
shall contain the following language near the beginning of the notice in capital letters:
IF YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE MCLE

REQUIREMENT BY (INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF NOTICE), YOU SHALL
BE LISTED AS A DELINQUENT MEMBER AND SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO
PRACTICE LAW UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE IS
RECEIVED BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE.
Members given sixty (60) days to respond to a Non-Compliance Notice may use this
period to attain the adequate number of credit units for compliance. Credit units earned
during this period may only be counted toward compliance with the prior compliance
period requirement unless units in excess of the requirement are earned, in which case
the excess may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement.
Rule 13. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE
SECTION 1. Non-compliance fee. — A member who, for whatever reason, is in

non-compliance at the end of the compliance period shall pay a non-compliance fee.
SEC. 2. Listing as delinquent member. — A member who fails to comply with the
requirements after the sixty (60) day period for compliance has expired, shall be listed
as a delinquent member of the IBP upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee.
The investigation of a member for non-compliance shall be conducted by the IBP’s
Commission on Bar Discipline as a fact-finding arm of the MCLE Committee.
SEC. 3. Accrual of membership fee. — Membership fees shall continue to accrue at the
active rate against a member during the period he/she is listed as a delinquent member.
Rule 14. REINSTATEMENT
SECTION 1. Process. — The involuntary listing as a delinquent member shall be

terminated when the member provides proof of compliance with the MCLE requirement,
including payment of non-compliance fee. A member may attain the necessary credit
units to meet the requirement for the period of non-compliance during the period the
member is on inactive status. These credit units may not be counted toward meeting the
current compliance period requirement. Credit units earned during the period of
non-compliance in excess of the number needed to satisfy the prior compliance period
requirement may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period
requirement.
SEC. 2. Termination of delinquent listing is an administrative process. – The termination

of listing as a delinquent member is administrative in nature AND it shall be made by the
MCLE Committee.
Rule. 15. COMMITTEE ON MANDATORY CONTINUING
LEGAL EDUCATION
SECTION 1. Composition. – The MCLE Committee shall be composed of five (5)

members, namely, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court as Chair, and four (4)
members respectively nominated by the IBP, the Philippine Judicial Academy, a law
center designated by the Supreme Court and associations of law schools and/or law
professors.
The members of the Committee shall be of proven probity and integrity. They shall be
appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of three (3) years and shall receive such
compensation as may be determined by the Court.
SEC. 2. Duty of committee. – The MCLE Committee shall administer and adopt such
implementing rules as may be necessary subject to the approval of the Supreme Court.
It shall, in consultation with the IBP Board of Governors, prescribe a schedule of MCLE
fees with the approval of the Supreme Court.
SEC. 3. Staff of the MCLE Committee. – Subject to approval by the Supreme Court, the
MCLE Committee shall employ such staff as may be necessary to perform the
record-keeping, auditing, reporting, approval and other necessary functions.
SEC. 4. Submission of annual budget. – The MCLE Committee shall submit to the
Supreme Court for approval, an annual budget [for a subsidy] to establish, operate and
maintain the MCLE Program.
Bar Matter No. 1922.
Re: Recommendation of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Board to

Indicate in All Pleadings Filed with the Courts the Counsel’s MCLE Certificate of
Compliance or Certificate of Exemption. – The Court Resolved to NOTE the Letter,
dated May 2, 2008, of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Chairperson,
Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters, informing the Court of the diminishing
interest of the members of the Bar in the MCLE requirement program.
Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Education
and Bar Matters, to REQUIRE practicing members of the bar to INDICATE in all
pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue
of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be
applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance period. Failure to disclose the
required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the
pleadings from the records.
The New Rule shall take effect sixty (60) days after its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation.”
OCA Circular No. 79-2014
In the Resolution of the Court En Banc dated January 14, 2014 in the above-cited
administrative matter, the Court RESOLVED, upon the recommendation of the MCLE
Governing Board, to:
(a) 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”;
and
(b) PRESCRIBE the following rules for non-disclosure of current MCLE

compliance/exemption number in the pleadings:
(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. This revokes OCA
Circular No. 66-2008 dated July 22, 2008, and any prior circular from the Office of the
Court Administrator on this matter which is contrary to the foregoing is hereby
superseded. For your information, guidance and strict compliance. 26 May 2014
Arnado vs. Adaza, A.C. No. 9834, August 26, 2015
Facts:
In a letter, dated 15 March 2013, Atty. Samuel B. Arnado (complainant) called the attention
of this Court to the practice of respondent of indicating "MCLE application for exemption
under process" in his pleadings filed in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, and "MCLE Application
for
Exemption for Reconsideration" in a pleading filed in 2012. Complainant informed the Court
that he inquired from the MCLE Office about the status of respondent's compliance
In its Evaluation, Report and Recommendation[3] dated 14 August 2013,[4] the MCLE
Governing Board, through retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Bernardo P. Pardo
(Justice Pardo), MCLE Chairman, informed the Court that... respondent applied for
exemption for the First and Second Compliance Periods covering 15 April 2001 to 14 April
2004 and 15 April 2004 to 14 April 2007, respectively, on the ground of "expertise in law"
under Section 3, Rule 7 of Bar Matter No. 850. The MCLE Governing Board... denied the
request on 14 January 2009. In the same letter, the MCLE Governing Board noted that
respondent neither applied for exemption nor complied with the Third Compliance period
from 15 April 2007 to 14 April 2010.
In his Compliance and Comment[5] dated 3 February 2014, respondent alleged that he did
not receive a copy of the 5 August 2013 letter of Atty. Reyes. He stated that he was
wondering why his application for exemption could not be granted. He further alleged... that
he did not receive a formal denial of his application for exemption by the MCLE Governing
Board, and that the notice sent by Prof. Feliciano was based on the letter of complainant
who belonged to Romualdo and Arnado Law Office, the law office of his political opponents,
the Romualdo family.
Respondent enumerated his achievements as a lawyer and claimed that he had been
practicing law for about 50 years.
In its Report and Recommendation dated 25 November 2014, the OBC reported that
respondent applied for exemption for the First and Second Compliance Periods on the
ground of expertise in law. The MCLE Governing Board denied the request on 14 January
2009. Prof. Feliciano informed... respondent of the denial of his application in a letter dated
1 October 2012. The OBC reported that according to the MCLE Governing Board, "in order
to be exempted (from compliance) pursuant to expertise in lp.w under Section 3, Rule 7 of
Bar Matter No. 850, the applicant must... submit sufficient, satisfactory and convincing proof
to establish his expertise in a certain area of law." The OBC reported that respondent failed
to meet the requirements necessary for the exemption.
The OBC further reported that under Rule 12 of Bar Matter No. 850 and Section 12 of the
MCLE Implementing Regulations, non-compliance with the MCLE requirements shall result
to the dismissal of the case and the striking out of the pleadings from the records.[7] The
OBC also reported that under Section 12(d) of the MCLE Implementing Regulations, a
member of the Bar who failed to comply with the MCLE requirements is given 60 days from
receipt of notification to explain his deficiency or to show his compliance with the...
requirements. Section 12(e) also provides that a member who fails to comply within the
given period shall pay a non-compliance fee of PI,000 and shall be listed as a delinquent
member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the recommendation of the
MCLE Governing
Board. The OBC reported that the Notice of Non-Compliance was sent to respondent on 13
August 2013. The OBC also reported that on 14 August 2013, the MCLE Governing Board
recommended that cases be filed against respondent in connection with the pleadings he
filed without the
MCLE compliance/exemption number for the immediately preceding compliance period and
that the pleadings he filed be expunged from the records.
The OBC recommended that respondent be declared a delinquent member of the Bar and
guilty of non-compliance with the MCLE requirements. The OBC further recommended
respondent's suspension from the practice of law for six months with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same... or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely. The
OBC also recommended that respondent be directed to comply with the requirements set
forth by the MCLE Governing Board.
Issues:
whether respondent is administratively liable for his failure to comply with the MCLE
requirements.
Ruling:
Bar Matter No. 850 requires members of the IBP to undergo continuing legal education "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."[8] The First
Compliance Period was from 15 April 2001 to 14 April 2004; the Second Compliance Period
was from 15 April 2004 to 14 April 2007; and the Third Compliance Period was from 15 April
2007 to 14 April 2010. Complainant's letter covered respondent's pleadings... filed in 2009,
2010, 2011, and 2012 which means respondent also failed to comply with the MCLE
requirements for the Fourth Compliance Period from 15 April 2010 to 14 April 2013.
The records of the MCLE Office showed that respondent failed to comply with the four
compliance periods. The records also showed that respondent filed an application for
exemption only on 5 January 2009. According to the MCLE Governing Board, respondent's
application for... exemption covered the First and Second Compliance Periods. Respondent
did not apply for exemption for the Third Compliance Period. The MCLE Governing Board
denied respondent's application for exemption on 14 January 2009 on the ground that the
application did not meet the... requirements of expertise in law under Section 3, Rule 7 of
Bar Matter No. 850. However, the MCLE Office failed to convey the denial of the application
for exemption to respondent. The MCLE Office only informed respondent, through its letter
dated 1 October 2012 signed by Prof.
Feliciano, when it received inquiries from complainant, Judge Sinfroso Tabamo, and
Camiguin Deputy Provincial Prosecutor Renato A. Abbu on the status of respondent's
MCLE compliance. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration after one year, or on 23
October 2013, which the
MCLE Governing Board denied with finality on 28 November 2013. The denial of the motion
for reconsideration was sent to respondent in a letter[9] dated 29 November 2013, signed
by Justice Pardo.
Clearly, respondent had been remiss in his responsibilities by failing to comply with Bar
Matter No. 850. His application for exemption for the First and Second Compliance Periods
was filed after the compliance periods had ended. He did not follow-up the status of his...
application for exemption. He furnished the Court with his letter dated 7 February 2012[10]
to the MCLE Office asking the office to act on his application for exemption but alleged that
his secretary failed to send it to the MCLE Office.[11] He did not comply with the Fourth
Compliance Period.
In its 1 October 2012 letter to respondent, the MCLE Office enjoined him to comply with the
requirements for the First to Third Compliance periods. It was reiterated in the 29 November
2013 letter denying respondent's motion for reconsideration of his application for exemption.
The OBC also reported that a Notice of Non-Compliance was sent to respondent on 13
August 2013. Under Section 12(5) of the MCLE Implementing Regulations, respondent has
60 days from receipt of the notification to comply. However, in his Compliance and
Comment before this Court,... respondent stated that because of his involvement in public
interest issues in the country, the earliest that he could comply with Bar Matter No. 850
would be on 10-14 February 2014 and that he already registered with the MCLE Program of
the University of the Philippines (UP)
Diliman on those dates.
Even if respondent attended the 10-14 February 2014 MCLE Program of UP Diliman, it
would only cover his deficiencies for the First Compliance Period. He is still delinquent for
the Second, Third, and Fourth Compliance Periods. The Court has not been furnished proof
of compliance... for the First Compliance Period.
The MCLE Office is not without fault in this case. While it acted on respondent's application
for exemption on 14 January 2009, it took the office three years to inform respondent of the
denial of his application. The MCLE Office only informed respondent on 1 October 2012
and... after it received inquiries regarding the status of respondent's compliance. Hence,
during the period when respondent indicated "MCLE application for exemption under
process" in his pleadings, he was not aware of the action of the MCLE Governing Board on
his application for... exemption. However, after he had been informed of the denial of his
application for exemption, it still took respondent one year to file a motion for
reconsideration. After the denial of his motion for reconsideration, respondent still took, and
is still aking, his time to... satisfy the requirements of the MCLE. In addition, when
respondent indicated "MCLE Application for Exemption for Reconsideration" in a pleading,
he had not filed any motion for reconsideration before the MCLE Office.
The OBC recommended respondent's suspension from the practice of aw for six months.
We agree. In addition, his listing as a delinquent member pf the IBP is also akin to
suspension because he shall not be permitted to practice law until such time as he submits
proof of full... compliance to the IBP Board of Governors, and the IBP Board of Governors
has notified the MCLE Committee of his reinstatement, under Section 14 of the MCLE
Implementing Regulations. Hence, we deem it proper to declare respondent as a delinquent
member of the IBP and to suspend... him from the practice of law for six months or until he
has fully complied with the requirements of the MCLE for the First, Second, Third, and
Fourth Compliance Periods, whichever is later, and he has fully paid the required
non-compliance and reinstatement fees.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to:
(1) REMIND the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Office to promptly act on matters
that require its immediate attention, such as but not limited to applications for exemptions,
and to communicate its action to the interested parties within a reasonable period;
(2) DENY the prayer of Atty. Homobono A. Adaza to be exempted from MCLE compliance
as the matter had already been denied with finality by the MCLE Governing Board on 28
November 2013;
(3) DECLARE Atty. Homobono A. Adaza as a delinquent member of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines and SUSPEND him from the practice of law for SIX MONTHS, or until he
has fully complied with the MCLE requirements for the First, Second, Third, and Fourth
Noble III vs. Ailes, A.C. No. 10628, July 1, 2015
Facts:
Maximino alleged that on August 18, 2010, Orlando, a lawyer, filed a complaint[2] for
damages against his own brother, Marcelo O. Ailes, Jr. (Marcelo), whom Maximino
represented, together with other defendants, therein. In the said complaint, Orlando stated...
the following data: "IBP-774058-12/07/09-QC x x x MCLE Compliance No.
II-0008689[3]/Issued on March 10, 2008."[4] Maximino claimed that at the time of the filing
of the said complaint, Orlando's IBP O.R. number should have... already reflected payment
of his IBP annual dues for the year 2010, not 2009, and that he should have finished his
third Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Compliance, not just the second.
Sometime in December 2011, Maximino learned from Marcelo that the latter had filed a
separate case for grave threats and estafa[5] against Orlando. When Maximino was
furnished a copy of the complaint, he discovered that, through text messages,... Orlando
had been maligning him and dissuading Marcelo from retaining his services as counsel,
claiming that he was incompetent and that he charged exorbitant fees, saying, among
others: "x x x Better dismiss [your] hi-track lawyer who will impoverish [you] with his...
unconscionable [professional] fee. Max Noble, as shown in court records, never appeared
even once, that's why you lost in the pre-trial stage, x x x get rid of [Noble] as [your] lawyer.
He is out to squeeze a lot of money from [you], x x x daig mo nga mismong abogado
mong... polpol.
Records show that Orlando even prepared a Notice to Terminate Services of Counsel[7] in
the complaint for damages, which stated that Maximino "x x x has never done anything to
protect the interests of the defendants in... a manner not befitting his representation as a
seasoned law practitioner and, aside from charging enormous amount of professional fees
and questionable expenses, said counsel's contracted services reached as far only in
preparing and filing uncalled for motions to dismiss x x x"... as well as a Compromise
Agreement,[8] both of which he sent to Marcelo for his signature. Affronted, Maximino filed
the instant complaint charging Orlando with violation of Rule 7.03 of Canon 7, the entire
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR), Bar Matter (BM) Nos. 850[9] and 1922[10], and prayed for the disbarment of
respondent as well as the award of damages.
IBP Report and Recommendation
In a Report and Recommendation[15] dated April 30, 2013, the IBP Commissioner
recommended the dismissal of the case against Orlando, finding that a transgression of the
MCLE compliance requirement is not a ground for disbarment as in fact, failure to... disclose
the required information would merely cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction
of the pleadings from the records. Neither did the IBP Commissioner find any violation of
the CPR so gross or grave as to warrant any administrative liability on the part of
Orlando, considering that the communication between Orlando and Marcelo, who are
brothers, was done privately and not directly addressed to Maximino nor intended to be
published and known by third person
Issues:
whether or not the IBP correctly dismissed the complaint against Orlando
Ruling:
The petition is partly meritorious.
In this relation, Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 as well as Canon 8 of the CPR provides:
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the legal profession.
Canon 8 — A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to
give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful...
counsel.
Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified
and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language
and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of the judicial forum.[23] In Buatis Jr. v.
People,[24] the Court treated a lawyer's use of the words "lousy," "inutile," "carabao
English," "stupidity," and "satan" in a letter addressed to another colleague as defamatory
and injurious which effectively... maligned his integrity. Similarly, the hurling of insulting
language to describe the opposing counsel is considered conduct unbecoming of the legal
profession.[
In this case, the IBP found the text messages that Orlando sent to his brother Marcelo as
casual communications considering that they were conveyed privately. To the Court's mind,
however, the tenor of the messages cannot be treated lightly. The text messages were
clearly... intended to malign and annoy Maximino, as evident from the use of the word
"polpol" (stupid). Likewise, Orlando's insistence that Marcelo immediately terminate the
services of Maximino indicates Orlando's offensive conduct against his colleague, in
violation of the... above-quoted rules. Moreover, Orlando's voluntary plea of guilty to the
crime of unjust vexation in the criminal case filed against him by Marcelo was, for all intents
and purposes, an admission that he spoke ill, insulted, and disrespected Maximino - a
departure from the... judicial decorum which exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.
On this score, it must be emphasized that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened
with conditions such that a lawyer's words and actions directly affect the public's opinion of
the legal profession. Lawyers are expected to observe such conduct of nobility and
uprightness... which should remain with them, whether in their public or private lives, and
may be disciplined in the event their conduct falls short of the standards imposed upon
them.[26] Thus, in this case, it is inconsequential that the statements were merely relayed...
to Orlando's brother in private. As a member of the bar, Orlando should have been more
circumspect in his words, being fully aware that they pertain to another lawyer to whom
fairness as well as candor is owed. It was highly improper for Orlando to interfere and insult
Maximino... to his client.
Indulging in offensive personalities in the course of judicial proceedings, as in this case,

constitutes unprofessional conduct which subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action.[27] While
a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such... enthusiasm does not
justify the use of offensive and abusive language.[28] The Court has consistently reminded
the members of the bar to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact
prejudicial to the honor and reputation of a party.
Considering the circumstances, it is glaringly clear how Orlando transgressed the CPR
when he maligned Maximino to his client.[29]
With regard to Orlando's alleged violation of BM No. 1922, the Court agrees with the IBP
that his failure to disclose the required information for MCLE compliance in the complaint for
damages he had filed against his brother Marcelo is not a ground for disbarment. At most,
his... violation shall only be cause for the dismissal of the complaint as well as the
expunction thereof from the records.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Orlando O. Ailes GUILTY of violating Rule
7.03 of Canon 7 as well as the entire Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
He is hereby ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in dealing with his professional...
colleagues and STERNLY WARNED that a commission of the same or similar acts in the
future shall be dealt with more severely.
PEOPLE v. JESUS A. ARROJADO, GR No. 207041, 2015-11-09
Facts:
herein respondent was charged with the crime of murder by the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Roxas City, Capiz.
respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss[3] the Information fiked against him on the ground that
the investigating prosecutor who filed the said Information failed to indicate therein the
number and date of issue of her Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education (MCLE) Certificate of Compliance, as required by Bar Matter No. 1922...
petitioner filed its Comment/Opposition[5] to respondent's Motion to Dismiss contending
that: (1) the Information sought to be dismissed is sufficient in form and substance; (2) the
lack of proof of MCLE compliance by the prosecutor who prepared and... signed the
Information should not prejudice the interest of the State in filing charges against persons
who have violated the law; and (3) and administrative edict cannot prevail over substantive
or precedural law, by imposing additional requirements for the sufficiency of a... criminal
information.
the RTC of Roxas City issued an Order[6] dismissing the subject Information without
prejudice.
respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari and/or mandamus with the CA... the CA
denied respondent's petition and affirmed the questioned RTC Orders.
Petitioner contends that: (1) the term "pleadings" as used in B.M. No. 1922 does not include
criminal Informations filed in court; (2) the failure of the investigating prosecutor to indicate
in the Information the number and date of issue of her MCLE Certificate of Compliance is...
a mere formal defect and is not a valid ground to dismiss the subject Information which is
otherwise complete in form and substance.
Issues:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE FAILURE
OF THE INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR TO INDICATE HER MCLE COMPLIANCE
NUMBER AND DATE OF ISSUANCE THEREOF IN THE INFORMATION AGAINST
RESPONDENT JESUS A. ARROJADO WARRANTED THE DISMISSAL OF THE
SAME.
Ruling:
Of the prosecutor
The petition lacks merit.
Pertinent portions of B.M. No. 1922, provide
REQUIRE practicing members of the bar to INDICATE in all pleadings filed before the
courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of their
MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, for the

immediately preceding compliance period. Failure to disclose the required information
would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.
pleadings as the written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties
submitted to the court for appropriate judgment. Among the pleadings enumerated under
Section 2 thereof are the complaint and the... answer in a civil suit. On the other hand,
under Section 4, Rule 110 of the same Rules, an information is defined as an accusation in
writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the
court.
In accordance with the above definitions, it is... clear that an information is a pleading since
the allegations therein, which charge a person with an offense, is basically the same as a
complaint in a civil action which alleges a plaintiffs cause or cause of action.
[A]n information is, for all intents and purposes, considered an initiatory pleading because it
is a written statement that contains the cause of action of a party, which in criminal cases is
the State as represented by the prosecutor, against the accused. Like a... pleading, the
Information is also filed in court for appropriate judgment.
Even under the rules of criminal procedure of the United States, upon which our rules of
criminal procedure were patterned, an information is considered a pleading.
An information is a pleading. It is the formal statement on the part of the state of the facts
constituting the offense which the defendant is accused of committing. In other words, it is
the plain and concise statement of the facts constituting the cause of action.
It bears the same relation to a criminal action that a complaint does to a civil action; and,
when verified, its object is not to satisfy the court or jury that the defendant is guilty, nor is it
for the purpose of evidence which is to be weighed and passed upon, but is only to... inform
the defendant of the precise acts or omissions with which he is accused, the truth of which
is to be determined thereafter by direct and positive evidence upon a trial, where the
defendant is brought face to face with the witnesses.
B.M. No. 1922 categorically provides that "[f]ailure to disclose the required information
would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the
records." In this regard, petitioner must be reminded that it assailed the trial court's...
dismissal of the subject Information via a special civil action for certiorari filed with the CA.
The writ of certiorari is directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions that acted without or in excess of its... or his jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion
Since the trial court's dismissal of the subject Information was based on a clear and
categorical provision of a rule issued... by this Court, the court a quo could not have
committed a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment nor did it exercise its discretion in
an arbitrary or despotic manner. Thus, the CA did not commit error in dismissing petitioner's
petition for certiorari.
In harping on its contention that the ends of justice would be best served if the criminal case
would be allowed to proceed in order to determine the innocence or culpability of the
ciccused, petitioner sounds as if the dismissal of the Information left the prosecution with
no... other recourse or remedy so as to irreversibly jeopardize the interests of the State and
the private offended party.
To avoid undue delay in the disposition of the subject criminal case and to uphold the
parties' respective rights to a speedy disposition of their case, the prosecution, mindful of its
duty not only to prosecute offenders but more importantly to do... justice, could have simply
re-filed the Information containing the required number and date of issue of the investigating
prosecutor's MCLE Certificate of Compliance, instead of resorting to the filing of various
petitions in court to stubbornly insist on its position and... question the trial court's dismissal
of the subject Information, thereby wasting its time and effort and the State's resources.
The Court is neither persuaded by petitioner's invocation of the principle on liberal

construction of procedural rules
The prosecution has never shown any reasonable attempt at compliance with the rule
enunciated under B.M. No. 1922. Even when the motion for... reconsideration of the RTC
Order dismissing the subject Information was filed, the required number and date of issue of
the investigating prosecutor's MCLE Certificate of Compliance was still not included nor
indicated. Thus, in the instant case, absent valid and compelling... reasons, the requested
leniency and liberality in the observance of procedural rules appear to be an afterthought,

hence, cannot be granted.
In any event, to avoid inordinate delays in the disposition of cases brought about by a
counsel's failure to indicate in his or her pleadings the number and date of issue of his or
her MCLE Certificate of Compliance, this Court issued an En Bane Resolution, dated
January 14,... 2014 which amended B.M. No. 1922 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."
Thus, under the amendatory Resolution, the failure of a lawyer to indicate in his or her
pleadings the number and date of issue of his or her MCLE Certificate of Compliance will no
longer result in the dismissal of the... case and expunction of the pleadings from the
records. Nonetheless, such failure will subject the lawyer to the prescribed fine and/or
disciplinary action.
In light of the above amendment, while the same was not yet in effect at the time that the
subject Information was filed, the more prudent and practical thing that the trial court should
have done in the first place, so as to avoid delay in the disposition of the case, was not... to
dismiss the Information but to simply require the investigating prosecutor to indicate therein
the number and date of issue of her MCLE Certificate of Compliance.
Luzviminda S. Cerilla Vs. Atty. Samuel SM. Lezama, A.C. No. 11483. October 3, 2017
Peralta, J.:
Facts:
Luzviminda Cerilla filed a complaint for gross misconduct against Atty. Lezam. She engaged the
services of respondent to file an unlawful detainer case in Negros Oriental. She executed a
Special Power of Attorney sine she was at the time working in Quezon City. On the basis of the
SPA, Atty. Lezam entered into a compromise agreement with Garlito in the unlawful detainer
case to sell Cerilla’s property without her consent for 350K. As complainant failed to execute a
Deed of Sale, the MTC issued a Writ of Execution. Respondent, Atty. Lezama claims that he
was duly armed with an SPA to enter into a compromise agreement as the SPA contains:
“including amicable settlement of the case if necessary”. And that he entered into the
compromise agreement under the honest and sincere belief that it was the fairest and most
equitable arrangement. The Investigating Commissioner found that respondent acted beyond
the scope of his authority. Respondent knew and has admitted that there was no instruction
given by his client to sell the property, yet he bound his client to sell the property without her
knowledge. He also knew that the property is co-owned by complainant with her siblings
because of the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR.
Ratio Decidendi:
The records also show that respondent admitted that he entered into the compromise
agreement even if the complainant did not instruct or authorize him to sell the property and he
merely acted on his own belief. Also, the SPA granted to respondent by the complainant did not
contain the power to sell the property, respondent clearly acted beyond the scope of his
authority in entering into a compromise agreement wherein the property was sold to Garlito. The
court found respondent guilty of violating Canons 5, 15, and 17 of the CPR. Hence, he was
suspended from the practice of law for 2 years and sternly warned.
INTESTATE ESTATE OF JOSE UY v. ATTY. PACIFICO M. MAGHARI III, AC. NO. 10525,
2015-09-01, A.C. NO. 10525, September 01, 2015
Facts:
This resolves a Complaint[1] for disbarment... complainant Wilson Uy, the designated
administrator of the estate of Jose Uy.
This Complaint charges respondent Atty. Pacifico M. Maghari, III (Maghari)... with engaging
in deceitful conduct and violating the Lawyer's Oath
Maghari is charged with the use of information that is false and/or appropriated from other
lawyers in signing certain pleadings.
On February 18, 1997, Lilia Hofileña (Hofileña) filed a Petition before the Bacolod City
Regional Trial Court praying that she be designated administratrix of the estate of her
common-law partner, the deceased Jose Uy.
Hofileña was initially designated administratrix.[4] However, a Motion for Reconsideration of

the Order designating Hofileña as administratix was filed by Wilson Uy, one of Jose Uy's
children, on behalf of Jose Uy's spouse and other children.
June 9, 1998, the Regional Trial Court designated Wilson Uy as administrator of Jose Uy's
estate.
Hofileña's claims in the settlement of Jose Uy's estate were granted.
Hence, she filed a Motion for Execution[8] dated September 14, 2007.
In Spec. Proc No. 97-241 and in other proceedings arising from the conflicting claims to
Jose Uy's estate, Hofileña was represented by her counsel, Atty. Mariano L. Natu-El (Atty.
Natu-el). In a pleading filed in the course of these proceedings (i.e., in the Comment dated
May
27, 2009 filed before the Court of Appeals9), Atty. Natu-El indicated the following details:
There appears to have been conflicts between Wilson Uy and the other heirs of Jose Uy.
Wilson Uy prayed that a subpoena ad testificandum be issued to Magdalena Uy as she was

alleged to have been the treasurer of several... businesses owned by Jose Uy.
Regional Trial Court granted Wilson Uy's Motion that a Subpoena ad Testificandum be
issued to Magdalena Uy.
Magdalena Uy, through Maghari, her counsel, filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena ad
Testificandum with Alternative Motion to Cite the Appearance of Johnny K.H. Uy.[14] In
signing this Motion, Maghari indicated the following details:
On November 9, 2010, Wilson Uy filed his Opposition to Magdalena Uy's Motion to Quash.
Magdalena Uy, through Maghari, filed her Reply[17] to Wilson Uy's Opposition. This Reply
was dated December 8, 2010. In signing this Reply, Maghari indicated the following details:
The Regional Trial Court subsequently denied Magdalena Uy's Motion to Quash
Thereafter, Maghari filed for Magdalena Uy a Motion for Reconsideration
As the Motion for Reconsideration was denied,[22] Maghari filed for Magdalena Uy a Motion
to Recall Subpoena ad Testificandum[23] dated March 8, 2012.
At this point, Wilson Uy's counsel noticed that based on the details indicated in the March 8,
2012 Motion, Maghari appeared to have only recently passed the bar examinations. This
prompted Wilson Uy to check the records of Spec. Proc No. 97-241. Upon doing so, he
learned that... since 2010, Maghari had been changing the professional details indicated in
the pleadings he has signed and has been copying the professional details of Atty. Natu-El.
Wilson Uy then filed a Motion[26] to declare Magdalena Uy in indirect contempt
Regional Trial Court declined from citing Magdalena Uy in contempt as no verified petition
asking that she be so cited had been filed
Wilson Uy filed before this court the present Complaint for disbarment.[29] Pointing to
Maghari's act of repeatedly a changing and using another lawyer's professional details,
Wilson Uy asserts that Maghari violated the Lawyer's Oath and... acted in a deceitful
manner.
this court directed Maghari to file his Comment on Wilson Uy's Complaint.
Respondent does not deny the existence of the errant entries indicated by complainant.
However, he insists that he did not incur disciplinary liability. He claims that these entries
were mere overlooked errors:
For true indeed that after the draft of a particular motion or pleading had been printed and
ready for signature, all what [sic] he did after cursorily going over it was to affix his signature
thereon, specifically, atop his printed name, without giving any special... or particular
attention to details as the "IBP, PTR, and MCLE Numbers",... thus he gains nothing by "the
usurpation of professional details of another lawyer" and has no sinister motive or
ill-purpose in so... doing... attempts to diminish the significance of the dubious entries and
instead ascribes ill motive to complainant. He faults complainant for "nitpicking"... calls him
a "sore loser... and a "disgruntled litigant... who is merely "making a mountain out of a
molehill"[36] and is predisposed to "fault-finding."
He adds that "for the satisfaction of complainant,"[37] he has provided what are supposedly
his correct professional details:
2009
IBP OR No. 765868 - Dec. 22, 2008 - Bacolod City
PTR No. 3408746 - Jan. 5, 2009 -Bacolod City
MCLE Compl. II-0012507 - Jan. 14, 2009 and
III-0000762-Jan. 14, 2009
2010
IBP OR No. 766304 - Dec. 9, 2009 - Bacolod City
MCLE Compl. II-0012507 - Jan. 14, 2009 and
III-0000762 - Jan. 14, 2009
2011
IBP OR No. 815530 -Jan. 4, 2011 -Bacolod City
PTRNo. 4190929 - Jan. 4, 2011 - Bacolod City
MCLE Compl. III-0000762 - Jan. 14, 2009
2012
IBP OR No. 848630-Dec. 27, 2011 - Bacolod City
MCLE Compl. III-0000762 - Jan. 14, 2009[38]
Issues:
violated his Lawyer's Oath and the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Ruling:
Respondent did not merely commit errors in good faith. The truth is far from it. First,
respondent violated clear legal requirements, and indicated patently false information.
Second, the way he did so demonstrates that he did so... knowingly. Third, he did so
repeatedly. Before our eyes is a pattern of deceit. Fourth, the information he used was
shown to have been appropriated from another lawyer. Not only was he deceitful; he was
also larcenous. Fifth, his act not only of usurping another lawyer's details... but also of his
repeatedly changing information from one pleading to another demonstrates the intent to
mock and ridicule courts and legal processes. Respondent toyed with the standards of
legal practice.
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court provides for deceit as a ground for disbarment.
The Lawyer's Oath entails commitment to, among others, obeying laws and legal orders,
doing no falsehood, conducting one's self as a lawyer to the best of one's capacity, and
acting with... fidelity to both court and client
No amount of feigned ignorance and ad hominem attacks on complainant can negate the
gravity of respondent's actions. His insolent and mocking violation of statutory and
regulatory requirements is a violation of his duties to society and to courts. His swiping of
another... lawyer's information is a violation of his duties to the legal profession. The
unnecessary risks that he foiled on his client as a possible result of deficiently signed
pleadings violate his duties to his client. Thus, respondent did not only act in a deceitful
manner and... violate the solemn oath he took to be admitted into the legal profession; he
also violated every single chapter of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
A counsel's signature on a pleading is neither an empty formality nor even a mere means
for identification. Through his or her signature, a party's counsel makes a positive
declaration. In certifying through his or her signature that he or she has read the pleading,
that there... is ground to support it, and that it is not interposed for delay, a lawyer asserts
his or her competence, credibility, and ethics. Signing a pleading is such a solemn
component of legal practice that this court has taken occasion to decry the delegation of this
task to... non-lawyers as a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
The preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving practice of law
which is reserved exclusively for the members of the legal profession. Counsel may
delegate the signing of a pleading to another lawyer but cannot do so in favor of one who is
not. The Code... of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 9.01 — A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any
task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.
Lastly, the inclusion of a counsel's address and contact details is designed to facilitate the
dispensation of justice. These pieces of information aid in the service of court processes,
enhance compliance with the requisites of due process, and facilitate better
representation... of a client's cause. In Juane v. Garcia,[48] this court took occasion to
expound on the significance of putting on record a counsel's address
Respondent acted deliberately. It is impossible that the erroneous details he indicated on

his pleadings are products of mere inadvertence.
To begin with, details were copied from a pleading submitted by another lawyer. These
details somehow found their way into respondent's own pleadings.
Second, these details were not merely copied, they were modified. "B.C." was added to the
IBP official receipt and professional tax receipt numbers copied from Atty. Natu-el.
Third, in subsequent pleadings, some details copied from Atty. Natu-el were discarded while
some were retained. The December 8, 2010 Reply still bore Atty. Natu-el's Roll of Attorneys
number and MCLE compliance number, but no longer his IBP official receipt number and...
professional tax receipt number
This gradual act of segregating information—discarding some while retaining others, and
retaining less over time—reveals that the author of... these markings must have engaged in
a willful exercise that filtered those that were to be discarded from those that were to be
retained.
respondent violated Bar Matter No. 287, Section 139(e) of the Local Government Code, Bar
Matter No. 1132, and Bar Matter No. 1922, a total of seven (7) times. The sheer multiplicity
of instances belies any claim that we are only dealing with isolated errors. Regardless...
whether isolated or manifold, these inaccuracies alone already warrant disciplinary
sanctions. However, as shall be discussed, respondent also acted with dishonest, deceitful,
and even larcenous intent.
Respondent is not only accountable for inaccuracies. This case is far from being a matter of
clerical errors. He willfully used false information. In so doing, he misled courts,
litigants—his own client included— professional colleagues, and all others who may have
relied on the... records and documents on which these false details appear.
violated a requirement spelled out in the Local Government Code, respondent similarly
made a mockery of an act of the legislature.
In seven distinct instances, respondent is accountable for three constituent acts of larceny,
taking, use, and profiting.
The totality of respondent's actions demonstrates a degree of gravity that warrants

suspension from the practice of law for an extended period.
Respondent's acts also demonstrate a violation of every single chapter of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility pronounces a lawyer's foremost duty "to
uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land V and promote respect for law and legal
processes" Rule 1.01 of the same Code requires lawyers to "not engage in... unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
Per Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, "[a] lawyer owes candor, fairness
and good faith to the court" Rule 10.01 requires lawyers to "not do any falsehood . . . or
allow the court to be misled by any artifice." Rule 10.03 imposes upon lawyers the duty of...
faithfully "observ[ing] the rules of procedure [and] not misusing] them to defeat the ends of
justice." Canon 11 exhorts lawyers to "observe and maintain the respect due to the courts."
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires a lawyer to "conduct himself

with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues."
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility imposes upon a lawyer "fidelity to the
cause of his client," while Canon 18 requires a lawyer to "serve his client with competence
and diligence."... respondent Atty. Pacifico M. Maghari, III, having clearly violated his
Lawyer's Oath and the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility through his
unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two
(2)... years, effective upon receipt of a copy of this Resolution.
Mapalad Sr. vs. Echanez, AC 10911, June 6, 2017

FACTS:
Before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is a disbarment case filed by Virgilio J.
Mapalad, Sr. against respondent-lawyer Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez, for failure to comply with the
MCLE requirements. The respondent’s act of deliberately and unlawfully misleading the courts,
parties and counsels concerned into believing that he had complied with the Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirements, when in truth he had not, is a serious
malpractice and grave misconduct in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, Canon 1, /Rule 1.01 and
Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he falsified his MCLE
Compliance Number. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), after thorough
investigation, and careful evaluation of pieces of evidence submitted by the complainant
(respondent opted not to heed the directive of the Commission to file comment and position
papers), recommended that Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez be disbarred and his name be stricken
from the Roll of Attorneys, which was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent be administratively disciplined based on the allegations in the
complaint and evidence on record?
HELD:
YES. Respondent violated Bar Matter No. 850. The Lawyer’s Oath in Rule 138, Section 3 of the
Rules of Court requires commitment to obeying laws and legal orders, doing no falsehood, and
acting with fidelity to both court and client, among others. A lawyer shall uphold the constitution,
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes (Canon 1), he shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01), he owes candor,
fairness and good faith to the court (Canon 10), he shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in court, nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be mislead by any artifice
(Rule 10.01), he owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed upon him (Canon 17), and he shall serve his client with competence and
diligence (Canon 18).

3 DIGESTS Basic Legal Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

3 DIGESTS Basic Legal Ethics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 DIGESTS Basic Legal Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Basic and Legal Judicial Ethics

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

(1) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument,

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

Issue: Whether or not the lawyer should be disbarred.

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to SUSPEND respondent ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO

TEODORO R. REGALA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, GR No. 105938, 1996-09-20

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

Respondent PCGG based its exclusion of private respondent Roco as party-defendant on

PCGG Case No. 33.[4]... furtherance of legitimate lawyering.

Communications made to an attorney in the course of any personal employment, relating to

The Honorable Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in subjecting petitioners

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

duty is explicitly mandated in Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which

Notwithstanding these considerations, the general rule is however qualified by some

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

ANNULLED and SET ASIDE

Topic:Canon 15 –Duty of Candor, Fairness and Loyalty to the Client

The IBP-Board of Governors had the following findings:

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

ISSUE: whether Atty. Pajarillo is guilty of representing conflicting interests when he

Clearly, complainant was respondent's former client. And respondent appeared as

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

Hilado vs. David, 84 Phil 569, 1949

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

Santiago vs. Atty. Rafanan, A.C. No. 6252, Oct. 5, 2004

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

ISSUE: What is required of a lawyer?

As a lawyer, respondent breached his professional responsibility by certifying under oath an

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

Chief Public Attorney filed an Urgent and Ex-Parte Motion to be Relieved as

Whether or not respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or

NO. Petition dismissed for being moot.

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

Bar Matter No. 850, October 2, 2001

ADOPTING THE REVISED RULES ON THE CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

FOR MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

SECTION 1. Purpose of the MCLE. – Continuing legal education is required of

Rule 2. MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

Rule 3. COMPLIANCE PERIOD

(a) Compliance group 1. — Members in the National Capital Region (NCR) or

(b) Compliance group 2. — Members in Luzon outside NCR are assigned to

(c) Compliance group 3. — Members in Visayas and Mindanao are assigned to

SEC. 3. Compliance period of members admitted or readmitted after establishment of

MIDTERMS CASE DIGESTS– Exclusive use for Starlights Block 305

Rule 4. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT UNITS(CU)

SECTION 1. Guidelines. – CREDIT UNITS ARE EQUIVALENT TO CREDIT HOURS.

PROGRAMS/ACTIVITY CREDIT UNITS SUPPORTING