CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE

CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE

LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF
AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Lawyers Oath:
I___________ of ___________ do solemnly swear that I will
maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will
support its Constitution and obey laws as well as the legal orders
of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of any court; I will not wittingly nor
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit,
or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for
money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according
to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity
as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself
this voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion. So help me God.

*Lawyers will be disciplined for disobeying Legal

Orders or processes of Court.

maneuvering reconveyance of clients property to

self, etc
MORALITY - the extent to which an action is right
or wrong. An act to be moral must be in
agreement with divine reason and conscience in
terms of the act itself, the end, and
circumstances.
*Immorality done contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty or good morals. The willful, flagrant,
shameless indifference to the opinion of the good
and respectable members of the society.
*Immorality is not confined to sexual conduct. Ex:
abandonment of wife and cohabiting with another;
delivering bribe money to judge in request of
client..
Foodsphere, Inc. v. Atty. Melanio Mauricio, Jr.
AC No. 7199 July 22, 2009

Ex:
Foodsphere, Inc. , complainant in this case is
> Failure to inform SC of answer to appointment
corporation engaged in meat processing
as counsel for an appellant; failure to file
comment despite several extensions granted; etc. manufacturer and distributor of CDO canned
goods and grocery products. Respondent
*Lawyer who issued bouncing checks violates the
Atty. Melanio Batas Mauricio is a
law and is subject to disbarment or Suspension.
writer/columnist of tabloids and a host of
Violation of BP22 is crime involving Moral
television program "Kakampi Mo Ang Batas" and a
turpitude does not relate to exercise of law but
radio program Double B Batas ng Bayan.
relates to and affects Good Moral character a
Qualif. Not only a precedent to admission to the
On June of 2004, Alberto Cordero and his wife
practice of law but must be maintained
complained about the quality of the CDO Liver
incessantly. This crime also imports deceit and
Spread purportedly bought from a grocery in
violation of Attorneys Oath and the CPR under
Valenzuela City. They found the said Liver spread
both he is bound to Obey the laws of the land
to be sour and soon discovered a colony of worms
inside the can.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
Bureau of Food and Drug Admin Laboratory
conduct.
examination confirmed the presence of parasites
*Being a lawyer, one is supposed to be a model in in the Liverspread. BFAD conducted a conciliation
hearing on July 27, 2004 during which the spouses
the community in so far as respect for the law is
Cordero demanded P150,000 as damages from
concerned.
complainant. Foodsphere refused to heed the
*The law violated need not be a penal law
demand, instead offering to return actual medical
*Conviction for crimes involving moral turpitude
and incidental expenses supported by receipts,
(Conduct that is considered contrary to
which was in turn turned down. by the Corderos
community standards of justice, honesty, or good with threates to bring the matter to the attention
morals). Ex. Estafa, bribery, bigamy, seduction,
of the media.
smuggling, falsification of public document,
Before complainant could file its answer to BFAD,
violation of BP22
Respondent threatened them to publish articles
*Honesty -> lawyers best virtue
maligning, discrediting and imputing vicesand
*Cases of dishonesty and deceit: misappropriation defects to Foodsphere and its products.
Complainant reiterated its counter-offer earlier
of clients funds, false statement under oath,
conveyed to the Corderos, but respondent turned

it down with a proposal to settle the matter for

>Advise client to observe the law
P50,000, P15,000 of which would goto the
>Should not promote an organization known to be
Corderos and P35,000 to his Batas Foundation. He violating
also directed Complainant to place paid
the law nor assist it in a scheme which he knows
advertisements in his tabloids and radio and
is dishonest.
television programs.
Nor should he allow his services to be engaged by
an organization whose members are violating the
Foodsphere filed a complaint for disbarment and
law, to defend them when they get caught.
criminal complaints against Mauricio for libel and
threatening to publish libel. Mauricio continuously
attacked Foodsphere in his columns and radio and
ONG VS. UNTO February 6, 2002
television programs.
FACTS:

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent violated

the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: YES. The acts of the Respondent
demontrates a violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which mandates
lawyers to refrain from engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The IBP
found he engaged in deceitful conduct by taking
advantage of the complaint against CDO to
advance his interest to obtain funds for his BATAS
Foundation and seek sponsorships and
advertisements for the tabloids and his television
program.

Respondent is the legal counsel of one Nemesia

Garganian claiming for the support of the alleged
child of the complainant. The complainant
received a demand-letter from the respondent for
the aforementioned support. A few days
thereafter, the respondent wrote a letter
addressed to Dr. Jose Bueno (Agaw), an emissary
of the complainant listing additional financial
demands of Ms. Garganian against the
complainant along with courses of action that he
would take against the complainant should the
latter fail to comply with his obligation to support
Ms. Garganian and her son.

It was alleged that the real father of Ms.

Garganians son was the complainants brother
and that the complainant merely assumed his
He also violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of
brothers obligation to appease Ms. Garganian
Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a
who was threatening to sue them. When the
lawyer shall not make public statements in the
complainant did not heed his warning, he
media regarding a pending case tending to arouse
proceeded with filing a series of criminal and
public opinion for or against a party.
administrative cases against the complainant, all,
however, not having any bearing or connection to
Further, respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule
the cause of his client.
8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which mandate, and by failing to live up to his
Consequently, the respondent filed a complaint
oath and to comply with the exacting standards of
with the Office of the City Fiscal of Dumaguete
the legal profession, respondent also violated
City against the complainant, his wife, Bella Lim,
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
and one Albina Ong, for alleged violation of the
which directs a lawyer to at all times uphold the
Retail Trade Nationalization Law and the Antiintegrity and the dignity of the legal profession
Dummy Law. In addition, the respondent
(Rule 7.03).
commenced administrative cases against the
Atty. Mauricio was suspended from the practice of complainant before the Bureau of Domestic Trade,
law for three years and warned that a repetition of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation,
and the Office of the Solicitor General. According
the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
to the complainant, these cases were
severely.
subsequently denied due course and dismissed by
the aforesaid government agencies.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or
Records reveal that the respondent offered
abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
monetary rewards to anyone who could provide
or at lessening confidence in the legal
him any information against the complainant just
system.

so he would have leverage in his actions against

the latter. The complainant filed a case for
disbarment naming the respondents tactics as
highly immoral, unprofessional and unethical,
constitutingmalpractice of law and conduct
gravely unbecoming of a lawyer.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of
malpractice of law and conduct unbecoming of
lawyer.
RULING: YES. Canon 1 , Rule 1.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer
shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding.

The purpose of the prohibition is to prevent

(Ambulance chasing) solicitation of almost any
kind of legal business as it results to (a) fomenting
of litigation with resulting burdens on the courts
and the public, (b) subornation of perjury, (c)
mulcting of innocent persons by judgments, upon
manufactured causes of actions, and (d)
defrauding of injured persons having proper
causes of action but ignorant of legal rights and
court procedure.

Among the unprofessional acts which come within

the prohibition include the lawyers (a)
volunteering advice to bring lawsuit, except in
rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or
The relevant rule to the case at bar is Canon 19 of trust make it his duty to do so; (b) hunting up
defects in titles or other causes of action and
the Code of Professional Responsibility. It
informing thereof in order to be employed to bring
mandates lawyers to represent their clients with
zeal but within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 suit or collect judgment, or to breed litigation by
seeking out those claims for personal injuries or
further commands that a lawyer shall employ
those having any other grounds of action in order
only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
to secure them as clients; (c) employing agents or
objectives of his client and shall not present,
runners for like purposes; (d) paying reward,
participate or threaten to present unfounded
criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage directly or indirectly, to those who bring or
influence the bringing of such cases to his office;
in any case or proceeding.
(e) remunerating policemen, court or prison
The respondents action were malicious as the
officials, physicians, hospital attaches or others
cases he instituted against the complainant did
who may succeed, under the guise of giving
not have any bearing or connection to the cause
disinterested friendly advice, in influencing the
of his client, Ms. Garganian. His actions counter
criminal, the sick and the injured, the ignorant or
to the rules that a lawyer shall not, for corrupt
others, to seek professional services; (f) searching
motive or interest, encourage any suit or
for unknown heirs and soliciting their employment
proceeding and he shall not do any act designed
of him; (g) initiating a meeting of the members of
primarily to solicit legal business.
club and inducing them to organize and contest
legislation under his guidance; (h) purchasing
The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin
notes to collect them by litigation at a profit; (i)
lawyers to act with the highest standards of
truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the course of furnishing credit reports in expectation of possible
his practice of law. A lawyer may be disciplined or employment; and (j) agreeing with a purchaser of
future interests to invest therein in consideration
suspended for any misconduct, whether in his
professional or private capacity. Public confidence of his services
in law and lawyers may be eroded by the
Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his
irresponsible and improper conduct of a member
clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy
of the Bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and
if it will admit of a fair settlement.
comport himself in such a manner that would
*Lawyer should not be an instigator of controversy
promote public confidence in the integrity of the
but a mediator for concord and conciliator for
legal profession. Respondent is suspended from
compromise
the practice of law for a period of five (5) months
and sternly warned that a repetition of the same
A litigation involves time, expense and ill feelings,
or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
which may well be avoided by the settlement of
the action. And in those clearly unmeritorious
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any
cases, a compromise or even a confession of
corrupt motive or interest, encourage any
suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause. judgment will accord respect to the just claim of
the other party, save the client additional
expenses and help prevent clogging of the docket.

NATURE OF COMPROMISE is such that a party

must give up some of the rights he has in
consideration of the same act on the part of the
other side.

and render judgments in several criminal and

civilcases pending in his sala. Immediately after
the audit, Respondent Judge gave hisexplanation
and resolved undecided cases.

*Lawyer cannot compromise case w/o clients

consent

On August 21, 2002, during the pendency of this

case, respondent compulsorily retired from
service. He manifested that he has fully complied
with all matters reported in the judicial audit and
requested that the administrative case at bar be
considered close and terminated.
On January 16, 2002, the Court resolved to release
respondents retirement benefits, withholding
therefrom the amount of sixty thousand pesos
(P60,000.00) pending the resolution of three (3)
other administrative cases against him.
ISSUE - Whether or not Respondent Judge be
acquitted of administrative liability in viewof his
retirement and compliance with the OCA audit
report.

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v.

HON. FRANCISCO C. JOVEN
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1646 March 11, 2003

FACTS:From April 10 to 11, 2000, a team from

the Office of the Court Administratorconducted a
judicial audit of the RTC Branch 29 in Bislig City,
Surigao del Sur of which Respondent Francisco
C. Joven was the Presiding Judge. The team
reported thatResponent Judge failed to act upon

RULING: - Respondent Judge should NOT be

acquitted of administrative liability inview of his
retirement and compliance with the OCA audit
report. After a carefulevaluation of the records,
the Court agrees with the finding of the
Investigating Justicethat the reasons cited by
Respondent for failing to promptly act on and
decide theaforecited cases are insufficient. It
must be noted that Respondent exerted effort
tocomply with his official duties and act on the
numerous cases pending in his sala onlyafter his
office was audited by a team from the OCA. It
bears to stress that the Court iscognizant of the
predicament of judges in rendering decisions
on cases, especiallythose that involve complex
questions of facts or law. Almost always, their
situation iscompounded by heavy caseloads which
may at times make the allotted period to
decidethe cases insufficient. Hence, the Court
allows a certain degree of latitude to judges
andgrants them a reasonable extension of time to
resolve cases upon proper application bythe judge
concerned and on meritorious grounds. In the
case at bar, respondent couldhave requested for a
reasonable extension of time to decide the cases
pending beforehis sala but he did not. For failure
to do so, respondent should be held accountable.
For incurring delay in rendering the decision on
the cases assigned to him which constitutes a less
serious charge under Section 9, Rule 140 of the
Rules of Court, as amended, respondent who was
compulsorily retired from service as of August 21,

2001 may be penalized with a fine of not less than Respondent Judge FRANCISO C. JOVEN was fined
P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
ten thousand five hundred pesos (P10,500.00) to
be taken from his retirement benefits.