LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty.
Magbanua)
DEFINITIONS
LEGAL ETHICS - it refers to that branch of moral
science which treats of the duties which an attorney
owes to the court, to his client, to his colleagues in
the profession and to the public.
Amicus curiae an experienced and impartial attorney
invited by the court to appear and help in the
disposition of the issues submitted to it (Rule 168,
Section 36 Rules of Court)
Attorney a person who is a member of the Philippine
Bar and who, by the warrant of another, practices
law, or who acts professionally in legal formalities,
negotiations or proceedings, by authority of his
client.
Attorney ad hoc a person appointed by the court to
defend an absentee defendant in the suit in which
the appointment was made
Attorney-at-law - that class of persons who are licensed
officers of the court empowered to appear,
prosecute, and defend, and upon whom peculiar
duties, responsibilities, and liabilities are developed
by law as consequence
Attorney-in-fact an agent whose authority is strictly
limited by the instrument appointing him. His
authority is provided in the special power of attorney
or general power of attorney or letter of attorney. He
is not necessarily a lawyer.
Attorney of record attorney whose name, together
with his address, is entered in the record of a case
as the designated counsel of the party litigant in the
case and to whom judicial notices relative thereto
are sent (Rule 7, Section 5 Rules of Court)
Bar the legal profession
Bar association an association of members of the
legal profession like the IBP where membership is
integrated or compulsory
Bench the judiciary
Client one who engages the services of a lawyer for
legal advice for purposes of prosecuting or
defending a suit in behalf and usually for a fee.
Counsel is an adviser, a person professionally
engaged in the trial or management of a cause in
court; a legal advocate managing a case at law
(Villegas v. Legaspi, 113 SCRA 39, 1982)
Counsel de parte an attorney retained by a party
litigant, usually for a fee, to prosecute or defend his
cause in court
Counsel de oficio an attorney appointed by the court
to defend an indigent defendant in a criminal action
or to represent a destitute party in a case. (Rule 138,
Section 31 Rules of Court)
House counsel one who acts as attorney for business
though carried as an employee of that business and
not as an independent lawyer
Lawyer general term for a person trained in the law
and authorized to advice and represent others in
legal matters
Lawyer of counsel an experienced lawyer, who is
usually a retired member of the judiciary, employed
by law firms or consultant
Lead counsel the counsel of either side of a litigated
action who is charged with the principal
management and direction of a partys case, as
distinguished from his juniors or subordinates.
Notary public appointed by a Court whose duty is to
attest to the genuineness of any deed or writing in
order to render them available as evidence of facts
therein and who is authorized by the statute to
administer oath
Practicing lawyer one engaged in the practice of law
who by license are officers of the court and who are
empowered to appear, prosecute, and defend a
clients cause
Pro-se an appearance by the lawyer on his own behalf
Public prosecutor He is a quasi-judicial officer and as
such, he should seek equal and impartial justice. He
should be as much concerned with seeing that no
innocent man suffers as in seeing that no guilty man
escapes. His primary duty is not to convict but to see
to it that justice is done. He should see to it that the
accused is given fair and partial trial and not
deprived of any of his statutory or constitutional
rights. Consequently, the suppression of facts or the
concealment of witnesses capable of establishing
the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible
and is cause for disciplinary action. He should
recommend the acquittal of the accused whose
conviction is on appeal, if he finds no legal basis to
sustain the conviction.
Private prosecutor A private prosecutor may
intervene in the prosecution of a criminal action
when the offended party is entitled to indemnity and
has not waived expressly, reserved or instituted the
civil action for damages. All criminal actions
commenced by complaint or information shall be
prosecuted under the direction and control of the
prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of the
public prosecutor or in the event of lack of public
prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution
Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute
the case subject to the approval of the Court. Once
so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the
private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the
case up to the end of the trial even in the absence of
the public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked
or otherwise withdrawn
Trial lawyer one who personally handles cases in
court, administrative agencies or boards which mean
engaging in actual trial work, either for the
prosecution or for the defense of cases of clients
Acceptance fee It is an absolute fee arrangement
which entitles a lawyer to get paid for his efforts
regardless of the outcome of the litigation (Funa,
2009).
Ambulance chasing is an act of chasing victims of
accidents for the purpose of talking to the said
victims (or relatives) and offering his legal services
for the filing of a case against the person(s) who
caused the accident(s)
Attorneys lien a type of lien referring to a right to
retain the funds, documents, and papers against the
client until the attorneys fees is fully paid
Barratry an act of frequently exciting and stirring up
quarrels and suits, either at law or otherwise;
lawyers act of fomenting suits among individuals
and offering his legal services to one of them.
Champertous contract It is one where the lawyer
stipulates with his client in the prosecution of the
case that he will bear all the expenses for the
recovery of things or property being claimed by the
client, and the latter agrees to pay the former a
portion of the thing or property recovered as
compensation. It is void for being against public
policy.
Charging lien the right of a lawyer to the same extent
upon all judgments for the payment of money, and
executions issued in pursuance of such judgments
which he has secured in a litigation of his client, from
and after the time when he shall have caused a
statement of his claim of such lien to be entered
upon the records of the court rendering such
judgment, or issuing such execution, and shall have
caused written notice thereof to be delivered to his
client and to the adverse party; and he shall have
the same right and power over such judgments and
executions as his client would have to enforce his
lien and secure the payment of his fees and
disbursements. (Sec. 37, Rule 138, Revised Rules
of Court)
Collaborating counsel Is one who is subsequently
engaged to assist a lawyer already handling a
particular case for a client. (Pineda, 2009)
Conflict research It is examining the causes of action
between the prospective client and the lawyers
current clients.
Contingency fee arrangement Contingent fee where
the lawyer is paid for his services depending on the
success of the case. This applies usually in civil suits
for money or property where the lawyers fee is
taken from the award granted by the court.
Contingent fee conditioned on securing a favourable
judgment and recovery of money or property and the
amount of which may be on percentage basis
Crime of maintenance A lawyer owes to society and
to the court the duty not to stir up litigation.
Deceitful conduct an act that has the proclivity for
fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice
or device that is used upon another who is ignorant
of the fact, to the prejudice and damage of the party
imposed upon. (CPR Annotated, PhilJA)
Defenseless persons those who are not in a position
to defend themselves due to poverty, weakness,
ignorance or other similar reasons.
Dishonest conduct - the disposition to lie, cheat,
deceive, defraud, or betray; be untrustworthy;
lacking in integrity, honesty, probity, integrity in
principle, fairness and straightforwardness.
Doctrine of imputed knowledge The knowledge
acquired by an attorney during the time that hes
acting within the scope of his authority is imputed to
the client. It is based on the assumption that an
attorney, who has notice of matter affecting his
client, has communicated the same to his principal
in the course of professional dealings.
Fiduciary duty The principle that an attorney derives
no undue advantage that may operate to the
prejudice or cause an occasion for loss of a client.
The relationship between the lawyer and client is
one of mutual trust and confidence of the highest
degree.
Forum shopping prohibited act of filing repetitious
suits in different courts. It may take any of the
following forms:
Going from one court to another in the hope of
securing:
Going from one court to another in the hope of
securing a favorable relief in one court, which
another court has denied.
Filing repetitious suits and proceedings in
different courts concerning the same subject
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
matter after one court has decided the suit
with finality; or
Filing a similar case in a judicial court after
receiving an unfavorable judgment from an
administrative tribunal.
Gross ignorance transgression of any provision of
law which need not be a penal law
Grossly immoral conduct one that is so corrupt and
false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to
a high degree, and committed under such
scandalous and revolting circumstances (Figueroa v.
Barranco, SBC Case No. 519, July 31, 1997)
Gross misconduct any inexcusable, shameful, or
flagrant, unlawful conduct on the part of the person
concerned in the administration of justice which is
prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right
determination of cause, a conduct by a
predetermined, obstinate, or intentional purpose
Hot potato doctrine It refers to the prohibition from
dropping smaller clients (like hot potatoes) in order
to pick up more lucrative clients.
Immoral conduct a conduct which is willful, flagrant,
or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference
to the opinion of the good and respectable members
of the community.
Influence peddling an act taken against the lawyer
that, he shall not state nor imply that he is able to
influence any public official, tribunal, or legislative
body
Integrated Bar of the Philippines an official national
body composed of all persons whose names now
appear or may hereafter be included in the Roll of
Attorneys of the Supreme Court. (Sec. 1, Rule 139-A
of the Rules of Court)
Integration of the Bar The Integration of the
Philippine Bar means the official unification of the
entire lawyer population, and this requires
membership and financial support of every attorney
as condition sine qua non to the practice of law and
the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of
the Supreme Court (Pineda).
Mandatory continuing legal education the means to
ensure that throughout the lawyers career, they
keep abreast with the law and jurisprudence,
maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance
the standards of the practice of law
Moral turpitude imports an act of baseness, vileness
or depravity in the duties which one person owes to
another or to society in general which is contrary to
the usual accepted and customary rule of right and
duty which a person should follow. The question as
to whether an offense involves moral turpitude is for
the Supreme Court to decide.
Oppressed persons those who are the victims of the
cruelty, unlawful, exaction, domination or excessive
use of authority.
Quantum meruit means "as much as he deserves",
and is used as the basis for determining the lawyer's
professional fees in the absence of a contract, but
recoverable by him from his client
Retainer It may refer to two concepts:
1. Act of a client by which he engages the services
of an attorney to render legal advice or to defend or
prosecute his cause in court; or
2. Fee which a client pays to the attorney.
Retaining lien the right of an attorney to retain the
funds, documents and papers of his client which
have lawfully come into his possession and may
retain the same until his lawful fees and
disbursements have been paid, and may apply such
funds to the satisfaction thereof.
Unlawful conduct It refers to a transgression of any
provision of law which need not be a penal law. The
presence of evil intent on the part of the lawyer is
not essential in order to bring his act or omission
within the terms of this Rule.
De Facto Judge An officer who is not fully vested with
all the powers and duties conceded to judges but,
one who exercises the office of judge under some
color of right. He has the reputation of the officer he
assumes to be, yet he has some defect in his right to
exercise judicial functions at the particular time.
(Luna v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-13744, Nov. 29,
1918)
De Jure Judge One who exercises the office of a
judge as a matter of right, fully vested with all the
powers and functions conceded to him under the
law. (Luna v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-13744, Nov. 29,
1918)
Independent judiciary one free from inappropriate
outside influence
Inhibition An act when a judge personally prevents
himself from taking cognizance of the case. This is
made through a written petition to inhibit which shall
state the grounds for the same. The explanation of
the judge whether or not to take cognizance of the
case must also be in writing
Judicial Ethics It is the branch of moral science which
treats of the right and proper conduct to be observed
by all judges in trying and deciding controversies
brought before them for adjudication which conduct
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
must be demonstrative of impartiality, integrity,
competence, independence and freedom from
improprieties. This freedom from improprieties must
be observed in both the public and private life of a
judge being the visible representation of the law.
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
PRACTICE OF LAW
1. CONCEPT
It is a privilege.
It is a profession, not a business
ESSENTIAL CRITERIA IN DETERMINING
ENGAGEMENT IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW
A. Compensation
- implies that one must have presented himself to be
in the active practice and that his professional
services are available to the public for compensation,
as a source of livelihood or in consideration of his
said services
B. Application of law, legal principle, practice or
procedure which calls for legal knowledge, training and
experience;
C. Habituality
- Implies customary or habitually holding oneself out
to the public as a lawyer. Practice of law is more than
an isolated appearance for it consists in frequent or
customary action; and
D. Attorney-Client relationship
- Engaging in the practice of law presupposes the
existence of a lawyer-client relationship.
Thus, activities like teaching of law or writing law
books or articles which involve no attorney-client
relationship do not qualify a lawyer as being engaged
in the practice of his profession as a lawyer
WHO MAY PRACTICE LAW
Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the
bar, or hereafter admitted as such in
accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who is in
good and regular standing, is entitled to
practice law. [Sec. 1, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court]
CAYETANO V. MONSOD
(G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991)
(201 SCRA 210)
FACTS: Christian Monsod was nominated by the then
President Corazon C. Aquino as Chairman of the
COMELEC. Renato Cayetano opposed the nomination
alleging that Monsod does not possess the constitutional
requirement of having been engaged in the practice of
law for at least ten years. Monsod maintained that he is
a member of the Philippine bar and has practiced the
law in various sectors.
ISSUE: Whether or not Christian Monsod possesses the
constitutional requirement for appointment of having
been engaged in the practice of law.
HELD: YES. Practice of law has been defined as any
activity, in or out of court, which requires the application
of law, legal principle, practice or procedure, and calls
for legal knowledge,
training and experience. "To engage in the practice of
law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of
the profession. Atty. Monsod's past work experiences
as a lawyer-economist,
a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a
lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of
both the rich and the poor - verily satisfy the
constitutional requirement
that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years.
RIGHT OF PARTY TO REPRESENT HIMSELF
A. Natural Person
a. A Layman may or may not
In Civil Cases before the MTC
- Has the right to conduct his litigation in person
with the aid of an agent or a friend appointed by
him (Sec. 34 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court)
In Civil Cases before any other court
- Has the right to conduct his litigation personally
but if he gets someone to aid him, that someone
must be an authorized member of the Bar
- If so, he will be bound by the same rules of
procedure and evidence as those applicable to a
party appearing through counsel; otherwise,
ignorance will be unjustifiably rewarded
- He may not be heard to complain later that he
has been deprived of the right to the assistance
of counsel.
In Criminal Cases
- Involving grave and less grave offenses, an
accused who is a layman must always appear
by counsel
- He cannot conduct his own defense as his right
to counsel may not be waived without violating
his right to due process of law.
- in a locality where a duly licensed member of
the Bar is not available, the judge may appoint a
non-lawyer who is a resident of that province, of
good repute for probity and ability to the
accused in his defense. [Sec. 7, Rule 116 of the
Rules of Court]
b. A Lawyer
In Civil Cases may or may not
- Has the right to conduct his litigation personally
- If so, he will be bound by the same rules of
procedure and evidence as those
applicable to a party appearing through counsel;
otherwise, ignorance will be
unjustifiably rewarded
- He may not be heard to complain later that he
has been deprived of the right to the
assistance of counsel.
In Criminal Cases may or may not
B. Juridical Person
- Must always appear in court by a duly licensed
member of the bar except in MTC where it may be
represented by its agent or officer who need not be a
lawyer. The reason is that, by its very nature, a
juridical person cannot appear except through an
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
agent, and an agent is prohibited from representing
another in court other than in the municipal trial court
unless that agent is a duly licensed member of the
Bar
- Reasons are:
(1) Nature of the privilege and on the confidential
and trust relation between attorney and client;
(2) A corporation cannot perform the conditions
required for membership in the bar, such as the
possession of good moral character and other
special disqualifications, the taking of an oath and
becoming an officer of the court, subject to its
discipline, suspension or removal;
(3) The relation of trust and confidence cannot
arise where the attorney is employed by a
corporation to practice for it, his employer and him
owing, at best, a secondary and divided loyalty to
the clientele of his corporate employer; and
(4) The intervention of the corporation is
destructive of that confidential and trust relation
C. Legal Aid Program
- A senior law student, who is enrolled in a
recognized law schools clinical education program
approved by the Supreme Court may appear before
any court without compensation, to represent indigent
clients, accepted by the Legal Clinic of the law
school. The student shall be under the direct
supervision and control of an IBP member duly
accredited by the law school.
D. Under the Labor code, non-lawyers may appear
before the NLRC or any Labor Arbiter, if
a. they represent themselves, or if
b. They represent their organization or members
thereof (Art 222, PO 442, as amended).
E. Under the Cadastral Act, a non-lawyer can represent
a claimant before the Cadastral Court (Act no. 2259,
Sec. 9).
LIMITATIONS IN THE APPEARANCE OF A LAYMAN
ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER
1. Layman should confine his work to non-adversary
contentions. He should not undertake purely legal work
such as examination of witnesses or presentation of
evidence.
2. Services should not be habitually rendered.
3. Should not charge or collect attorneys fees. (PAFLU
v. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Central, 42 SCRA 302)
PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PRACTICE OF LAW
A. Public Officials who cannot engage in the private
practice of Law in the Philippines:
a. Judges and other officials as employees of the
Supreme Court (Rule 148, Sec. 35, RRC).
b. Officials and employees of the OSG(Ibid.)
c. Government prosecutors (People v. Villanueva, 14
SCRA 109).
d. President, Vice-President, members of the cabinet,
their deputies and assistants (Art. VIII Sec. 15, 1987
Constitution).
e. Members of the Constitutional Commission (Art IX-
A, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution)
f. Ombudsman and his deputies (Art. IX, Sec. 8 (2nd
par), 1987 Constitution)
g. All governors, city and municipal mayors (R.A. No.
7160, Sec. 90).
h. Those prohibited by special law
B. Public Officials With Restrictions In The Practice Of
Law
a. No Senator as member of the House of
Representative may personally appear as counsel
before any court of justice as before the Electoral
Tribunals, as quasi-judicial and other administration
bodies (Art. VI, Sec. 14, 1987 Constitution).
b. Under the Local Government Code (RA 7160, Sec.
91) Sanggunian members may practice their
professions provided that if they are members of the
Bar, they shall not:
1. appear as counsel before any court in any civil
case wherein a local government unit or any
office, agency, or instrumentality of the
government is the adverse party;
2. appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein
an officer or employee of the national or local
government is accused of an offense committed in
relation to his office;
3. collect any fee for their appearance in
administrative proceedings involving the local
government unit of which he is an official;
4. use property and personnel of the government
except when the Sanggunian member concerned
is defending the interest of the government.
Under RA 910, Sec. 1, as amended, a retired justice
or judge receiving pension from the government, cannot
act as counsel in any civil case in which the
Government, or any of its
subdivision or agencies is the adverse party or in a
criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the
Government is accused of an offense in relation to his
office.
5. LAWYERS AUTHORIZE TO REPRESENT THE
GOVERNMENT
Any official or other person appointed or designated in
accordance with law to appear for the Government of the
Philippines:
a. Solicitor General
b. Assistant Solicitor General
c. Solicitors and Trial Attorneys
d. State Prosecutors or special counsel in the DOJ
e. Provincial and city prosecutors and their
assistants
f. Other attorneys in other legal offices of the
government
6. LAWYERS OATH
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
I,__________________, do solemnly swear that I will
maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I
will support its constitution and obey the laws as well as
the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing
of any in court; I will not willingly nor wittingly 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 court as to my clients; and I impose
upon myself this voluntary obligations without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me
God. (Form 28, RRC).
PROCEEDINGS WHERE LAWYERS ARE
PROHIBITED FROM APPEARING
1. Proceedings before the Small Claims Court
No attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a
party at the hearing, unless the attorney is the plaintiff
or defendant (Sec. 17, Rule of Procedure for Small
Claims Cases)
However, if the court determines that a party cannot
properly present his/her claim or defense and needs
assistance, the court may, in its discretion, allow
another individual who is not an attorney to assist
that party upon the latters consent (Sec. 17, Rule of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases).
2. Proceedings before the Katarungang
Pambarangay
During the pre-trial conference under the Rules of
Court, lawyers are prohibited from appearing for the
parties. Parties must appear in person only except
minors or incompetents who may be assisted by their
next of kin who are not lawyers. (Formerly Sec. 9,
P.D. No. 1508; Sec. 415, Local Government Code of
1991, R.A. 7160)
REMEDIES AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE
OF LAW OF NON-LAWYERS
1. Declaratory relief;
2. Petition for Injuction;
3. Contempt of court;
4. Criminal complaint for Estafa against a person who
falsely represented himself to be an attorney to
the damage of a party;
8. DUTIES OF A LAWYER
Rule 138 SEC. 20 of the Rules of Court. Duties of
attorneys. it is the duty of an attorney:
(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey
the laws of the Philippines.
(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts of justice and judicial officers;
(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or
proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and
such defenses only as he believes to be honestly
debatable under the law;
(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the
causes confided to him, such means only as are
consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to
mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice
or false statement of fact or law;
(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every
peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client,
and to accept no compensation in connection with his
client's business except from him or with his
knowledge and approval;
(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to
advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation
of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of
the cause with which he is charged;
(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or
the continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay
any man's cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;
(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to
himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed;
(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all
fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal
opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present
every defense that the law permits, to the end that no
person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due
process of law.
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A LAWYER
1. To society
a) Respect for law and legal processes
b) Efficient and convenient legal services
c) True, honest fair, dignified and objective
information on legal services
d) Participation in the improvement and reforms in
legal system
e) Participation in legal education program
f) Lawyers in Government Service
2. To the legal profession
a) Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(i) Membership and dues
b) Upholding the dignity and integrity of the
profession
c) Courtesy, fairness and candor towards
professional colleagues
d) No assistance in unauthorized practice of law
3. To the courts
a) Candor, fairness and good faith towards the courts
b) Respect for courts and judicial officers
c) Assistance in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice
d) Reliance on merits of his cause and avoidance of
any impropriety which tends to influence or gives the
appearance of influence upon the courts
4. To the clients
a) Availability of service without discrimination
(i) Services regardless of persons status
(ii) Services as counsel de officio
(iii) Valid grounds for refusal
b) Candor, fairness and loyalty to clients
(i) Confidentiality rule
(ii) Privileged communications
(iii) Conflict of interest
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
(iv) Candid and honest advice to clients
(v) Compliance with laws
(vi) Concurrent practice of another profession
c) Clients moneys and properties
(i) Fiduciary relationship
(ii) Co-mingling of funds
(iii) Delivery of funds
(iv) Borrowing or lending
d) Fidelity to clients cause
e) Competence and diligence
(i) Adequate protection
(ii) Negligence
(iii) Collaborating counsel
(iv) Duty to apprise client
f) Representation with zeal within legal bounds
(i) Use of fair and honest means
(ii) Clients fraud
(iii) Procedure in handling the case
g) Attorneys fees
(i) Acceptance fees
(ii) Contingency fee arrangements
(iii) Attorneys liens
(iv) Fees and controversies with clients
(v) Concepts of attorneys fees
(a) Ordinary concept
(b) Extraordinary concept
h) Preservation of clients confidences
(i) Prohibited disclosures and use
(ii) Disclosure, when allowed
i) Withdrawal of services
1. To society
a) Uphold the Constitution, Obey the laws of the land,
Respect for law and legal processes
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND
AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL
PROCESSES.
BAUTISTA V. GONZALES
(A.M. No. 1625, February 12, 1990)
(182 SCRA 161)
FACTS: Atty. Ramon A. Gonzales was suspended for
having violated the provision on Article 1491 of the New
Civil Code which expressly prohibits a lawyer from
acquiring his client's property or interest involved in any
litigation in which he may take part by virtue of his
profession. This is in view of Atty. Gonzales transferred
to himself one-half of the properties of his client which
are the subject of litigation, while the case was still
pending.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Ramon Gonzales
committed the act of misconduct, hence his suspension.
HELD: YES. The Canon of the new Code states that "a
lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal process."
Moreover, Rule 138, Sec. 3 of the Revised Rules of
Court requires every lawyer to take an oath to obey the
laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities therein. Any violation of this oath, constitute
act of misconduct which may result to the suspension or
disbarment of a lawyer by the Supreme Court. Atty.
Gonzales violated the law expressly prohibiting a lawyer
from acquiring his client's property or interest involved in
any litigation in which he may take part by virtue of his
profession.
ZALDIVAR V. GONZALES
(G.R. No. 80578, October 7, 1988)
(166 SCRA 316)
FACTS: Enrique Zaldivar filed a complaint against
respondent Raul M. Gonzales for having issued
allegedly scornful statements to the media in relation to
the proceedings of the former. The Court, in its
Resolution, requires Gonzales to show cause why he
should not be punished for contempt and be subjected to
administrative sanctions for making said public
statements.
ISSUE: Whether or not lawyers are entitled to the same
degree of latitude of freedom of speech towards the
Court.
HELD: Lawyers are not entitled to the same degree of
latitude of freedom of speech towards the Court. While
the Court may allow criticism it has ruled that
intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the
duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct that
subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action. The lawyer's
duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is
essential to the orderly administration of justice.
ROBERTO SORIANO V. ATTY. MANUEL DIZON
(AC 6792, January 25, 2006)
FACTS: In one traffic incident Atty. Manuel Dizon shot
one Soriano, a taxi driver for no justifiable reasons.
Consequently, Atty. Dizon was convicted for frustrated
homicide but was allowed probation, conditioned on
payment of civil liabilities. However, four years after
judgment was rendered, Dizon has not yet fulfilled his
civil obligation. Soriano filed complaint before the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP for Dizons
disbarment. CBD recommended that respondent be
disbarred for having been convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude and for violating Rule. 1.01 of Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP
adopted the recommendation of the CBD and sent their
resolution to the Supreme Court for review.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the crime of frustrated homicide
committed by Atty. Dizon involved moral turpitude.
2. Whether or not Atty. Dizons guilt warrants his
disbarment.
HELD:
1. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the
CBD that the crime of frustrated homicide committed by
Atty. Dizon involved moral turpitude. The court defined
moral turpitude as everything which is done contrary to
justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness,
vileness or depravity in the private and social duties
which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in
general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good
morals. Moral turpitude was shown when Atty. Dizon
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
shot a taxi driver for no justifiable reason. His act
definitely did not constitute self-defense. It was he who
was the aggressor because he first tried to punch
Soriano. The latter was merely defending himself when
he counter-punched Dizon. Dizons violent reaction to a
simple traffic incident indicated his skewed morals.
2. The Supreme Court held that Dizon also violated
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which provides that A lawyer shall uphold the
constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes. Dizon failed to
obey the laws of the land through his illegal possession
of an unlicensed firearm. He failed to respect legal
processes through his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil
liabilities, the
condition for his probation.
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
conduct
Rule 138, Sec. 20 (d) of Rules of Court - Duties of
attorneys. It is the duty of an attorney:
(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the
causes confided to him, such means only as are
consistent with truth and honour, and never seek
to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
artifice or false statement of fact or law
What is unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
conduct?
Unlawful conduct is defined as an act or omission
which is against the law. Dishonesty involves lying or
cheating. (Agpalo)
Immoral or deceitful conduct is that which is
willful, flagrant or shameless and which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable
members of the community. (Aguirre)
Instances of Dishonesty and Deceit which Resulted
to Discipline by the Supreme Court:
1. Misappropriation of clients funds
2. Act of fraudulently concealing dutiable importation or
smuggling
3. Giving false statements under oath in an Information
Sheet submitted in connection with the lawyers
application for the position of Chief of Police
4. Wanton falsehood made in an ex parte petition in
court wherein the lawyer attached affidavit of his
grandfather and which affidavit he notarized knowing
that the supposed affiant is already dead
5. Maneuvering re-conveyance of property in the name
of a lawyer instead of the client in a case involving
sale with pacto de retro
6. Submission or presentation of mutilated copies of
certain documents to court for the purpose of
deceiving and misleading it
7. Falsification of grades in the Bar Examinations
8. Collecting several thousand pesos on the pretense
that counsel would allegedly appeal the complaints
case to the Supreme Court of the United States, and
that it was necessary to him to go to Washington, D.C.
which he did, knowing that the decision could no
longer be appealed because it is already final
9. Introducing someone to buy a piece of land knowing
that it is not for sale
10. Delayed failure to account money collected for the
client
11. Stealing evidence attached to the court records
Cases of Gross Immorality and the Resulting
Consequences
1. Abandonment of wife and cohabiting with another
woman. DISBARRED (Obusan v. Obusan, Jr., Adm.
Case No. 1392, April 2, 1984)
2. A lawyer who had carnal knowledge with a woman
through a promise of marriage which he did not fulfill.
DISBARRED (In re: Disbarment of Armando Puno,
A.C. No. 389, February 28, 1967)
3. Seduction of a woman who is the niece of a married
woman with whom respondent lawyer had an
adulterous relation. DISBARRED (Royong v. Oblena,
A.C. No. 376, April 30, 1963)
4. Lawyer arranging marriage of his son to a woman with
whom the lawyer had illicit relations. DISBARRED
(Mortel v. Aspiras,A.M. No. 145, December 28, 1956)
5. Lawyer inveigling a woman into believing that they
have been married civilly to satisfy his carnal desires.
DISBARRED (Terre v. Terre, A.M. No. 2349, July 3,
1992)
6. Lawyer taking advantage of his position as chairman
of the college of medicine and asked a lady student to
go with him to Manila where he had carnal knowledge
of her under threat that if she refused, she would flunk
in all her subjects. DISBARRED (Delos Reyes v.
Aznar, A.M. No. 1334 November 28, 1989)
7. Bigamy perpetrated by the lawyer. DISQUALIFIED
FROM ADMISSION TO THE BAR (Royong vs.
Oblena, A.C. No. 376, April 30, 1963)
8. Concubinage coupled with failure to support
illegitimate children. SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY
(Laguitan v. Tinio, A.M. No. 3049, December 4, 1989)
9. Maintaining adulterous relationship with a married
woman. SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY (Cordova v.
Cordova, A.M. No. 3249, November 29, 1989)
10. A retired judge who penned a decision 7 months
after he retired, antedating the decision and forcing his
former court staff to include it in the expediente of the
case. DISBARRED (Radjaie v. Alovera, A.C. No. 4748,
August 4, 2000)
11. Forging a Special Power of Attorney. SUSPENDED
FOR 3 YEARS (Rural Bank of Silay, Inc. v. Pilla, A.C.
No. 3637, January 24, 2001)
12. Attempting to engage in an opium deal
SUSPENDED FOR 1 YEAR ( Piatt v. Abordo, 58 Phil.
350, September 1, 1933)
13. Facilitating the travel of a person to the U.S. using
spurious travel documents. DISBARRED (Sebastian v.
Calis, A.C. No. 5118, September 9, 1999)
NUNEZ V. ATTY. RICAFORT
(A.C. No. 5054, May 29, 2002)
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
FACTS: Soledad Nunez authorized Atty. Romulo
Ricafort to sell her parcels of land. After having sold the
lots, Nunez demanded from Atty. Ricafort the proceeds
of the sale but the latter failed to deliver the money. Atty.
Ricafort paid only a partial amount and issued post-
dated checks to cover the balance. Said checks
however, were dishonoured because the account
against which they were drawn was closed.
Consequently, Nunez filed a motion to cite Atty. Ricafort
for contempt for his acts of misconduct and for his acts
unbecoming of a lawyer.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Romulo Ricafort has
committed acts of misconduct in his dealings with
Nunez.
HELD: YES. Rule 1:01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that A lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or
deceitful conduct. In the case at bar, Atty. Ricafort
gravely abused the confidence that his client has given
in him and committed dishonesty when he did not turn
over the proceeds of the sale of her property. He
even closed the account against which the checks for
the payment of unpaid balance were drawn, which
depicts that he never had the intention of paying his
obligation.
FIGUEROA V. BARRANCO JR.
(S.B.C. 519, July 31, 1997)
FACTS: Patricia Figueroa and Simeon Barranco were
town-mates and teen sweethearts. Their intimacy
yielded to a child Simeon. Subsequently, Simeon first
promised he would marry her after he passes the bar
examinations. Their relationship continued and Simeon
allegedly made more than twenty or thirty promises of
marriage. Patricia learned that Simeon married another
woman. Meanwhile, Simeon successfully passed the
1970 bar examinations. But before he could
take his oath, Patricia filed a petition to disqualify
Simeon to take the Lawyers Oath on the ground of
gross immoral conduct.
ISSUE: Whether or not the act of Simeon in engaging in
premarital relations with Patricia and making promises to
marry her constitute gross immoral conduct?
HELD: The SC ruled that the facts do not constitute
gross immoral conduct warranting a permanent
exclusion of Simeon from the legal profession. His
engaging in premarital sexual relations with complainant
and promises to marry suggests a doubtful moral
character on his part but the same does not constitute
grossly immoral conduct. The Court has held that to
justify suspension or disbarment the act complained of
must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly
immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful
as to be reprehensible to a high degree. It is willful,
flagrant, or shameless act, which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of respectable members of
the community.
ESTRADESTRADA V. SB
(G.R. No. 159486-88, November 25, 2003)
(416 SCRA 465)
FACTS: Atty. Alan F. Paguia, as counsel for Estrada,
averred that the respondent justices have violated the
Code of Judicial Conduct by attending the EDSA 2
Rally and by authorizing the assumption of Vice-
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the Presidency in
violation of the 1987 Constitution. Unable to get a
favourable action, Atty. Paguia made his criticisms and
comments using the media. The Court warned Atty.
Paguia to refrain from doing such malicious acts and
conduct himself in the manner accorded to a
professional lawyer.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Paguia committed a
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD: YES. The Supreme Court will not denounce
criticism made by anyone against the Court for, if well
founded, can truly have constructive effects in the task of
the Court, but it will not countenance any wrongdoing
nor allow the erosion of our peoples faith in the judicial
system, let alone, by those who have been privileged by
it to practise law in the Philippines.
RENERIO SAMBAJON, et at. V. ATTY. JOSE A.
SUING
(A.C. No. 7062, September 26, 2006)
FACTS: Renerio Sambajon filed a complaint before the
NLRC for ULP and illegal dismissal against the client of
respondent Atty. Jose A. Suing. The NLRC ordered the
respondents client to pay Sambajon however, on the
basis of the Waiver and Quitclaims purportedly signed a
sworn to by the seven complainants in the ULP and
Illegal Dismissal case before the Labor Arbiter in the
present of respondent, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the
said case insofar as the seven complainants were
concerned. Herein complainants four of the seven who
purportedly executed the Release Waiver and
Quitclaims, denied having signed and sworn to before
the Labor Arbiter the said documents or having received
the considerations. In related move, petitioner also filed
a criminal complaint for Falsification against respondent
lawyer together with its client-employer of herein
complainants. In his Report and Recommendation, the
IBP Commissioner, who conducted an investigation of
the administrative complaint at bar, recommended that
respondent be faulted for negligence and that he be
reprimanded therefor with warning.
ISSUE: whether or not respondent can be disbarred for
his alleged manipulation of four alleged RELEASE
WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM by herein complainants who
subsequently disclaimed the same as bogus and
falsified.
HELD: As an officer of the court, a lawyer is called upon
to assist in the administration of justice. He is an
instrument to advance its cause. Any act on his part that
tends to obstruct,
perverts or impedes the administration of justice
constitutes misconduct. Besides, by respondent's own
information, Labor Arbiter Santos was entertaining
doubts on the true identity of those who executed the
Release Waiver and Quitclaims. That should have
alerted him to especially exercise the diligence of a
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
lawyer to protect his clients' interest. But he was not and
he did not. While the disbarment of respondent is, under
the facts and circumstances attendant to the case, not
reasonable, neither is reprimand as recommended by
the IBP. This Court finds that respondent's suspension
from the practice of law for six months is in order.
Canon 1 Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any
corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any mans cause.
Rule 138 SEC. 20 of the Rules of Court Duties of
attorneys.it is the duty of an attorney:
(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or
the continuance of an action or proceeding, or
delay any man's cause, from any corrupt motive
or interest
Among the unprofessional acts which come within the
prohibition include the lawyers: (Agpalo)
a. Volunteering advice to bring lawsuit, except in rare
cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it
his duty to do so;
b. Hunting up defects in titles or other causes of action
and informing thereof in order to be employed to bring
suit or collect judgment, or to breed litigation by
seeking out those claims for personal injuries or those
having any other grounds of action in order to secure
them as clients;
c. Employing agents or runners for like purposes;
d. Paying reward, directly or indirectly, to those who
bring or influence the bringing of such cases to his
office;
e. Remunerating policemen, court or prison officials,
physicians, hospital attaches or others who may
succeed, under the guise of giving disinterested
friendly advice, in influencing the criminal, the sick and
the injured, the ignorant or others, to seek professional
services;
f. Searching for unknown heirs and soliciting their
employment of him;
g. Initiating a meeting of the members of club and
inducing them to organize and contest legislation under
his guidance;
h. Purchasing notes to collect them by litigation at a
profit;
i. Furnishing credit reports in expectation of possible
employment; and
j. Agreeing with a purchase of future interests to invest
therein in consideration of his services
Purpose of the Prohibition
To prevent ambulance chasing, this refers to solicitation
of almost any kind of legal business by laymen
employed by an attorney for the purpose or by the
attorney himself.
ONG V. ATTY. UNTO
(A.C. No. 2417, February 6, 2002)
FACTS: This is a disbarment case filed by Alex Ong
against Atty. Elpidio D. Unto, for malpractice of law and
conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. It is evident from the
records that he
tried to coerce the complainant to comply with his letter-
demand by threatening to file various charges against
the latter. When the complainant did not heed his
warning, he made good his threat and filed a string of
criminal and administrative cases against the
complainant. They, however, did not have any bearing or
connection to the cause of his client. The records show
that the respondent offered monetary rewards to anyone
who could provide him any information against the
complainant just so he would have leverage in his
actions against the latter.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Untos act constitute act
unbecoming of a lawyer.
HELD: YES. His action is malicious as the cases he
instituted against the complainant did not have any
bearing or connection to the cause of his client, Ms.
Garganian. Clearly, Atty. Unto violated the proscription in
Rule 1.02 which requires that lawyer shall not, for any
corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any mans cause. His behavior is
inexcusable.
Canon 1 Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his
clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it
will admit of a fair settlement.
b) Efficient and convenient legal services
CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL
SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND
CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE
INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE PROFESSION.
Canon 2 Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except
for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or
the oppressed.
Rule 138 Sec. 31 of the Rules of Court A court may
assign an attorney to render professional aid free of
charge to any party in a case, if upon investigation it
appears that the party is destitute and unable to
employ an attorney, and that the services of counsel
are necessary to secure the ends of justice and to
protect the rights of the party. It shall be the duty of
the attorney so assigned to render the required
service, unless he is excused there from by the
court for sufficient cause shown.
Legal aid is not a matter of charity. It is a means for the
correction of social imbalance that may and often do
lead to injustice, for which reason it is a public
responsibility of the Bar. The spirit of public service
should, therefore, underlie all legal aid offices. The same
should be administered to indigent and deserving
members of the community on all cases, matters and
situations in which legal aid may be necessary to
forestall an injustice. (IBP Handbook, Guidelines
Governing the Establishment and Operation of the Legal
Aid Office, Art. 1, Sec. 1)
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
LEDESMA V. CLIMACO
(G.R. No. L-23815, June 28, 1974)
FACTS: Atty. Ledesma was assigned as counsel de
parte for an accused in a case pending in the sala of
Judge Climaco. Atty. Ledesma was appointed Election
Registrar for the Municipality of Cadiz, Negros
Occidental. He commenced discharging his duties, and
filed a motion to withdraw from his position as counsel
de parte. Judge Climaco denied him and also appointed
him as counsel de oficio for the two defendants. Atty.
Ledesma filed a motion to be allowed to withdraw as
counsel de oficio, because the COMELEC requires full
time service which could prevent him from handling
adequately the defense. Judge denied the motion. So
Atty. Ledesma instituted this certiorari proceeding.
ISSUE: Whether or not a member of the bar may
withdraw as counsel de oficio due to appointment as
Election Registrar
HELD: NO. There was no incompatibility between duty
of Atty. Ledesma to defend the accused, and his task as
an election registrar. Atty. Ledesma's withdrawal would
be an act showing his lack of fidelity to the duty required
of the legal profession. He ought to have known that
membership in the bar is burdened with conditions. The
legal profession is dedicated to the ideal of service, and
is not a mere trade. A lawyer may be required to act as
counsel de officio to aid in the performance of the
administration of justice. The fact that such services are
rendered without pay should not diminish the lawyer's
zeal.
The Constitution provides that the accused shall enjoy
the right to be heard by himself and counsel. "Any
person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the
right to remain silent and to counsel..." ---manifest the
indispensable role of a member of the Bar in the defense
of an accused. The right to be assisted by counsel is so
important that it is not enough for the Court to apprise
the accused of his right to an attorney, but is essential
that the court assign on de officio for him if he desires/ is
poor. Thus, Ledesma should exert himself sufficiently, if
not with zeal, if only to erase doubts as to his fitness to
remain a member of the
profession in good standing.
Canon 2 Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the
lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse
to render legal advice to the person concerned if
only to the extent necessary to safeguard the
latters rights.
Canon 14 Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to
accept representation of an indigent client
unless:
a) he is in no position to carry out the work
effectively or competently;
b) he labors under a conflict of interest between
him and the prospective client or between a
present client and the prospective client;
A valid reason to refuse is when the lawyer is not in a
position to carry out the work effectively and
competently. However he shall still render legal advice
(such as those pertaining to preliminary steps a person
can take). But he shall refrain from giving legal advice if
the reason for not accepting the case is A valid reason to
refuse is when the lawyer is not in a position to carry out
the work effectively and competently. However he shall
still render legal advice (such as those pertaining to
preliminary steps a person can take). But he shall refrain
from giving legal advice if the reason for not accepting
the case is that there involves a conflict of interest
(between him and a prospective client or between a
present client and a prospective client). In the case
mentioned above, rendering legal advice to the
prospective client will establish an attorney-client
relationship between them and this will constitute a
violation of the rule prohibiting a lawyer from
representing conflicting interests. (Agpalo)
Canon 2 Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit
to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business.
Reason for Prohibition: (Agpalo)
The general rule is that a lawyer cannot advertise his
talent as a shopkeeper advertises his wares. A lawyer
is a member of an honourable profession whose
primary purpose is to render public service and help
secure justice and in which remuneration is a mere
incident. Such professional consideration makes a
lawyer radically different from a shopkeeper, a trader, a
manufacturer or a money lender whose primordial aim
is private gain and whose principal tool, to sell his
product or service, is advertising. To allow a lawyer to
advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize the
practice of law, lower the profession in public
confidence and lessen its ability to render efficiently
that high character of service to which every member
of the bar is called.
Advertising inescapably involves self-praise or puffing
Advertising may lead to assertion of fraudulent claims,
corruption of public officials, and attacks on marital
stability
It may encourage lawyers to engage in overreaching,
overcharging, under representation and
misrepresentation
It will increase lawsuits and result in needless litigations
and inciting to strife otherwise peaceful citizens
Exceptions to this Rule: (Agpalo)
- publication in reputable law list with brief biographical
and other informative data which may include name,
associates, address, phone numbers, branches of law
practiced, birthday, day admitted to the bar, schools
and dates attended, degrees and distinctions,
authorships, teaching positions, associations, legal
fraternities and societies, references and regularly
represented clients must be published for that purpose;
- an ordinary, simple professional card;
- publication of simple announcement of opening of law
firm, change of firm;
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
- telephone directory (but not under designation of
special branch of law);
- if acting as an associate (specializing in a branch of
law), may publish a brief and dignified announcement
to lawyers (law list, law journal);
- working in a public office (which can be filled only by a
lawyer);
- full time position as corporate counsel;
- if in media, those acts incidental to his practice (i.e., not
his own initiative);
- write articles for publication giving information upon the
law (and not individual rights or advising through
column/ TV broadcast, lest such be considered indirect
advertising);
- If entering into other businesses (which are not
inconsistent with lawyers duties) then it is advisable
that they be entirely separate and apart such that a
layman could distinguish between the two functions.
Canon 2 Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates
lower than those customarily prescribed unless the
circumstances so warrant.
What the rule prohibits is the competition in the
matter of charging professional fees for the purposed of
attracting clients in favor of the lawyer who offers lower
rates. The rule does not prohibit a lawyer from charging
a reduced fee or none at all to an indigent or to a person
who would have difficulty paying the fee usually charged
for such services. (Agpalo)
c) True, honest fair, dignified and objective
information on legal services
CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS
LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE,
HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE
INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Section 27 of Rule 138 of Rules of Court - The
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.
IN RE LUIS B. TAGORDA
(53 Phil 37, March 23, 1929)
FACTS: Luis B. Tagorda, a practising attorney and a
member of the provincial board of Isabela, admits that
previous to the last general elections he made use of a
card written in Spanish and Ilocano that states what he
can do for the people as a lawyer and as a notary public.
Also, he wrote a letter to a lieutenant of his barrio asking
him to inform the people in any town meetings that he
will still exercise his profession as a lawyer and notary
public despite his election as a Board member, even
adding that he will only charge three pesos for
registration of their land titles.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tagorda is guilty of malpractice
for soliciting employment.
HELD: Tagorda is guilty of malpractice, for soliciting
employment when he used card that states his
capabilities as a lawyer and a notary public and writing a
letter informing the people that he still exercises his
profession despite election as a board member. This
violates Canon 3 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which states: "A lawyer in making known
his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair,
dignified and objective information or statements of
facts." and
Section 27 of Rule 138 which states: "The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice." Tagorda stands convicted of having
solicited cases in defiance of the law and those canons.
KHAN V. SIMBILIO,
(409 SCRA 229, 2003)
FACTS: Atty. Simbillo advertised his services in a
Philippine Daily Inquirer ad which read Annulment of
Marriage Specialist 532-433/521-2667. Atty. Ismael
Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court
Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office
filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Simbillo
for improper advertising and solicitation in
violation of Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is guilty of
violating Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD: YES. The Court held that the solicitation of legal
business is not altogether proscribed.
However, for solicitation to be proper, it must be
compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. The
use of simple signs stating the name or names of the
lawyers, the office, and the residence address and fields
of practice, as well as advertisements in legal periodicals
bearing the same brief data and the use of calling cards
are permissible. The publication in reputable law lists, in
a manner consistent with the standards of conduct
imposed by the canon, of brief biographical and
informative data is likewise allowed.
Canon 3 Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no
false, misleading or assumed name shall be used.
The continued use of the name of a deceased
partner is permissible provided that the firm
indicates in all its communications that said partner
is deceased.
DACANAY V BAKER & MCKENZIE
(A.M. 2131, May 10, 1985)
Filipino lawyers cannot practice law under the name of a
foreign law firm, as the latter cannot practice law in the
Philippines and the use of the foreign law firm is
unethical.
FACTS: Dacanay seeks to enjoin Torres and nine other
lawyers from practicing law under Baker & McKenzie (a
law firm organized in Illinois, USA). Torres used the
letterhead of Baker & McKenzie on a letter to Rosie
Clurman that asks her to release 87 shares of Cathay
Products Intl., Inc. to Gabriel (a client). Dacanay denied
any liability of Clurman and asked whether she is being
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
represented by Baker & McKenzie as counsel as well as
the purpose of the letterhead. No reply coming from
Clurman thus this administrative case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the lawyers should be enjoined
from practicing law under Baker & McKenzie.
HELD: Yes, they should be enjoined. Baker & McKenzie
is an alien law firm and cannot practice law in the
country. Using the name constitutes representation that
being associated with the firm they could render legal
services of the highest quality to multinational business
enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and
investments. This is unethical because Baker &
McKenzie is not authorized to practice in the Philippines.
Canon 3 Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public
office, he shall withdraw from the firm and his name
shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law
allows him to practice law concurrently.
Rule 138 Sec. 35 of the Rules of Court - No judge or
other official or employee of the superior courts or
of the Office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in
private practice as a member of the bar or give
professional advice to clients.
No Senator or member of the House of
Representative may personally appear before any court
of justice or before the Electoral Tribunal, or quasi-
judicial and other administrative bodies xxx (1987
Philippine Constitution Article VI, Sec 14)
The President, Vice-President, the members of the
cabinet and assistants shall not, unless otherwise
provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or
employment during their tenure. They shall not, during
said tenure, directly or indirectly practice any profession
xxx (1987 Philippine Constitution Article VII, Sec 13)
No member of a Constitutional Commission shall,
during his tenure, hold any other office or employment.
Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession
xxx (1987 Philippine Constitution Article IX, Sec 2)
SAMONTE V. GATDULA
(A.M. No. P-99-1292, February 26, 1999)
FACTS: Julieta Borromeo Samonte charged Rolando R.
Gatdula with grave misconduct consisting in the alleged
engaging in the private practice of law which is in conflict
with his official functions as Branch Clerk of Court.
Samonte represents her sister as plaintiff in a civil case
for ejectment. Contrary to their expectation that
execution will proceed, they instead received a
temporary restraining order. Samonte contends that the
order was hasty and irregular as she was never notified
of the application for preliminary injunction. Gatdula
blamed Samontes lawyer for writing the address in the
complaint for ejectment and told her that if she wanted
the execution to proceed, she should change her lawyer
and retain his law office, at the same time giving his
calling card with the name Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon,
Dimailig and Celera.
ISSUE: Whether or not Gatdula is guilty of infraction
HELD: Yes. The inclusion/retention of his name in the
professional card constitutes an act of solicitation which
violates Section 7, subpar. (b)(2) of RA 6713 (Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees) which declares it unlawful for a public official
or employees to, among others: (2) Engage in the
private practice of their profession unless authorized by
the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will
not conflict with official functions. Respondent is
reprimanded for engaging in the private practice of law.
He is further ordered to cause the exclusion of his name
in the firm name of any office engaged in the private
practice of law.
Canon 3 Rule 3.04 - A lawyer shall not pay or give
anything of value to representatives of the mass
media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to
attract legal business.
Media publicity, as a normal by-product of efficient
legal service, is not improper. What is improper is for a
lawyer to resort to adroit propaganda to secure media
publicity for the purpose of attracting legal business. The
purpose of the rule is to prevent some lawyers from
gaining an unfair advantage over others through the use
of gimmickry, press agentry, or
NOTARIAL LAW
SANTIAGO V. RAFANAN
(A.C. No. 6252, October 05, 2004)
FACTS: This is a disbarment case against Atty. Edison
Rafanan filed by Jonar Santiago, an employee of the
Bureau of Jail Management & Penology (BJMP). It
charged Atty. Rafanan
with violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice, among
others. Complainant alleged, among others, that
Respondent in notarizing several documents on different
dates failed and/or
refused to: a) make the proper notation regarding the
cedula or community tax certificate of the affiants; b)
enter the details of the notarized documents in the
notarial register; and c) make and execute the
certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in the
documents he had notarized, all in violation of the
notarial provisions of the Revised Administrative Code.
Respondent claimed that he believed that the non-
notation of their Residence Certificates in the Affidavits
and the Counter-affidavits was allowed. He opined that
the notation of residence certificates applied only to
documents acknowledged by a notary public and was
not mandatory for affidavits related to cases pending
before courts and other government offices. He pointed
out that in the latter, the affidavits, which were sworn to
before government prosecutors, did not have to indicate
the residence certificates of the affiants.
ISSUE: Did Atty. Rafanan violate the Notarial Law?
HELD: Yes, the Court held that Atty. Rafanan violated
the Notarial Law.
The Court in its Decision stated:
The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and
duties of notaries public. They are required to certify that
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
the party to every document acknowledged before them
has presented
the proper residence certificate (or exemption from the
residence tax); and to enter its number, place of issue
and date as part of such certification. They are also
required to maintain and keep a notarial register; to enter
therein all instruments notarized by them; and to give to
each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged
before [them] a number corresponding to the one in
[their] register [and to state therein] the page or pages of
[their] register, on which the same is recorded. Failure
to perform these duties would result in the revocation of
their commission as notaries public.
These formalities are mandatory and cannot be
simply neglected, considering the degree of importance
and evidentiary weight attached to notarized documents.
Notaries public entering into their commissions are
presumed to be aware of these elementary
requirements.
In Vda. De Rosales v. Ramos, the Court explained
the value and meaning of notarization as follows:
The importance attached to the act of notarization
cannot be overemphasized. Notarization is not an
empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with
substantive public interest, such that only those who are
qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.
Notarization converts a private document into a public
document thus making that document admissible in
evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A
notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit
upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the
public at large must be able to rely upon the
acknowledgment executed by a notary public and
appended to a private instrument.
d) Participation in the improvement and reforms in
legal system
CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY
INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW
REFORM AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
While the lawyers task in contributing to the
improvement of the legal system is not a matter of strict
duty, it is a duty nevertheless that flows from the
lawyers sense of public responsibility. The improvement
of the legal system cannot, however, be done by
dreaming in a vacuum. The lawyer must recognize that
the law is a part of vast social network and whether he
likes it or not, he has to interact with the rest of society.
There is thus the need on the part of the lawyer to
transcend the narrow limits of technical law. Intricately
woven is the law with the social fabric that the legal
profession cannot afford to confine itself to narrowly
technical legal questions. A lawyer must broaden out
and continue to grow in knowledge and competence in
order to be able to make the law socially responsive.
(Agpalo)
e) Participation in legal education program
CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF
LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS; PARTICIPATE IN
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS,
SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH
STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN
THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS
AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING INFORMATION
REGARDING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
THREE-FOLD OBLIGATION OF A LAWYER
1. First, he owes it to himself to continue improving his
knowledge of the laws;
2. Second, he owes it to his profession to take an active
interest in the maintenance of high standards of high
education.
3. Third, he owes it to the law public to make the law a
part of their social consciousness.
BAR MATTER 850: MANDATORY CONTINUING
LEGAL EDUCATION (MCLE) (Adopting the Rules on
the Continuing Legal Education for Members of the
Integrated Bar of the
Philippines) August 8, 2000
Purpose: 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.
Requirements of Completion of MCLE
Members of the IBP, unless exempted under Rule 7,
shall complete every three (3) years at least 36 hours of
continuing legal education activities. The 36 hours shall
be divided as follows:
a. 6 hours legal Ethics
b. 4 hours trial and pretrial skills
c. 5 hours alternative dispute resolution
d. 9 hours updates on substantive and procedural
laws and jurisprudence
e. 4 hours writing and oral advocacy
f. 2 hours international law and international
conventions
g. 6 hours such other subjects as may be
prescribed by the Committee on MCLE
Parties Exempted from the MCLE
1. The President, Vice-President, and the Secretaries
and Undersecretaries of executive;
2. Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives;
3. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the SC,
incumbent and retired justices of the judiciary,
incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council
and incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine
Judicial Academy Program of continuing legal
education;
4. The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and
Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Justice;
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
5. The Solicitor-General and the Assistant Solicitor-
General;
6. The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and
Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
7. The Chairman and Members of the Constitutional
Commissions;
8. The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman,
the Deputy Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor of
the Office of the Ombudsman;
9. Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-
judicial functions;
10. Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of
law who have teaching experience for at least 10 years
in accredited law schools;
11. The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of
the Corps of Professional Lecturers of the Philippine
Judicial Academy; and
12. Governors and Mayors
Other Exempted Parties
1. Those who are not in law practice, private or public
2. Those who have retired from law practice with the
approval of the IBP Board of Governors
f) Lawyers in Government Service
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO
LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN THE
DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS.
COLLANTES V. ATTY. RENOMERON
(A.C. No. 3056, August 16, 1991)
FACTS: This complaint for disbarment is related to the
administrative case which complainant Attorney
Fernando T. Collantes, house counsel for V & G Better
Homes Subdivision, Inc. (V & G for short), filed against
Attorney Vicente C. Renomeron, Register of Deeds of
Tacloban City, for the latter's irregular actuations with
regard to the application of V & G for registration of 163
pro forma Deeds of Absolute Sale with Assignment of
lots in its subdivision. The respondent was
found guilty in the investigation conducted in its agency
hence, the petitioner filed for disbarment against
respondent.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent register of deeds, as a
lawyer, may also be disciplined by for his malfeasances
as a public official.
HELD: Yes. The lawyer's oath (Rule 138, Section 17,
Rules of Court; People vs. De Luna, 102 Phil. 968),
imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for
money or malice. The lawyer's oath is a source of his
obligations and its violation is a ground for his
suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action. The
Code of Professional Responsibility applies to
lawyers in government service in the discharge of their
official tasks. Just as the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials requires public officials and
employees to process documents and papers
expeditiously and prohibits them from directly or
indirectly having a financial or material interest in any
transaction requiring the approval of their office, and
likewise bars them from soliciting gifts or anything of
monetary value in the course of any transaction which
may be affected by the functions of their office.
Canon 6 Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer
engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but
to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts
or the concealment of witnesses capable of
establishing the innocence of the accused is highly
reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.
PEOPLE V. PINEDA
(20 SCRA 748)
FACTS: Teofilo Mendoza and Valeriana Bontilao de
Mendoza and their 3 children were killed by
respondents. The respondent Judge directed the City
Fiscal to unify all the five criminal cases, and to file
single information and drop the other four cases. The
City Fiscal sought reconsideration thereof. The
respondent Judge denied the motion to reconsider.
ISSUE: May a City Fiscal be compelled to file a single
information in this case.
HELD: NO. The benefit of the doubt belongs to the
prosecuting attorney. The prosecuting attorney is under
no compulsion to file a particular criminal information
where he is not convinced that he has evidence to prop
up the averments thereof, or that the evidence at hand
points to a different conclusion.
Canon 6 Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government
service shall not use his public position to promote
or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter
to interfere with his public duties.
ALI V. BUBONG
(A.C. No. 4018, March 8, 2005)
FACTS: It appears that this disbarment proceeding is an
off-shoot of the administrative case earlier filed by
complainant Omar P. Ali against respondent Atty. Musib
Bubong. In said case, which was initially investigated by
the Land Registration Authority (LRA), complainant
charged respondent with illegal exaction; indiscriminate
issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title
and manipulating the criminal complaint filed against
Hadji Serad Bauduli Datu and others for violation of the
Anti-Squatting Law. It appears from the records that the
Baudali Datus are relatives of respondent.
ISSUE: Did atty. Bubong violate Canon 6 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
HELD: YES. In the case at bar, respondents grave
misconduct, as established by the Office of the President
and subsequently affirmed by this Court, deals with his
qualification as a lawyer.
By taking advantage of his office as the Register of
Deeds of Marawi City and employing his knowledge of
the rules governing land registration for the benefit of his
relatives, respondent had clearly demonstrated his
unfitness not only to perform the functions of a civil
servant but also to retain his membership in the bar.
Rule 6.02 requires that a lawyer in the government
service shall not use his public position to promote or
advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to
interfere with his public duties.
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
Respondents conduct manifestly undermined the
peoples confidence in the public office he used to
occupy and cast doubt on the integrity of the legal
profession. The ill-conceived
use of his knowledge of the intricacies of the law calls for
nothing less than the withdrawal of his privilege to
practice law.
Canon 6 Rule 6.03 - 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.
PNB V. ATTY. CEDO
(A.C. No. 3701, March 28, 1995)
FACTS: PNB filed a complaint against Atty. Cedo for
violation of Rule 6.03 that states: A lawyer shall not, after
leaving Government Service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter which he had
intervened within said service. Cedo was the former
Asst. Vice-President of the Asset management Group of
PNB. During Cedos stint with PNB, he
became involved in 2 transactions: 1.) sale of steel
sheets to Ms. Ong; and 2.) Intervened in the handling of
a loan of spouses Almeda. When a civil action arose
because of #1, Cedo, after leaving the bank appeared as
one of the counsel of Ms. Ong. Also, when #2 was
involved in a civil action, the Almedas were represented
by the law firm Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates of
which Cedo was a Senior Partner. Cedo claims that he
did not participate in the litigation of
Ms. Ongs case. He also claims that even if it was his
law firm handling the Almeda case, the case was being
handled by Atty. Ferrer.
ISSUE: Whether or not violated Rule 6.03.
HELD: YES. In the complexity of what is said in the
course of dealings between the atty. and the client,
inquiry of the nature suggested would lead to the
revelation, in advance of the trial, of other matters that
might only further prejudice the complainant cause.
Whatever may be said as to w/n the atty. utilized against
his former client information given to him in a
professional capacity, the mere fact that their previous
relationship should have precluded him from appearing
as counsel for the other side.
It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests,
except by express consent of all the parties concerned
after the disclosure of facts. A lawyer represents
conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his
duty to contend for that which duty to another client
requires him to oppose.
OLAZO V. TINGA
(A.M. No. 10-5-7-SC, December 7, 2010)
FACTS: The complainant Jovito Olazo filed a sales
application covering a parcel of land in Taguig. The land
was previously part of Fort Andres Bonifacio that was
segregated and declared open for disposition.
The Charge: Violation of Rule 6.03 The second charge
involves a parcel of land within the proclaimed areas
belonging to Manuel Olazo, the complainants brother.
The complainant alleged that the respondent persuaded
Miguel Olazo to direct Manuel to convey his rights over
the land to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. In addition, the
complainant alleged that the respondent met with
Manuel for the purpose of nullifying the conveyance of
rights over the land to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. The
complainant claimed that the respondent wanted the
rights over the land transferred to one Rolando Olazo,
the Barangay Chairman of Hagonoy, Taguig. The
respondent in this regard executed an "Assurance"
where he stated that he was the lawyer of Ramon Lee
and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.
ISSUE: Whether the respondents actions constitute a
breach of the standard ethical conduct - when he was no
longer a public official, but a private lawyer who
represented a client before the office he was previously
connected with.
HELD: R.A. No. 6713 and Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which impose certain
restrictions on government lawyers to engage in private
practice after their separation from the service.
As a rule, government lawyers are not allowed to
engage in the private practice of their profession during
their incumbency. By way of exception, a government
lawyer can engage in the practice of his or her
profession under the following conditions: first, the
private practice is authorized by the Constitution or by
the law; and second, the practice will not conflict or tend
to conflict with his or her official functions. The last
paragraph of Section 7 provides an exception to the
exception. In case of lawyers separated from the
government service who are covered under
subparagraph (b) (2) of Section 7 of R.A. No. 6713, a
one-year prohibition is imposed to practice law in
connection with any matter before the office he used to
be with.
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
echoes this restriction and prohibits lawyers, after
leaving the government service, to accept engagement
or employment in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened
while in the said service. The keyword in Rule 6.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility is the term
intervene which we previously interpreted to include an
act of a person who has the power to influence the
proceedings. Otherwise stated, to fall within the ambit of
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
respondent must have accepted engagement or
employment in a matter which, by virtue of his public
office, he had previously exercised power to influence
the outcome of the proceedings.
As the records show, no evidence exists showing
that the respondent previously interfered with the sales
application covering Manuels land when the former was
still a member of the Committee on Awards. The
complainant, too, failed to sufficiently establish that the
respondent was engaged in the practice of law. At face
value, the legal service rendered by
the respondent was limited only in the preparation of a
single document.
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
(PCGG) V. SANDIGANBAYAN
(G.R. Nos. 151809-12, April 12, 2005)
FACTS: In herein case, PCGG questions the ethical
propriety of a former Solicitor General, in the person of
Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza, who now stands as the private
lawyer of the Lucio Tan group who was benefitted in the
liquidation proceeding of GENBANK which was declared
insolvent. PCGG filed motions to disqualify Atty.
Mendoza as counsel for respondents Tan, et
al. with the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan in
Civil and counsel to Central Bank, actively intervened
in the liquidation of GENBANK, which was subsequently
acquired by respondents Tan, et al. and became Allied
Banking Corporation. The motions to disqualify invoked
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Rule 6.03 prohibits former government lawyers from
accepting engagement or employment in connection
with any matter in which he had intervened while in said
service.
ISSUE: Whether or not Mendoza violated Rule 6.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: The Court ruled in the negative reasoning that
the advice given by respondent Mendoza on the
procedure to liquidate GENBANK is not the matter
contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. It grounded its determination on ABA
Formal Opinion No. 342 which clearly stresses that the
drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency
procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract
principles of law are acts which do not fall within the
scope of the term matter in Rule 6.03 and therefore
cannot be a ground for disqualification.
Moreover, it explained that the term intervention in
Rule 6.03 cannot be insubstantial and insignificant.
Given that the 1969 Code restricted the latitude of the
term intervention, hence, in DR 9-101(b), the prohibition
extended only to a matter in which the lawyer, while in
the government service, had substantial responsibility.
The 1983 Model Rules further
constricted the reach of the rule. MR 1.11(a) provides
that a lawyer shall not represent a private client in
connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated
personally and substantially as a public officer or
employee.
2. To the legal profession
a) Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(i) Membership and dues
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES
UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE
LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
IN RE 1989 ELECTIONS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR
FACTS: The oath-taking of the newly elected officers of
the 1989 election of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) was suspended by the Supreme Court due to the
widespread reports about the intensive electioneering
and overspending by the candidates. Among the
allegations were the use of government planes, and the
officious intervention of certain public officials to
influence the voting, all of which were done in violation of
the IBP By-Laws. There was also the billeting of out-of-
town delegates in plush hotels where they were
reportedly wined and dined continuously, womanized,
and subjected to endless haggling over the price of their
votes
for the national positions in the Integrated Bar.
ISSUE: Whether or not the elected officers conducted
their campaign preparatory to the elections in violation of
the IBP By-laws and made a travesty of the idea of a
strictly nonpolitical
HELD: The candidates and many of the participants in
that election not only violated the By- Laws of the IBP
but also the ethics of the legal profession which imposes
on all lawyers, as a corollary of their obligation to obey
and uphold the constitution and the laws, duty to
promote respect for law and legal processes, abstain
from activities aimed at defiance of law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.
b) Upholding the dignity and integrity of the
profession
Canon 7 Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for
knowingly making a false statement or suppressing
a material fact in connection with his application for
admission to the bar.
LEDA V. TABANG
(A.C. No. 2505, February 21, 1992)
FACTS: Evangeline Leda challenges Atty. Trebonian
Tabangs good moral character. It appears that the two
contracted marriage under as one of the exceptional
character under Article 76 of the Civil Code. The parties
agreed to keep their marriage a secret until Tabang had
finished his law studies and had taken the Bar
examinations. After Tabangs law studies and bar
examinations, Leda blocked his oath-taking claiming that
Tabang had acted fraudulently when he filled out his
application declaring he was single and is thus unworthy
to take the lawyers Oath for lack of good moral
character.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Trebonian Tabang violated
Rule 7.01 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD: YES. The Court held that Atty. Tabangs
declaration in his application for Admission to the
1981Bar Examinations that he was "single" was a gross
misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad
faith, for which he should be made answerable. Rule
7.01, Canon 7, Chapter II of the Code of Professional
Responsibility explicitly provides: "A lawyer shall be
answerable for knowingly making a false statement or
suppression of a material fact in connection with his
application for admission to the bar." That false
statement, if it had been known, would have disqualified
him outright from taking the Bar Examinations as it
indubitably exhibits lack of good moral character.
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
Canon 7 Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the
application for admission to the bar of any person
known by him to be unqualified in respect to
character, education, or other relevant attribute.
A lawyer should not readily execute an affidavit of
good moral character in favor of an applicant who has
not live up to the standard set by law. He should
volunteer information or cooperate in any investigation
concerning alleged anomaly in the bar examination. This
is to help guard the profession from candidates who are
unfit or unqualified. He should expose without fear or
favor before the SC corrupt or dishonest conduct in the
profession and should not hesitate to accept
professional employment against a lawyer who has
wronged his client. (Agpalo)
Canon 7 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.
Gross immorality reflective of unfitness to practice
A grossly immoral act is one that is as corrupt and
false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or
disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
TAN V. SABANDAL
(B.M. No. 44, February 24, 1992)
FACTS: Sabandal passed the 1987 Bar Examination.
He was not allowed to take his oath by the Supreme
Court, in view of the finding by the latter of that he is
guilty of unauthorized practice of law. In his application
for admission, Sabandal claimed that there is no pending
case against him. It was later found out that he has a
pending civil case in his court for cancellation/reversion
proceedings when the same was still working as
Investigator in the Bureau of Lands, wherein he was able
to secure a free patent and later a Certificate of Title
over a swampland, which was later mortgaged to a bank
and was foreclosed, although, the case was amicably
settled.
ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent can still be admitted
to the Practice of Law?
HELD: No. Time and again, it has been held that the
practice of law is not a matter of right but is a privilege
bestowed upon those who are not only leaned in the law
but also those who
possess good moral character. The acts of the
respondent when he was still working with the Bureau of
Land is a manifestation of gross dishonesty while in the
public service which cannot be erased by the dismissal
of the case. His failure to reveal the pendency of the said
case in his petitions reveals his lack of candor and
truthfulness. The term good moral character admits
broad definitions, including even common dishonesty.
c) Courtesy, fairness and candor towards
professional colleagues
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF
WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR
TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND
SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST
OPPOSING COUNSEL.
JAVIER V. CORNEJO
(A.C. No. 778, August 14, 1936)
FACTS: Atty. Javier was the lawyer of Severina Teodoro
in a civil case where Severina won. The monetary award
was delivered by the opposing party to Javier as
Severinas lawyer. Javier however failed to deliver said
amount to her. Subsequently, Severina hired the
services of another lawyer, Atty. Cornejo who sent a
demand letter to Javier. Javeir failed to pay yet again so
Atty. Cornejo assisted Severina in filing an administrative
complaint against Javier. The administrative complaint
against Javier was eventually dismissed. After said
dismissal, Javier filed an administrative case against
Cornejo accusing the latter of threatening him and
instigating Severina to file an administrative case against
him.
ISSUE: Whether or not the administrative complaint of
Atty. Javier has merit.
HELD: No. The language used in the demand letter is
not threatening. It was an honest effort on the part of
Cornejo to serve the interest of his client. The lawyer
owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warm
zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and
exertion of his utmost learning and ability, to the end
that nothing be taken or be withheld from him, save by
the rules of law, legally applied. Cornejo could not have
instigated Severina to file the administrative complaint.
Severina already knew of what remedy to seek against
Javier if he fails to deliver whats due her even before
she hired Cornejo. The Supreme Court also stated:
mutual bickering and unjustifiable recrimination,
between brother attorneys detract from the dignity of the
legal profession and will not receive any sympathy from
this court.
Canon 8 Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his
professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
The fact that one of the lawyers conducts
him/herself improperly does not relieve the other from
professional obligation in his relation with him/her.
(Agpalo)
CRUZ V. ATTY. CABRERA
(AC No. 5737, October 25, 2004)
FACTS: An administrative complaint filed by Ferdinand
A. Cruz charges respondent Atty. Stanley Cabrera with
misconduct in violation of the code of Professional
Responsibility. The complainant, a fourth year law
student, appears in court in his own behalf as he
instituted a case against his neighbour who is
represented by the respondent as counsel. During a
hearing, the respondent engulfed with anger in a raising
voice to the complainant saying appear ka ng appear,
pumasa ka munsa, wherein the manner, substance and
the tone of voice and how the words were uttered were
totally with the intention to annoy, vex and humiliate,
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
malign, ridicule, incriminate and discredit complainant
before the public. The respondent uttered remarks that
the complainant finds arrogant and misconduct in the
performance of his duties as a lawyer. The complaint
was referred to the IBP commissioner who
recommended suspension of respondent in the practice
of law which was annulled by a resolution of the IBP
Board recommending dismissal of the case for lack of
merit.
ISSUE: Whether or not the manner of respondent may
constitute misconduct?
HELD: NO. The Court of Appeals has opted to resolve
the case in the interest of justice and speedy disposition
of cases. The Court held that respondents outburst of
Appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna does not
amount to violation of Rule 8.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The court ruled that
although the outburst of the respondent is uncalled for, it
is not to such a magnitude as to warrant his suspension
in the practice of his profession. The court thereby
dismissed the case due to lack of merit.
Canon 8 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.
A lawyer should not steal the other lawyers client
nor induce the latter to retain him by promise of better
service, good result or reduced fees for his services.
Neither should he disparage another, make comparisons
or publicize his talent as a means to further his law
practice. (Agpalo)
He may accept employment to handle a matter
previously handled by another lawyer, provided that the
other lawyer has been given notice of termination of
service. Without such notice, he shall only appear once
he has obtained conformity or has, at the very least,
given sufficient notice of contemplated substitution. A
lawyers appearance in the case without notice to the
first lawyer amounts to an improper encroachment upon
the professional employment of the original counsel.
A lawyer should not, in the absence of the adverse
partys counsel, interview the adverse party and question
him as to the facts of the case even if the adverse party
was willing to do so. Neither should he sanction the
attempt of his client to settle a litigated matter with the
adverse party without the consent nor is knowledge of
the latter counsel. (cf. Canon 9) (Agpalo)
A clients proffer of assistance of additional counsel
should not be regarded as evidence of want of
confidence but the matter should be left to the
determination of the client. The 2nd lawyer should
communicate with the 1st before making an appearance.
Should the 1st lawyer object, he should decline
association but if the 1st lawyer is relieved, he may
come into the case. (Agpalo)
When there is conflict of opinions between two
lawyers jointly associated in a case, the client should
decide. The decision should be accepted unless the
nature of the difference makes it impracticable for the
lawyer whose judgment has been overruled to cooperate
effectively. In this event, it is his/her duty to ask client to
relieve him/her. (Agpalo)
REYES V. CHIONG
(A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003)
FACTS: Atty. Ramon Reyes is the counsel for Xu. Atty.
Victoriano Chiong, Jr. is the counsel for Pan. Xu went
into a business venture with Pan. Pan was supposed to
set up a Cebu-based fish ball, tempura and seafood
products factory. He did not establish it, and so Xu
asked that his money be returned. Xu then filed a case
of estafa against Pan. Prosecutor Salanga then issued a
subpoena against Pan. Atty. Chiong then filed a motion
to quash, but he also filed a civil complaint for the
collection of a sum of money and damages against Xu
and Atty. Reyes. Atty. Reyes was allegedly impleaded
because he allegedly connived with Xu in filing the
estafa case which was baseless. IBP recommended that
Chiong be suspended for 2 years.
ISSUE: Whether or not Chiong should be suspended.
Held: YES. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall conduct
himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel. If Chiong believed that
the two had conspired to act illegally, he could have
instituted disbarment proceedings. As a lawyer, Chiong
should have advised his client of the availability of these
remedies. Thus the filing of the cases had no
justification. Lawyers should treat their opposing
counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and
civility. Any undue ill feeling between clients should not
influence counsels in their conduct and demeanor
toward each other
d) No assistance in unauthorized practice of law
CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED
PRACTICE OF LAW.
Canon 9 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.
Purpose of the Rule
To protect the public, the court, the client and the
bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those
unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the
disciplinary control of the court.
IN RE FELIPE DEL ROSARIO
(52 Phil 399, 1928)
FACTS: Felipe Del Rosario was a candidate in the bar
examination who failed twice. Subsequently, he was
authorized the filing of a motion for the revision of his
papers for 1925 based on an alleged mistake in the
computation of his grades. The court, acting in good
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
faith, granted this motion, and admitted Felipe Del
Rosario to the bar. Thereafter, it was found out that he
has pending criminal case. He however was acquitted. It
is recommended by the city fiscal that Felipe del Rosario
be ordered to surrender his certificate of attorney and
that he be forever prohibited from taking the bar
examination.
ISSUE: Whether or not Felipe Del Rosario shall
surrender his certificate of attorney.
HELD: YES. The acquittal of Felipe Del Rosario upon
the criminal charge is not a bar to these proceedings. It
is asking a great deal of the members of the court to
have them believe that Felipe del Rosario was totally
unaware of the illegal machinations culminating in the
falsification of public documents, of which he was the
sole beneficiary. To admit Felipe Del Rosario again to
the bar examination would be tantamount to a
declaration of professional purity which we are totally
unable to pronounce. The practice of the law is not an
absolute right to be granted everyone who demands it,
but is a privilege to be extended or withheld in the
exercise of a sound discretion. The standards of the
legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which
merely enables one to escape the penalties of the
criminal law. It would be a disgrace to the Judiciary to
receive one whose integrity is questionable as an officer
of the court, to clothe him with all the prestige of its
confidence, and then to permit him to hold himself out as
a duly authorized member of the bar.
Canon 9 Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or
stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with
persons not licensed to practice law, except:
a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a
partner or associate that, upon the latters death,
money shall be paid over a reasonable period of
time to his estate or to persons specified in the
agreement; or
b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete
unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; or
c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer
employees in a retirement plan, even if the plan is
based in whole or in part, on a profitable sharing
arrangement.
FIVE J TAXI V. NLRC
(G.R. No. 111474, August 22, 1994)
FACTS: In a labor case for illegal dismissal and illegal
deductions, private respondents obtained favorable
judgment and awarded of their back wages and the
amount deducted from them. They were represented by
one Guillermo Pulia, a non-lawyer. The latter claimed for
attorneys fee for the legal services he rendered.
ISSUE: Whether or not Guillermo Pulia as authorized
representative of private respondents be allowed
attorney's fees or service fees.
HELD: NO. Article 222 of the Labor Code, as amended
by Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1691 states that,
non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any labor
arbiter only: (1) if they represent themselves, or (2) if
they represent their organization or the members
thereof. While it may be true that Guillermo H. Pulia was
the authorized representative of private
respondents, he was a non-lawyer who did not fall in
either of the foregoing categories. Hence, by clear
mandate of the law, he is not entitled to attorney's fees.
Furthermore, the statutory rule that an attorney shall be
entitled to have and recover from his client a reasonable
compensation for his services necessarily imports the
existence of an attorney-client relationship as a condition
for the recovery of attorney's fees, and such relationship
cannot exist unless the client's representative is a
lawyer.
3. To the courts
a) Candor, fairness and good faith towards the
courts
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS
AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
A lawyer is, first and foremost, an officer of the court.
His duties to the court are more significant than those
which he owes to his client. His first duty is not to his
client but to the administration of justice; to that end, his
clients success is wholly insubordinate; and his conduct
ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of
the law and ethics of the profession.
Canon 10 Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court;
nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled
by any artifice.
DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. ADORABLE
(A.C. No. 8197, October 2, 1946)
FACTS: With the belief that the case pending decision in
the Court of Appeals remained unacted upon by the said
Court, Miguel Penaranda filed a motion for
reconstitution. Instead of
taking advantage of Penarandas lack of knowledge of
what really happened in the Court of Appeals, Attorney
Manuel F. Zamora, counsel for complainant and
appellees acting under the highest standards of
truthfulness, fair play and nobility as member of the bar,
informed the Supreme Court that the case had been
decided in favor of said claimant and appellant by the
Court of Appeals. Thereafter, claimant-appellant's
attorneys filed a petition with the commissioner for
reconstitution to make a report to this Court that the
records be declared reconstituted.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Zamora has acted under
the highest standards required of a member of the bar.
HELD: YES. Attorney Manuel F. Zamora, instead of
taking advantage of Penerandas lack of
knowledge of what really happened in the Court of
Appeals informed the Supreme Court that the case had
been decided in favor of said claimant and appellant by
the Court of Appeals. This not only to save the appellant
the trouble of waiting for the reconstitution of this case, it
also save the tribunal the trouble of deciding again a
case already decided. Acting with truthfulness, fair play
and nobility, these make Atty. Zamora an example
worthy to be remembered by all members of the bar.
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
SOME CASES OF FALSEHOODS WHICH MERITED
DISCIPLINE
1. Lawyers falsely stating in a deed of sale that property
is free from all liens and encumbrances when it is not
so (Sevilla vs. Zoleta, 96 Phil. 979);
2. Lawyers making it appear that a person, long dead,
executed a deed of sale in his favor (Monterey vs.
Arayata, 61 Phil. 820);
3. Lawyer, encashing a check payable to a deceased
cousin by signing the latters name on the check (In re:
Samaniego, 90 Phil. 382);
4. Lawyer falsifying a power of attorney and used it in
collecting the money due to the principal and
appropriating the money for his own benefit (In re:
Rusina, 105 Phil. 1328);
5. Lawyer alleging in one pleading that his clients were
merely lessees of the property involved, and alleged in
a later pleading that the same clients were the owners
of the same property (Chavez vs. Viola, G.R. 2152, 19
April 1991) where there are false allegations in
pleadings.
6. Lawyer uttering falsehood in a Motion to Dismiss
(Martin vs. Moreno, 129 SCRA 315).
7. Lawyer denying having received the notice to file brief
which is belied by the return card (Ragacejo vs. IAC,
153 SCRA 462).
8. Lawyer presenting falsified documents in court which
he knows to be false (Bautista vs. Gonzales, 182
SCRA 151) or introducing false evidence (Berrenguer
vs. Carranza, 26 SCRA 673).
9. Lawyer filing false charges or groundless suits
(Retuya vs. Gorduiz, 96 SCRA 526).
REQUIREMENTS OF CANDOR
1. A lawyer shall not suppress material and vital facts
which bear on the merit or lack of merit of complaint or
petition.
2. A lawyer shall volunteer to the court any development
of the case which has rendered the issue raised moot
and academic.
3. Disclosure to the court of any decision adverse to his
position of which opposing counsel is apparently
ignorant and which court should consider in deciding a
case.
4. He shall not represent himself as a lawyer for a client,
appear in court and present pleadings in the latters
behalf only to claim later that he was not authorized to
do so.
Canon 10 Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly
misquote or misrepresent the contents of paper, the
language or the argument of opposing counsel, or
the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite
as law a provision already rendered inoperative by
repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which
has not been proved.
Rationale:
If not faithfully and exactly quoted, the decisions and
rulings of the court may lose their proper and correct
meaning, to the detriment of other courts, lawyers and
the public who may thereby be misled. A mere
typographical error in the citation of an authority is not
contemptuous.
THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION V. THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE
CO
(G.R. No. L-25291, January 30, 1971)
FACTS: In a labor case involving the parties above-
mentioned, petitioner Unions complaint was dismissed
by Presiding Judge Arsenio Martinez of the Court of
Industrial Relations for lack
of merit. Petitioners sought to cite for contempt the
respondent Judge on the ground that the formers
citation of law to support his decision is different from the
original text. On the other hand, respondent Judge
maintained that although there has been a clerical error
in citation, still the import of the underscored sentences
of the quotation is substantially the same as, and
faithfully reflects, the particular ruling of the Court's
decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Judge Arsenio
Martinez shall be held in contempt.
HELD: NO. In citing Supreme Court's decisions and
rulings, it is the bounden duty of courts, judges and
lawyers to reproduce or copy the same word-for-word
and punctuation mark for punctuation mark. Lawyers
and courts take their bearings from the Higher Courts
decisions and rulings. This is in accord with article 8 of
the Civil Code which reads, "Judicial decisions applying
or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a
part of the legal system of the Philippines." If not
faithfully and exactly quoted, the decisions and rulings of
this Court may lose their proper and correct meaning, to
the detriment of other courts, lawyers and the public who
may thereby be misled. In the instant case, although the
respondent Judge and the respondents' counsels
committed mistake in the citation used in their decision,
there was however no substantial change in the thrust of
this Court's particular ruling which they cited. For this
reason, the punishment of contempt of court would be
too much; hence, it does not apply.
In citing the SC decisions and rulings, it is the bounden
duty of courts, judges and lawyers to reproduce or copy
the same word-for-word and punctuation-mark-for-
punctuation mark (Agpalo)
Canon 10 Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the
rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
Procedural rules are instruments in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice. They should not be
used to derail such ends. They should not misuse them,
as by filing multiple petitions regarding the same cause
of action of by deliberately misreading the law to seek a
reopening of a case long decided.
(Agpalo)
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
QUE V. REVILLA
(A.C. No. 7054, December 4, 2009)
FACTS: In an unlawful detainer case, a decision was
rendered by the RTC against respondent Atty. Anastacio
Revilla Jr.s clients. Thereafter, Atty. Revilla filed series
of petition all containing a prayer for injunctive relief.
Conrado Que, accused Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr.
before the IBP of committing abuse of court remedies
and processes, a violation of Rule 10.03 Canon 10 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which makes it
obligatory for a lawyer to "observe the rules of procedure
and. . . Not [to] misuse them to defeat the ends of
justice."
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Anastacio Revilla has
violated Rule 10.03 Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for committing abuse of court
remedies and processes.
HELD: YES. Rule 10.03 Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which makes it obligatory for
a lawyer to "observe the rules of procedure and. . . not
[to] misuse them to defeat the ends of justice." The
successive filings of petitions all containing a prayer for
injunctive relief, reveal the respondents persistence in
preventing and avoiding the execution of the final
decisions of the lower courts against his client. The
respondent violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
b) Respect for courts and judicial officers
CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND
MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS
AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST
ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
Canon 11 Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court
properly attired.
IN RE VICENTE SOTTO, 82 Phil 595 (1949)
FACTS: Atty. Vicente Sotto issued a written statement in
connection with the decision of the Supreme Court in In
re Angel Parazo which statement was published in the
newspapers. Atty. Sotto said that the Court has not only
erroneously interpreted the law, but that it is once more
shows the incompetency of narrow mindedness of the
majority of its members. He threatened to pass a bill
reorganizing the Supreme so as to change the members
who decided the Parazo case. The court required Atty.
Sotto to show cause why he should not be charged with
contempt of court. Atty. Sotto contends in the exercise of
the freedom of speech guaranteed by he Constitution,
he made his statement in the press with the utmost good
faith and with no intention of offending any of the
members of the Court and that he has not attacked the
honesty or integrity of any one.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Vicente Sotto shall be held
liable for contempt of Court.
HELD: YES. Mere criticism or comment on the
correctness or wrongness, of the decision of the
court in a pending case made in good faith may be
allowed because if well founded it may contribute to the
correction of an error if committed; but if it is done in bad
faith, it should not given any merit. Atty. Sotto does not
merely criticize or comment on the decision of the
Parazo case; he also intends to intimidate the members
of this Court by threatening to pass a bill reorganizing
the Supreme so as to change the members who decided
the Parazo case. As a member of the bar and an officer
of the courts Atty. Vicente Sotto, is in duty bound to
uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which he
owes fidelity, and not to promote distrust in the
administration of justice. An attorney as an officer of the
court is under special obligation to be respectful in his
conduct and communication to the courts.
Canon 11 Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually
appear at court hearings
Canon 11 Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.
Canon 8 Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his
professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
FERNANDEZ V. HON. BELLO
(G.R. No. 14277, April 30, 1960)
FACTS: Timotea Perreyras, the guardian over the
persons and properties of her brothers, with the help of
herein petitioner Atty. Manuel L. Fernandez as her
counsel, asked the court for
authority to sell a nipa land owned in common by the
wards to pay for the debts owed to Maximiano
Umangay. The request was granted and a valid sale was
made in favor of the latter.
The interest in the land of Maximiano Umangay was in
turn sold to Atty. Manuel L. Fernandez. Part of the
purchase price was given to Atty. Fernandez in payment
for the services rendered by him as counsel of the
deceased father of the wards in a civil case. The record
does not show that these payments were authorized by
the court. An investigation was conducted, thereafter,
herein respondent Judge Bello found Atty. Manuel L.
Fernandez guilty of contempt for having taken a certain
amount from the proceeds of the sale without court
approval, finding this conduct of counsel to be
anomalous and unbecoming for the reason that he
instituted the guardianship proceedings only to enable
him to collect unpaid attorney's fees due him from the
father of the wards. Atty. Fernandez sought to annul said
order alleging that that he acted in good faith believing
that he is entitled to receive the fees due him.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Miguel Fernandez is guilty
for contempt for having taken a certain amount from the
proceeds of sale of the wards property as payment for
the legal services rendered by him.
HELD: Atty. Miguel Fernandez is not guilty for contempt
for having taken a certain amount from the proceeds of
sale of the wards property as payment for the legal
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
services rendered by him. The duty of courts is not just
to see that lawyers act in a proper and lawful manner; it
is also their duty to see that lawyers are paid their just
and lawful fees. Atty. Fernandez was
entitled to receive payment for services rendered by him,
which services are admitted to have been due from the
father of the wards. Meanwhile, respondent Judge
wanted to strike out
portions of petitioner's motion for reconsideration for
employing strong language. The language used by the
judge in characterizing the act of the petitioner as
"anomalous and unbecoming" and in charging petitioner
of obtaining his fee "through manoeuvres of documents
from the guardian-petitioner" must have provoked
petitioner to use strong language and the judge has
nothing to blame but himself. If a judge desires not to be
insulted he should start using temperate language
himself.
Canon 11 Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to
a Judge, motives not supported by the record or
have no materiality to the case.
The rule allows such criticism so long as it is
supported by the record or it is material to the case. A
lawyers right to criticize the acts of courts and judges in
a proper and respectful way and through legitimate
channels is well recognized. The cardinal condition of all
such criticism is that it shall be bona fide, and shall not
spill over the wall of decency and propriety. (Agpalo)
The cardinal condition of all such criticism is that it
shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the wall of
decency and propriety. (Agpalo)
Canon 11 Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit
grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities
only.
1987 Philippine Constitution Article VIII, Sec. 6. The
Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision
over all courts and the personnel thereof.
WHO ARE CONSIDERED AS PROPER AUTHORITIES
1. If administrative in nature
- To be filed with the Office of the Court Administrator
of the Supreme Court
2. If criminal and not purely administrative in nature
- It shall be filed with the Office of the Ombudsman
3. If it involves a justice of the Supreme Court based on
impeachable offenses
- It must be coursed through the House of
Representatives and the Senate in accordance with
the Rules on Impeachment
*** An administrative complaint is not an appropriate
remedy where judicial recourse is still available, such
as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a
petition for certiorari, unless the assailed order or
decision is tainted with fraud, malice, or dishonesty.
(Santiago III v. Justice Enriquez, Jr. A.M. No. CA- 09-
47-J, February 13, 2009)
c) Assistance in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY
EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN
THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.
Rule 138 SEC. 20 (g) of Rules of Court It is the
duty of an attorney:
(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or
the continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay
any man's cause, from any corrupt motive or
interest;
TAKE NOTE: (Agpalo)
The first duty of a lawyer is not to his client but the
administration of justice. As an officer of the Court, it is
the duty of the lawyer to advance the Courts objective
of having a speedy, efficient, impartial, correct, and
inexpensive adjudication of case and the prompt
satisfaction of final judgments.
The duty to assist in the administration of justice may
be performed by doing no act that obstructs, perverts,
or impedes the administration of justice and by
faithfully complying with all his duties to the court and
to his client. Examples of the former would include the
duty to inform the court of any change of his address or
of the death of his client.
Acts that amount to obstruction of the administration of
justice may take many forms. They include such acts
as instructing a complaining witness in a criminal case
not to appear at the scheduled hearing so that the case
against his client, the accused, would be dismissed
Canon 12 Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for
trial unless he has adequately prepared himself on
the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he
will adduce and the order of its preferences. He
should also be ready with the original documents for
comparison with the copies.
A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without
adequate preparation. (Rule 18.02)
Without adequate preparation, the lawyer may not be
able to effectively assist the court in the efficient
administration of justice. Non-observance of this rule
might result in:
1) The postponement of the pre-trial or hearing, which
would thus entail delay in the early disposition of the
case;
2) The judge may consider the client nonsuited or in
default or
3) The judge may consider the case deemed submitted
for decision without clients evidence, to his prejudice.
(Agpalo)
Canon 12 Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple
actions arising from the same cause.
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
Canon 12 Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after
obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without
submitting the same or offering an explanation for
his failure to do so.
Canon 12 Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly
delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse Court processes.
Canon 12 Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from
talking to his witness during a break or recess in the
trial, while the witness is still under examination.
The purpose of this rule is to avoid any suspicion
that he is coaching the witness what to say during the
resumption of the examination. (Agpalo)
Canon 12 Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly
assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to
impersonate another.
A lawyer may interview witnesses in advance of trial
or attend to their needs if they are poor but he should
avoid any such action as may be misinterpreted as an
attempt to influence the witness what to say in court.
Court will not give weight on a testimony of a witness
who admits having been instructed. A lawyer who
presents a witness whom he knows will give a false
testimony or is an impersonator may be subjected to
disciplinary action. (Agpalo)
Canon 12 Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse,
browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly
inconvenience him.
The lawyer has a duty to always treat adverse
witnesses and suitors with fairness and due
consideration (Agpalo)
The client cannot be made the keeper of the lawyers
conscience in professional matters. He has no right to
demand that his counsel abuse the opposite party and
the latters witnesses or indulge in offensive
personalities. Improper speech is not excusable on the
ground that it is what the client would say if speaking in
his own behalf
If it is the judge who subjects the witness to harsh
treatment, the lawyer has the right to protest in a
respectful and dignified manner the action of the judge
and to make the incident of record without being held
liable administratively or for contempt of court
Canon 12 Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying
in behalf of his client, except:
a) on formal matters, such as the mailing,
authentication or custody of an instrument, and the
like, or
b) on substantial matters, in cases where his
testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in
which event he must, during his testimony, entrust
the trial of the case to another counsel.
The underlying reason for the impropriety of a lawyer
acting in such dual capacity lies in the difference
between the function of a witness and that of an
advocate. The function of a witness is to tell the facts as
he recalls then in answer to questions. The function of
an advocate is that of a partisan. It is difficult to
distinguish between the zeal of an advocate and the
fairness and impartiality of a disinterested witness
(Agpalo)
d) Reliance on merits of his cause and avoidance of
any impropriety which tends to influence or gives
the appearance of influence upon the courts
CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE
MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY
IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR
GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE
COURT
Canon 13 Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend
extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek
opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges.
Canon 13 Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public
statements in the media regarding a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
party.
Canon 13 Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or
invite interference by another branch or agency of
the government in the normal course of judicial
proceedings.
4. To the clients
NATURE OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
1. Strictly personal
2. Highly confidential
3. Fiduciary
ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP, HOW FORMED
1. Oral when the counsel is employed without a written
agreement, but the conditions and amount of attorneys
fees are agreed upon.
2. Express when the terms and conditions including
the amount of fees are explicitly stated in a written
document, which may be a private or public document.
Written contract of attorneys fees is the law between
the lawyer and the client.
3. Implied When there is no agreement, whether oral
or written, but the client allowed the lawyer to render
legal services not intended to be gratuitous without
objection and client is benefited by reason thereof.
*** While a written agreement for professional services is
the best evidence to show the relation, formality is not an
essential element of the employment of an attorney. The
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
absence of a written contract will not preclude a finding
that there is a professional relationship.
ADVANTAGES OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT
1. It is conclusive as to the amount of compensation.
2. In case of unjustified dismissal of an attorney, he shall
be entitled to recover from the client full compensation
stipulated in the contract
RULES PROTECTING ATTORNEY-CLIENT
RELATIONSHIP
1. Best efforts must be exerted by the attorney to protect
his clients interest;
2. The attorney must promptly account for any fund or
property entrusted by or received for his client;
3. An attorney cannot purchase his clients property or
interest in litigation;
4. The privacy of communications shall at all times
upheld;
5. An attorney cannot represent a party whose interest is
adverse to that of his client even after the termination
of the relation.
THREE PRINCIPAL TYPES OF PROFESSIONAL
ACTIVITY THAT A LICENSED ATTORNEY AT LAW
GENERALLY ENGAGES IN THE PRACTICE OF HIS
PROFESSION
1. Legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them
of their rights and obligations;
2. Appearance for clients before public tribunals which
possess power and authority to determine rights of life,
liberty, and property according to law, in order to assist
in proper interpretation and enforcement of law; and
3. Preparation for clients of documents requiring
knowledge of legal principles not possessed by
ordinary layman. (CPR Annotated, PhilJA)
a) Availability of service without discrimination
CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS
SERVICES TO THE NEEDY.
(i) Services regardless of persons status
Canon 14 Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to
represent a person solely on account of the latters
race, sex, creed or status of life, or because of his
own opinion regarding the guilt of said person.
Rule 138, Sec. 20 (h-i) of the Rules of Court. Duties
of attorneys.It is the duty of an attorney:
(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to
himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed.
(i)In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all
fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal
opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present
every defense that the law permits, to the end that
no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by
due process of law
Canon 14 Rule 14.01 makes it his duty not to
decline to represent the accused regardless of his
opinion as to his guilt. Note that in criminal cases, it is
easy to take accused because of presumption of
innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt.
It is the lawyers duty to counsel or maintain such
actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just,
and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly
debatable under law. He is not to encourage the
commencement or the continuance of an action or delay
any mans cause, for any corrupt motive or interest. He
must decline to conduct a civil case or to make a
defense when convinced that it is intended merely to
harass or injure the opposite party or to work oppression
or wrong. If he were to take a bad civil case for a
plaintiff, it will only be to advise him not to file the action
or to settle it with the claimant. If he were to accept the
defense of a bad civil case against a defendant, it will
either be to exert his best effort toward a compromise or,
to tell his client to confess judgment. In criminal cases:
easy to take accused because of presumption of
innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Agpalo)
(ii) Services as counsel de officio
Canon 14 Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline,
except for serious and sufficient cause, an
appointment as counsel de officio or as amicus
curiae, or a request from the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines or any of its chapters for rendition of
free legal aid.
Rule 138, sec. 31 of the Rules of Court Attorneys for
destitute litigants.A court may assign an attorney
to render professional aid free of charge to any party
in a case, if upon investigation it appears that the
party is destitute and unable to employ an attorney,
and that the services of counsel are necessary to
secure the ends of justice and to protect the rights
of the party. It shall be the duty of the attorney so
assigned to render the required service, unless he is
excused therefrom by the court for sufficient cause
shown.
Rule 138, Sec. 36 of the Rules of Court Amicus
curiae. Experienced and impartial attorneys may
be invited by the Court to appear as amici curiae to
help in the disposition of issues submitted to it.
Who is an Amicus curiae?
A friend of the court; a bystander (usually a counselor)
who interposes or volunteers information upon some
matter of law in regard to which the judge is doubtful or
mistaken. (Agpalo)
(iii) Valid grounds for refusal
Canon 14 Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to
accept representation of an indigent client unless:
a) he is in no position to carry out the work
effectively or competently;
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
b) he labors under a conflict of interest between him
and the prospective client or between a present
client and the prospective client.
(iv) Same standard of conduct for paying and non-
paying clients
Canon 14 Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the
cause of a person unable to pay his professional
fees
shall observe the same standard of conduct
governing his relations with paying clients.
b) Candor, fairness and loyalty to clients
CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR,
FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS
AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
(i) Confidentiality rule
Canon 15 Rule 15.01 - A lawyer, in conferring with a
prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as
practicable whether the matter would involve a
conflict with another client or his own interest, and if
so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.
(ii) Privileged communications
Canon 15 Rule 15.02 - A lawyer shall be bound by
the rule on privilege communication in respect of
matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
One that refers to information transmitted by voluntary
act of disclosure between attorney and client in
confidence and by means which, so far as the client is
aware discloses the information to no third person other
than one reasonably necessary for the transmission of
the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for
which it was given.
PURPOSE OF MAKING THE COMMUNICATION
PRIVILEGED
1. To encourage a client to make a full disclosure of the
facts of the case to his counsel without fear
2. To allow the lawyer freedom to obtain full information
from his client.
TEST IN DETERMINING WHETHER A owner of the said land. Atty. Pontevedra is the counsel
COMMUNICATION TO AN ATTORNEY IS COVERED
BY THE RULE ON PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION
Whether the communications are made to an attorney
with view of obtaining from him personal assistance or
advice regardless of whether there is a pending or
merely impending litigation or any litigation.
ESSENTIAL FACTORS TO ESTABLISH THE
EXISTENCE OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
COMMUNICATION
Where the legal advice of any kind is sought from a
professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, the
communications relating to that purpose made in
confidence by the client are at his instance permanently
protected from disclosure by himself or by the legal
advisor except if the protection be waived. (Hadjula v.
Madianda, A.C. No. 6711, July 3, 2007)
REQUISITES OF PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION
1. There is attorney-client relationship or a kind of
consultancy requirement with a prospective client;
2. The communication was made by the client to the
lawyer in the course of the lawyers professional
employment;
3. The communication must be intended to be
confidential.
*** The privilege continues to exist even after the
termination of the attorney-client relationship. It outlasts
the lawyers engagement. The privileged character of the
communication ceases only when waived by the client
himself or after his death, by the heir or legal
representative. (Baldwin v. CIR, 94 F. 2d 355, 20 AFTR
940)
*** The party who avers that the communication is
privileged has the burden of proof to establish the
existence of the privilege unless from the face of the
document itself, it clearly appears that it is privileged.
The mere allegation that the matter is privileged is not
sufficient. (People v. Sleeper, No.
22783, December 3, 1924)
(iii) Conflict of interest
Canon 15 Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
PORMENTO V. ATTY. PONTEVEDRA
(A.C. No. 5128, March 31, 2005)
FACTS: Atty. Alias Pontevedra is the familys legal
counsel of Pormento. In one civil case involving the
latter, Pormento averred that the same was dismissed
because Atty. Pontevedra deliberately failed to inform
him of the dismissal of his counterclaim, as a result of
which, Pormento was deprived of his right to appeal said
order. Pormento also claims that in order to further
protect his rights and interests over the said parcel of
land, he was forced to initiate a criminal case for
qualified theft against the relatives of the alleged new
of the accused in said case. Pormento claims that as
part of his defense in said criminal case, Atty.
Pontevedra utilized pieces of confidential information he
obtained from him while he is still his client.
In a separate incident, Pormento claims that he bought a
parcel of land. Since there was another person who
claims ownership of the property, Pormento alleges that
he heeded respondents advice to build a small house
on the property and to allow his (complainants) nephew
and his family to occupy the house in order for
complainant to establish his possession
of the said property. Subsequently, complainants
nephew refused to vacate the property prompting the
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
former to file an ejectment case. Respondent acted as
the counsel of complainants nephew.
Complainant contends that respondent is guilty of
malpractice and misconduct by representing clients with
conflicting interests and should be disbarred by reason
thereof.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Pontevedra violates the
Code of Professional Responsibility for representing
conflicting claims for his clients.
HELD: NO. Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that A lawyer shall
not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
the facts.
There is a representation of conflicting interests if
the acceptance of the new retainer will require the
attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his
first client in any matter in which he represents him and
also whether he will be called upon in his new relation, to
use against his first client any knowledge acquired
through their connection. Another test to determine if
there is a representation of conflicting interests is
whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an
attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided
fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance
thereof.
A lawyer is forbidden from representing a
subsequent client against a former client when the
subject matter of the present controversy is related,
directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous
litigation in which he appeared for the former client. The
reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of
attorney and client, which is one of trust and confidence
of the highest degree. A lawyer becomes familiar with all
the facts connected with his clients case. He learns from
his client the weak points of the action as well as the
strong ones. Such knowledge must be considered
sacred and guarded with care. No opportunity must be
given him to take advantage of the clients secrets. A
lawyer must have the fullest confidence of his client; for
if the confidence is abused, the profession will suffer by
the loss thereof. In the present case, the Court finds no
conflict of interests when Atty. Pontevedra represented
herein complainants nephew and other members of his
family in the ejectment case and in the criminal
complaint filed by herein complainant against them. The
only established participation respondent had with
respect to the parcel of land purchased by complainant,
is that he was the one who notarized the deed of sale of
the said land. On that basis alone, it does not
necessarily follow that respondent obtained any
information from herein complainant that can be used to
the detriment of the latter in the ejectment case he filed.
TESTS TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF
CONFLICTING INTERESTS
1. Conflicting Duties - When, on behalf of one client, it is
the attorneys duty to contest for that which his duty to
another client requires him to oppose or when
possibility of such situation will develop.
2. Invitation of Suspicion - Whether the acceptance of
the new relation will prevent a lawyer from the full
discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to
his client or will invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
double-dealing in the performance thereof.
3. Use of Prior Knowledge Obtained - Whether a lawyer
will be called upon in his new relation to use against
the first client any knowledge acquired in the previous
employment.
INSTANCES WHEN A LAWYER MAY NOT
REPRESENT CONFLICTING INTERESTS DESPITE
CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES CONCERNED
Where the conflict is:
1. Between the attorneys interest and that of a client; or
2. Between a private clients interests and that of the
government or any of its instrumentalities.
EFFECTS OF REPRESENTING ADVERSE
INTERESTS
1. Disqualification as counsel of new client on petition of
former client.
2. Where such is unknown to, becomes prejudicial
interests of the new client, a judgment against such
may, on that ground be set aside.
3. A lawyer can be held administratively liable through
disciplinary action and may be held criminally liable for
betrayal of trust.
4. The attorneys right to fees may be defeated if found
to be related to such conflict and such was objected to
by the former client, or if there was a concealment and
prejudice by reason of the attorneys previous
professional relationship with the opposite party.
(iv) Mediator, Conciliator, Arbitrator of settling
disputes
Canon 15 Rule 15.04 - A lawyer may, with the written
consent of all concerned, act as mediator,
conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
(v) Candid and honest advice to clients
Canon 15 Rule 15.05 - A lawyer when advising his
client, shall give a candid and honest opinion on the
merits and probable results of the clients case,
neither overstating nor understating the prospects
of the case.
Choa vs. Chiongson, 253 SCRA 371 (1996)
His client is entitled to and he is bound to give a candid
and honest opinion on the merit or lack of merit of his
clients case, neither overstating nor understating the
prospect of the case. It is likewise incumbent upon him
to give his client an honest opinion on the probable
results of the case, with the end in view of promoting
respect for the law and the legal processes.
Periquet vs. NLRC, 186 SCRA (1990)
As officers of the court, counsels are under obligation to
advise their clients against making untenable and
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
inconsistent claims. Lawyers are not merely hired
employees who must unquestionably do the bidding of
the client, however unreasonable this may be when
tested by their own expert appreciation of the facts and
applicable law and jurisprudence.
(vi) Non-influential to public official, tribunal, or
legislative body
Canon 15 Rule 15.06 - A lawyer shall not state or
imply that he is able to influence any public official,
tribunal or legislative body.
CJC Rule 2.03 - A judge shall not allow family,
social, or other relationships to influence judicial
conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office
shall not be used or lent to advance the private
interests of others, nor convey or permit others to
convey the impression that they are in a special
position to influence the judge.
This rule protects against influence peddling. Some
prospective clients secure the services of a particular
lawyer or law firm precisely because he can exert a lot of
influence on a judge and some lawyers exact big fees for
such influence (Agpalo)
(vii) Compliance with laws
Canon 15 Rule 15.07 - A lawyer shall impress upon
his client compliance with the laws and principles of
fairness.
Art. 19 of NCC. Every person must, in the exercise of
his rights and in the performance of his duties, act
with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith.
TAKE NOTE: (Agpalo)
A lawyer is required to represent his client within the
bounds of the law. The CPR enjoins him to employ
only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and warns him not to allow his
client to dictate procedure in handling the case. He
may use arguable construction of the law or rules
which are favorable to his client. But he is not allowed
to knowingly advance a claim or defense that is
unwarranted under existing law.
A lawyer should comply with the clients lawful
requests. But he should resist and should never follow
any unlawful instructions. In matters of law, it is the
client who should yield to the lawyer and not the other
way around.
A lawyer must also observe and advice his client to
observe the statute law, thought until a statute shall
have been construed and interpreted by competent
jurisdiction, he is free and is entitled to advice as to its
validity and as to what he conscientiously believes to
be its just meaning and extent
(viii) Concurrent practice of another profession
Canon 15 Rule 15.08 - A lawyer who is engaged in
another profession or occupation concurrently with
the practice of law shall make clear to his client
whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another
capacity.
CJC RULE 5.03 - Subject to the provisions of the
proceeding rule, a judge may hold and manage
investments but should not serve as officer,
director, manager or advisor, or employee of any
business except as director of a family business of
the judge.
c) Clients moneys and properties
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL
MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT
MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Art. 1491 of the NCC. The following persons cannot
acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction,
either in person or through the mediation of another:
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of
superior and inferior courts, and other officers and
employees connected with the administration of justice,
the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an
execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or
territory they exercise their respective functions; this
prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment
and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property
and rights which may be the object of any litigation in
which they may take part by virtue of their profession.
Effects of Prohibited Purchase - A prohibited purchase
is null and void ab initio; public interest and public policy
dictate that its nullity is definite and permanent and
cannot be cured by ratification. The lawyer will be
deemed to hold the property in trust for the client. The
client is therefore entitled to recover property and
interest from his attorney with the fruits. The client
should, however, return the purchase price and the legal
interests.
(i) Fiduciary relationship
Canon 16 Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all
money or property collected or received for or from
the client.
(ii) Co-mingling of funds
Canon 16 Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds
of each client separate and apart from his own and
those of others kept by him.
(iii) Delivery of funds
Canon 16 Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the
funds and property of his client when due or upon
demand. However, he shall have a lien over the
funds and may apply so much thereof as may be
necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to
his client.
He shall also have a lien to the same extent on
all judgements and executions he has secured for
his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
Rule 138 SEC. 37 of the Rules of Court an attorney
shall have a lien upon the funds, documents and
papers of his client, which have lawfully come into
his possession and may retain the same until his
lawful fees and disbursements have been paid, and
may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof.
He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon
all judgments for the payment of money, and
executions issued in pursuance of such judgments,
which he has secured in a litigation of his client,
from and after the time when he shall have caused a
statement of his claim of such lien to be entered
upon the records of the court rendering such
judgment, or issuing such execution, and shall have
caused written notice thereof to be delivered to his
client and to the adverse party; and he shall have the
same right and power over such judgments and
executions as his client would have to enforce his
lien and secure the payment of his just fees and
disbursements.
If client agrees with lawyer as to the amount of
attorneys fees and as to the application of the clients
fund to pay his lawful fees and disbursement, a lawyer
may deduct what is due him and remit the balance to his
client. If no such agreement or consent or if there is
dispute or disagreement as to the fees, he should return
everything to client without prejudice to his filing a case
to recover his unsatisfied fees. (Agpalo)
This rule grants the lawyer a lien over the clients
funds in his possession as well as on all judgments and
executions he has secured for his client, to satisfy his
lawful fees and disbursements. (Agpalo)
(iv) Borrowing or lending
Canon 16 Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow
money from his client unless the clients interests
are fully protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend
money to a client except, when in the interest of
justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a
legal matter he is handling for the client.
Art. 1491 of the NCC. The following persons cannot
acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial
auction, either in person or through the mediation of
another:
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of
superior and inferior courts, and other officers and
employees connected with the administration of
justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied
upon an execution before the court within whose
jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective
functions; this prohibition includes the act of
acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers,
with respect to the property and rights which may be
the object of any litigation in which they may take
part by virtue of their profession.
What is a Champerty?
A bargain by a stranger (the lawyer) with a party to a suit
(the client) by which such third person undertakes to
carry on the litigation at his own expense and risk, in
consideration of receiving, if successful, a part of the
proceeds or subject sought to be recovered.
What is a Champertous Contract?
Where the lawyer assumes all expenses of litigation and
reimbursement is contingent on outcome of case is
prohibited. Champertous contracts are like wagersthe
lawyer gets paid and reimbursed if he wins the case and
loses even what he had spent on the case if he loses.
d) Fidelity to clients cause
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.
Rule 138, Sec. 20 (e) of the Rules of Court: To
maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril
to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and
to accept no compensation in connection with his
client's business except from him or with his
knowledge and approval.
Rule 138, Sec. 20 (f) of the Rules of Court: To abstain
from all offensive personality and to advance no fact
prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or
witnesses, unless required by the justice of the
cause with which he is charged.
e) Competence and diligence
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT
WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Competence
It is that sufficiency of lawyers qualifications to deal with
the matter in question and includes knowledge and skill
and the ability to use them effectively in the interest of
the client
Diligence
It is the attention and care required of a person in a
given situation and is the opposite of negligence. It is
axiomatic in the practice of law that the price of success
is eternal diligence to the cause of the client.
Lawyer impliedly represents that:
he possesses requisite degree of learning, skill, ability
which is necessary to the practice of his profession and
which other similarly situated possess;
he will exert his best judgment in the prosecution or
defense of the litigation entrusted to him;
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
he will exercise reasonable and ordinary care and
diligence in the use of his skill and in the application of
his knowledge to his clients cause;
He will take such steps as will adequately safeguard
his clients interest. A client may reasonably expect
that counsel will make good his representations.
(Agpalo)
(i) Collaborating counsel
Canon 18 Rule 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a
legal service which he knows or should know that he
is not qualified to render. However, he may render
such service if, with the consent of his client, he can
obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is
competent on the matter.
However well meaning he may be, a lawyer cannot ask
another lawyer to collaborate with him in a particular
case without the consent of the client. The fiduciary
nature of attorney-client relationship prohibits this.
(Aguirre)
Some cases involve specialized fields of law and
require special training. A lawyer should not accept an
undertaking in specific area of law which he knows or
should know he is not qualified to enter. (Agpalo)
(ii) Adequate protection
Canon 18 Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any
legal matter without adequate preparation.
Lawyer should safeguard his clients rights and interests
by thorough study and preparation; mastering applicable
law and facts involved in a case, regardless of the nature
of the assignment; and keeping constantly abreast of the
latest jurisprudence and developments in all branches of
the law (Agpalo)
(iii) Negligence
Canon 18 Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection there with shall render him liable.
(iv) Duty to apprise client
Canon 18 Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall respond
within a reasonable time to clients request for
information.
The standard of diligence required of a lawyer is that of a
good father of a family. He is not bound to exercise
extraordinary diligence. There is want of required
diligence when a lawyer fails without sufficient
justification to bring an action immediately, to answer a
complaint within the reglementary period, to notify his
client of the date of the date of hearing, to attend the
scheduled pre-trial conference, to inform the client of an
adverse judgment within the reglementary period to
appeal, to take steps to have the adverse decision
reconsidered or appealed, to ascertain the correct date
of receipt of decision, to acquaint himself with what has
happened to the litigation, to pay docket fee on appeal,
to claim judicial notice sent to him by mail or to file the
appellants brief.
f) Representation with zeal within legal bounds
CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS
CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE
LAW.
(i) Use of fair and honest means
Canon 19 Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only
fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives
of his client and shall not present, participate in
presenting or threaten to present unfounded
criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in
any case or proceeding.
Rule 138 SEC. 20 (d) of the Rules of Court It is the
duty of an attorney:
(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the
causes confided to him, such means only as are
consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to
mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
artifice or false statement of fact or law
The rule is that in espousing his clients cause, a lawyer
should not state his personal belief as to the soundness
or justice of his case. The reasons: the lawyers personal
belief has no real bearing on the case; if expression of
belief were permitted, it would give improper advantage
to the older and better known lawyer whose opinion
would carry more weight; If such were permitted,
omission to make such assertion might be taken as an
admission of the lack or belief in the soundness of his
clients cause. (Agpalo)
(ii) Clients fraud
Canon 19 Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received
information that his client has, in the course of the
representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or
tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify
the same, and failing which he shall terminate the
relationship with such client in accordance with the
Rules of Court.
(iii) Procedure in handling the case
Canon 19 Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his
client to dictate the procedure on handling the case.
A lawyer should seek instruction from his client on any
substantial matter concerning the litigation, which
requires decision on the part of the client. In procedural
matters, the client must yield to the lawyer. (Agpalo)
The rule is that in matters of law, it is the client who
should yield to the lawyer and not the other way around.
The reason for this is that lawyers duty to the court is
foremost. The dignity of the legal profession may be
compromised.
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
g) Attorneys fees
Right to Attorneys Fees (Agpalo)
The practice of law is a profession and not a money-
making trade. It does not operate to deny a lawyer the
right to attorneys fees for his professional services. He
has the right to have and recover from his client a fair
and reasonable compensation for his services, except
in cases where he has agreed to render service
gratuitously or has been appointed counsel de oficio.
Lawyers should avoid controversies concerning
compensation so far as shall be compatible with self-
respect and with right to receive a reasonable
recompense for services. Resort to law suits with
clients should only be done to prevent injustice,
imposition or fraud. The impression is that those
instituting suits are mercenaries.
As a general rule, a right of lawyer to reasonable
compensation for services requires the following:
1. that attorney-client relationship exists; and
2. that he rendered services to the client.
A written agreement is not necessary to establish a
clients obligation to pay attorneys fees. As long as the
lawyer is honestly and in good faith trying to serve and
represent the interest of his client, an absence of
express undertaking does not defeat recovery of fees.
Clients obligation to pay attorneys fees arises from the
inanimate contract of facis ut des (I do and you give)
which is based on the principle that no one shall
unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another.
Generally, a person who had no knowledge of, or
objected to, the lawyers representation may not be
held liable for attorneys fees even though such
representation redounded to his benefit. The objection
should be raised before and not after beneficial
services shall have been rendered by the lawyer;
otherwise, the party who benefited may be required to
pay counsel fees. For it is neither just that client who
retained lawyer should alone pay nor is it fair that those
who, investing nothing and assuming no risk, received
benefits should not contribute their proportionate share
to counsel fees (based on equity).
Non-lawyer cannot recover attorneys fees even if there
is a law authorizing him to represent a litigant in court
because basis of reasonable compensation is the
existence of attorney-client relationship and the
rendition of services.
Lawyer who is absolutely disqualified from engaging in
private practice of law by reason of his government
position may neither practice law nor, should he do so
illegally, charge attorneys fees for such services.
Exception: fees for services already performed before
lawyer qualified for public office even though payment
is made thereafter.
Lawyer designated by court to render professional
services, in the absence of law allowing compensation,
cannot charge government nor the indigent litigant for
his professional services. Appointment neither violates
constitutional restriction against taking of property
without just compensation or the due process of law
nor imposes upon the government the obligation to pay
him his fees because one of the obligations of an
attorney willingly assumed when he took his oath as
lawyer is to render free legal services whenever
required by the court to do so.
Although a client has right to discharge lawyer anytime,
dismiss or settle action or even waive the whole of his
interest in favor of adverse party, he cannot, in the
absence of lawyers fault, consent or waiver, deprive
the lawyer of his just fees already earned.
What is Quantum Meruit?
It is when no price is stipulated for lawyers service,
courts will fix amount on quantum meruit basis, or such
amount which his service merits.
The requisite for the principle is that there is an
acceptance of the benefits by one sought to be charged
for the services rendered under circumstances as
reasonably to notify him that the lawyer performing the
task is expecting to be paid compensation.
It is a device to prevent undue enrichment based on
the equitable postulate that it is unjust for a person to
retain benefit without paying for it.
The doctrine is also applicable where amount
stipulated in written agreement is found to be
unconscionable or where client dismissed counsel
before termination of case or where the lawyer withdrew
there-from for valid reasons.
Concepts of attorneys fees (Compania Maritima v.
CA, 318 SCRA 169)
(a) Ordinary concept
This refers to the reasonable compensation paid to a
lawyer by his client for the legal services he has
rendered the latter.
(b) Extraordinary concept
It is the amount of damages which the court may
award to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing
party.
Instances when Court will fix Amount of Attorneys
Fees based on Quantum Meruit
1. agreement is invalid for some reason other than
illegality of object of performance
2. amount stipulated is unconscionable
3. no agreement as to fees existed between parties
4. client rejects amount fixed in contract as
unconscionable and is found to be so
5. lawyer, without fault, was unable to conclude litigation
CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR
AND REASONABLE FEES.
Rule 138 SEC. 24 of the Rules of Court
Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees.
An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover
from his client no more than a reasonable
compensation for his services, with a view to the
importance of the subject matter of the controversy,
the extent of the services rendered, and the
professional standing of the attorney. No court shall
be bound by the
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the
proper compensation, but may disregard such
testimony and base its conclusion on its own
professional knowledge. A written contract for
services shall control the amount to be paid therefor
unless found by the court to be unconscionable or
unreasonable.
RA 5185 Section 6. Prohibition Against Practice. A
member of the Provincial Board or City or
Municipal Council shall not appear as counsel
before any court in any civil case wherein the
province,
city or municipality, as the case may be, is the
adverse partyxxx nor shall he collect any fee for
his appearance in any administrative proceedings
before provincial, city or municipal agencies of the
province, city or municipality, as the case may be, of
which he is an elected official.
Canon 20 Rule 20.01 - A lawyer shall be guided by
the following factors in determining his fees:
a) The time spent and the extent of the services
rendered or required;
b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions
involved;
c) The importance of the subject matter;
d) The skill demanded;
e) The probability of losing other employment as a
result of acceptance of the proffered case;
f) The customary charges for similar services and
the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he
belongs;
g) The amount involved in the controversy and the
benefits resulting to the client form the service;
h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;
i) The character of the employment, whether
occasional or established; and
j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
A valid written contract is conclusive as to amount of
compensation. Unless both parties set aside contract
and submit question of reasonableness of amount of
fees for court to resolve on quantum meruit basis,
neither client nor lawyer may disregard amount fixed
(Agpalo)
Canon anon 20 Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in cases
of referral, with the consent of the client, be entitled
to a division of fees in proportion to work performed
and responsibility assumed.
Canon 20 Rule 20.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the
full knowledge and consent of the client, accept any
fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or
forwarding allowance or other compensation
whatsoever related to his professional employment
from anyone other than the client.
Rule 138 SEC. 20 of the Rules of Court Duties of
attorneys.It is the duty of an attorney:
(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every
peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client,
and to accept no compensation in connection with
his client's business except from him or with his
knowledge and approval
This rule is intended to ensure protection of lawyers in
collection of fees. Moreover, it is designed to secure the
lawyers wholehearted fidelity to the clients cause and to
prevent that situation in which the receipt by him of a
rebate or commission from another in connection with
the clients cause may interfere with the full discharge of
his duty to the client.
The amount received by lawyer
from opposite party or third persons in the service of his
client belongs to the client except when the latter has full
knowledge and approval of lawyers taking (Agpalo)
Canon 20 Rule 20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid
controversies with clients concerning his
compensation and shall resort to judicial action only
to prevent imposition, injustice of fraud.
Rule 138 SEC. 24 of the Rules of Court
Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees.
An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover
from his client no more than a reasonable
compensation for his services, with a view to the
importance of the subject matter of the controversy,
the extent of the services rendered, and the
professional standing of the attorney. No court shall
be bound by the
opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the
proper compensation, but may disregard such
testimony and base its conclusion on its own
professional knowledge. A written contract for
services shall control the amount to be paid therefor
unless found by the court to be unconscionable or
unreasonable.
Rule 138 SEC. 32 of the Rules of Court
Compensation for attorneys de oficio.Subject to
availability of funds as may be provided by law the
court may, in its discretion, order an attorney
employed as counsel de oficio to be compensated in
such sum as the court may fix in accordance with
section 24 of this rule. Whenever such
compensation is allowed, it shall not be less than
thirty pesos (P30) in any case, nor more than the
following amounts: (1) Fifty pesos (P50) in light
felonies; (2) One hundred pesos (P100) in less grave
felonies; (3) Two hundred pesos (P200) in grave
felonies other than capital offenses; (4) Five hundred
pesos (P500) in capital offenses.
h) Preservation of clients confidences
CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE
CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN
AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS
TERMINATED
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
Rule 138, 20 (e) of the Rules of Court. Duties of
attorneys.It is the duty of an attorney: (e) To
maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril
to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and
to accept no compensation in connection with his
client's business except from him or with his
knowledge and approval
Rule 130, sec. 21 (b) of the Rules of court. Privileged
communication. An attorney cannot, without the
consent of his client, be examined as to any
communication made by the client to him, or his
advice given thereon in the course of professional
employment; nor can an attorney's secretary,
stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the
consent of the client and his employer, concerning
any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired
in such capacity.
What is confidential communication?
A confidential communication refers to information
transmitted by voluntary act of disclosure between
attorney and client in confidence and by means which so
far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no
third person other than one reasonably necessary for the
transmission of the information or the accomplishment of
the purpose for which it was given. Covers all actions,
signs, means of communication.
Canon 21 Rule 21.01 - A lawyer shall not reveal the
confidences or secrets of his client except:
a) When authorized by the client after acquainting
him of the consequences of the disclosure;
b) When required by law;
c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend
himself, his employees or associates or by judicial
action.
Exceptions to the General Rule (Agpalo):
In cases of contemplated crimes or perpetuation of
fraud because a lawyer-client relationship should only
be for lawful purposes
in case client files complaint against his lawyer or
unreasonably refuses to pay his fees, the lawyer may
disclose so much of clients confidences as may be
necessary to protect himself or to collect fees
Canon 21 Rule 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to the
disadvantage of his client, use information acquired
in the course of employment, nor shall he use the
same to his own advantage or that of a third person,
unless the client with full knowledge of the
circumstances consents thereto.
Canon 21 Rule 21.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the
written consent of his client, give information from
his files to an outside agency seeking such
information for auditing, statistical, bookkeeping,
accounting, data processing, or any similar purpose.
Canon 21 Rule 21.04 - A lawyer may disclose the
affairs of a client of the firm to partners or
associates thereof unless prohibited by the client.
Canon 21 Rule 21.05 - A lawyer shall adopt such
measures as may be required to prevent those
whose services are utilized by him, from disclosing
or using confidences or secrets of the client.
Canon 21 Rule 21.06 - A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet
conversation about a clients affairs even with
members of his family.
Canon 21 Rule 21.07 - A lawyer shall not reveal that
he has been consulted about a particular case
except to avoid possible conflict of interest.
i) Withdrawal of services
CANON 22 - A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS
SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND
UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE
CIRTUMSTANCES.
Canon 22 Rule 22.01 -A lawyer may withdraw his
services in any of the following cases:
a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral
course of conduct in connection with the matter he
is handling;
b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue
conduct violative of these canons and rules;
c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not
promote the best interest of the client;
d) When the mental or physical condition of the
lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out the
employment effectively;
e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees
for the services or fails to comply with the retainer
agreement;
f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public
office; and
g) Other similar cases.
Causes of Termination of Attorney-Client Relation
(Agpalo)
Withdrawal of the lawyer under Rule 22.01
Death of the lawyer
Death of client
Discharge or dismissal of the lawyer by the client
Appointment or election of a lawyer to a
government position which prohibits private practice
of law
Full termination of the case
Disbarment or suspension of the lawyer from the
practice of law
Intervening incapacity or incompetence of the client
during pendency of case
Declaration of presumptive death of lawyer
Conviction of a crime and imprisonment of lawyer
Note: Except for items 2 and 6, the lawyer has duty to
notify the court in case of termination of
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
attorney-client relationship.
Who may Terminate Attorney-Client Relation
1. Client
Client has absolute right to discharge his attorney
with or without just cause or even against lawyers
consent. Existence or nonexistence of a just cause is
important only in determining right of an attorney to
compensation for services rendered. Discharge of an
attorney or his substitution by another without
justifiable cause will not operate to extinguish the
lawyers right to full payment of compensation as
agreed upon in writing.
2. Attorney
3. Court
4. Circumstances beyond control of parties
Canon 22 Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who withdraws or is
discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately
turn over all papers and property to which the client is
entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the
orderly transfer of the matter, including all information
necessary for the proper handling of the matter.
Kinds of Liens
1. Retaining Lien (general lien)
The right of an attorney to retain the funds, documents
and papers of his client which have lawfully come into
his possession until his lawful fees and disbursements
have been paid and to apply such funds to the
satisfaction thereof.
Reason and essence of lien:
Inconvenience or disadvantage caused to the client
because of exercise of such lien may induce client to
pay the lawyer his fees and disbursements.
It is a general lien for the balance of the account due
to the attorney from client for services rendered in all
matters he may have handled for the client, regardless
of outcome.
It is dependent upon and takes effect from time of
lawful possession and does not require notice thereof
upon client and the adverse party to be effective.
Passive right and cannot be actively enforced; amounts
to a mere right to retain funds,
documents and papers as against the client until the
attorney is fully paid his fees. However, lawyer may
apply so much of clients funds in his possession to
satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice
promptly thereafter to his client.
Requisites for validity (of retaining lien)
1. attorney-client relationship
2. lawful possession by lawyer of the clients funds,
documents and papers in his professional capacity
3. unsatisfied claim for attorneys fees or disbursements
2. Charging Lien (special lien)
A charging lien is a right which the attorney has upon all
judgments for the payment of money and executions
issued in pursuance thereof, secured in favor of his
client. Covers only services rendered by attorney in the
action in which the judgment was obtained and takes
effect only after a statement of claim has been entered
upon record of the particular action with written notice to
his client and adverse party.
Requisites for validity of charging lien
1. attorney-client relationship
2. attorney has rendered services
3. money judgment favorable to the client has been
secured in the action
4. attorney has a claim for attorneys fees or advances
5. statement of his claim has been duly recorded in the
case with notice thereof served upon the client and
adverse party
DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS
NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF
DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AGAINST LAWYERS
PURPOSE OF DISCIPLINING LAWYERS
To ascertain that a lawyer still possesses those
qualifications which are conditions precedent for the
continuous practice of law and; to deter others from
similar misconduct, to protect the court and the public
from the misbehavior of its officers.
NATURE OF THE POWER TO DISCIPLINE
The power to discipline a lawyer is judicial in nature
and can be exercised only by the courts.
It cannot be defeated by the legislative or executive
departments.
POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT TO DISCIPLINE
LAWYERS
1. Warning
2. Admonition
3. Reprimand
4. Censure
5. Disbarment
6. Suspension[Sec. 27, Rule 138, Revised Rules of
Court (RRC)]
7. Interim suspension
8. Probation (IBP Guidelines)
POWERS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT TO DISCIPLINE LAWYERS
1. Warning
2. Admonition
3. Reprimand
4. Suspend an attorney from practice for any of the
causes named in Sec 27, Rule 138 until further action of
the Supreme Court in the case; (Sec. 16, Rule 139-B)
and
5. Probation (IBP Guidelines)
OTHER SANCTIONS AND REMEDIES
1. Restitution
2. Assessment of costs
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
3. Limitation upon practice
4. Appointment of a receiver
5. Requirement that a lawyer take the bar examination or
professional responsibility examination;
6. Requirement that a lawyer attend continuing
education courses
7. Other requirements that the highest court or
disciplinary board deems consistent with the purposes of
the sanctions
FORMS OF DISCIPLINARY MEASURES
1. Warning an act of putting one on his guard against
an impending danger, evil, consequence or penalty;
2. Admonition a gentle or friendly reproof, mild rebuke,
warning, reminder, or counseling on a fault, error or
oversight; an expression of authoritative advice;
3. Reprimand a public and formal censure or severe
reproof, administered to a person at fault by his
superior officer or the body to which he belongs;
4. Censure official reprimand;
5. Suspension temporary withholding of a lawyers
right to practice his profession as a lawyer for a certain
period or for an indefinite period of time:
a. Definite;
b. Indefinite qualified disbarment; lawyer determines
for himself how long or how short his suspension shall
last by proving to court that he is once again fit to
resume practice of law.
6. Disbarment it is the act of the Supreme Court of
withdrawing from an attorney the right to practice law.
The name of the lawyer is stricken out from the Roll of
Attorneys;
7. Interim Suspension it is the temporary suspension of
a lawyer from the practice of law pending imposition of
final discipline; Includes:
a. Suspension upon conviction of a serious crime;
b. Suspension when the lawyers continuing conduct
is or is likely to cause immediate and serious injury
to a client or public
8. Probation it is a sanction that allows a lawyer to
practice law under specified conditions.
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS (SUSPENSION AND
DISBARMENT)
1. Neither a civil action nor a criminal proceeding;
2. SUI GENERIS, it is a class of its own since it is
neither civil nor criminal
3. Confidential in nature
4. Defense of double jeopardy is not available
5. Can be initiated by the SC, motu proprio, or by the
IBP. It can be initiated without a complaint.
6. Can proceed regardless of interest of the
complainants
7. Imprescriptible
8. It is itself due process of law
9. Whatever has been decided in a disbarment case
cannot be a source of right that may be enforced in
another action;
10. In pari delicto rule not applicable;
11. No prejudicial question in disbarment proceedings;
12. Penalty in a disbarment case cannot be in the
alternative; and
13. Monetary claims cannot be granted except restitution
and return of monies and properties of the client given in
the course of the lawyer-client relationship.
OBJECTIVES OF SUSPENSION AND DISBARMENT:
1. To compel the attorney to deal fairly and honestly with
his clients;
2. To remove from the profession a person whose
misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the
duties and responsibilities belonging to the office of an
attorney;
3. To punish the lawyer;
4. To set an example or warning for the other members
of the bar;
5. To safeguard the administration of justice from
dishonest and incompetent lawyers;
6. To protect the public;
OFFICES AUTHORIZED TO INVESTIGATE
DISBARMENT CASES
1. Supreme Court
2. IBP through its Commission on Bar Discipline or
authorized investigators
3. Office of the Solicitor General
GROUNDS
GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OR DISBARMENT
1. Deceit
A fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation,
artifice or device used by one or more persons to
deceive and trick another who is ignorant of the true
facts, to the prejudice and damage of the party upon
which it was imposed. There must be false
representation as a matter of fact.
2. Malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office any
malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed by a lawyer
Malpractice refers to any malfeasance or dereliction
of duty committed by a lawyer. Legal malpractice
consists of failure of an attorney to use such skill,
prudence and diligence as a lawyer of ordinary skill and
capacity commonly possess and exercise in the
performance of tasks which they undertake, and when
such failure proximately causes damage, it gives rise to
an action in tort. (Tan Tek Beng v. David, A.C. No. 1261,
Dec. 29, 1983)
3. Grossly immoral conduct
Grossly immoral conduct is one that is so corrupt
and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a
high degree. (Vitug v. Rongcal, A.C. No. 6313, Sept. 7,
2006)
Gross Misconduct is any inexcusable, shameful or
flagrant unlawful conduct on the part of the person
concerned in the administration of justice which is
prejudicial to the rights of the
parties or to the right determination of a cause, a
conduct that is generally motivated by a predetermined,
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
obstinate or intentional purpose. (Yumol Jr. v. Ferrer,
Sr., A.C. No. 6585, April 21, 2005)
4. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
Moral turpitude has been defined as everything that
is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good
morals, an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the
private duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to
society in general, contrary to the accepted and
customary rule of right and duty between man and
woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty modesty,
or good morals. (Soriano v. Dizon, A. C. No. 6792, Jan.
25, 2006) (e.g. estafa, bribery, murder, bigamy,
seduction, abduction, concubinage, smuggling,
falsification of public document, violation of BP 22)
5. Violation of oath of office
The specific grounds that would constitute violation
of the lawyers oath are:
a. Commission of falsehood
b. Instituting baseless or unfounded complaints
c. Engaging in dilatory actions for an ulterior motive
d. Malpractice or reprehensible conduct in dealing
with the court of his client. (Lapena, Jr., 2009)
6. Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court
7. Corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a
party to case without an authority to do so. (see
Sanctions to Practice of Law without authority)
*** Disbarment and suspension of a lawyer, being the
most severe forms of disciplinary sanction, should be
imposed with great caution and only in those cases
where the misconduct of the lawyer as an officer of the
court and a member of the bar is established by clear,
convincing and satisfactory proof. (Vitug v. Rongcal,
A.C. No. 6313, Sept. 7, 2006)
THE GROUNDS FOR DISBARMENT ARE NOT
EXCLUSIVE
A lawyer may be removed from office or suspended
from the practice of law on grounds other than those
specifically provided in the law. The statutory
enumeration is not to be taken as a limitation on the
general power of SC to suspend or disbar a lawyer. (In
Re: Puno, A.C. No. 389, Feb. 28, 1967)
QUINGWA V. PUNO, A.C. No. 398, February 28, 1967
The statutory enumeration of the grounds for disbarment
or suspension is not to be taken as a limitation on the
general power of courts to suspend or disbar a lawyer.
The inherent power of the court over its officers cannot
be restricted.
STA. MARIA V. TUAZON, A.C. No. 396, JULY 31, 1964
The Supreme Court has disbarred or suspended lawyers
for reasons not found in the statute as when their acts
are contrary to honesty and good morals or do not
approximate the highest degree of morality and integrity
expected of the members of the bar.
AQUINO V. MANGAOANG, 425 SCRA 572
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon
the complainant and this court will exercise its
disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes his
case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence.
AMAYA V. TECSON, 450 SCRA 510
Disbarment should not be decreed where any
punishment less severe such as reprimand, suspension
or fine would accomplish the end desired.
DEFENSES
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES IN DISBARMENT
1. Good faith in the acquisition of a property of the client
subject of litigation (In Re: Ruste, A.M. No. 632, June
27, 1940);
2. 2. Inexperience of the lawyer (Munoz v. People, G.R.
No. L-33672, Sept. 28, 1973);
3. Age (Santos v. Tan, A.C. No. 2697, Apr. 19, 1991);
4. Apology (Munoz v. People, G.R. No. L-33672, Sept.
28, 1973);
5. Lack of Intention to slight or offend the Court (Rheem
of the Philippines, Inc. v. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-22979,
Jan. 27, 1967);
6. Absence of prior disciplinary record;
7. Absence of dishonest or selfish motive;
8. Personal or emotional problems;
9. Timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify
consequences of misconduct;
10. Full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or
cooperative attitude toward the proceedings;
11. Character or reputation;
12. Physical or mental disability or impairment;
13. Delay in disciplinary proceedings;
14. Interim rehabilitation;
15. Imposition of other penalties or sanctions;
16. Remorse; and
17. Remoteness of prior offenses. (IBP Guidelines 9.32)
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES IN DISBARMENT
1. Prior disciplinary offenses;
2. Dishonest or selfish motives;
3. A pattern of misconduct;
4. Multiple offenses;
5. Bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by
intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the
disciplinary agency;
6. Submission of false evidence, false statements, or
other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process;
7. Refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;
8. Vulnerability of victim;
9. Substantial experience in the practice of law; and
10. Indifference to making restitution. (IBP Guidelines
9.22)
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE NEITHER MITIGATING
NOR AGRAVATING
1. Forced or compelled restitution;
2. Agreeing to the clients demand for certain improper
behavior or result;
3. Withdrawal of complaint against the lawyer;
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
4. Resignation prior to completion of disciplinary
proceedings;
5. Complainants recommendation as to sanctions; or
6. Failure of injured client to complain. (IBP Guideline
9.4)
READMISSION TO THE BAR
Reinstatement, Defined
It is the restoration in disbarment proceedings to a
disbarred lawyer the privilege to practice law. The power
of the Supreme Court to reinstate is based on its
constitutional prerogative to promulgate rules on the
admission of applicants to the practice of law. (Sec. 5[5],
Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
Conditions for Reinstatement
The applicant must, like a candidate for admission to the
Bar, satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral
character a fit and proper person to practice law.
Guidelines to be observed in the matter of the lifting of
an order suspending a lawyer from the practice of law
1. Upon the expiration of the period of suspension,
respondent shall file a Sworn Statement with the Court,
through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein
that he or she has desisted from the practice of law and
has not appeared in any court during the period of his or
her suspension;
2. Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to
the Local Chapter of the IBP and to the Executive Judge
of the courts where respondent has pending cases
handled by him or her, and/or
where he or she has appeared as counsel; and
3. The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of
respondents compliance with the order of Suspension
ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF LAWYERS WHO HAVE
BEEN SUSPENDED
Guidelines to be observed in Case of Lifting an Order
Suspending a Lawyer from the Practice of Law
The following guidelines were issued by the
Supreme Court, the same to be observed in the
matter of the lifting of an order suspending a lawyer from
the practice of law:
1. After a finding that respondent lawyer must be
suspended from the practice of law, the Court shall
render a decision imposing the penalty;
2. Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is
immediately executory upon receipt thereof,
respondent has 15 days within which to file a motion
for reconsideration thereof. The denial of said motion
shall render the decision final and executory;
3. Upon the expiration of the period of suspension,
respondent shall file a Sworn Statement with the Court,
through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein
that he or she has desisted from the practice of law
and has not appeared in any court during the period of
his or her suspension;
4. Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to
the Local Chapter of the IBP and to the Executive
Judge of the courts where respondent has pending
cases handled by him or her, and/or where he or she
has appeared as counsel;
5. The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of
respondents compliance with the order of suspension;
6. Any finding or report contrary to the statements made
by the lawyer under oath shall be a ground for the
imposition of a more severe punishment, or
disbarment, as may be warranted.
READMISSION TO THE BAR OF LAWYERS WHO
HAVE BEEN DISBARRED
Considerations for Reinstatement
1. The applicants character and standing prior to the
disbarment;
2. The nature and character of the charge for which he
was disbarred;
3. His conduct subsequent to the disbarment, and the
time that has elapsed between the disbarment and the
application for reinstatement; (Prudential Bank v.
Benjamin Grecia, A.C. No. 2756, Dec. 18, 1990)
4. His efficient government service; (In re: Adriatico,
G.R. No. L-2532, Nov. 17, 1910)
5. Applicants appreciation of the significance of his
dereliction and his assurance that he now possesses the
requisite probity and integrity; and
6. Favorable endorsement of the IBP and pleas of his
loved ones. (Yap Tan v. Sabandal, B.M. No. 144, Feb.
24, 1989)
Effects of Reinstatement
1. Reinstatement to the roll of attorneys wipes out the
restrictions and disabilities resulting from a previous
disbarment (Cui v. Cui, G.R. No. L-18727, Aug. 31,
1964);
2. Recognition of moral rehabilitation and mental fitness
to practice law;
3. Lawyer shall be subject to same law, rules and
regulations as those applicable to any other lawyer; and
4. Lawyer must comply with the conditions imposed on
his readmission.
Effect of Executive Pardon pending Disbarment
Proceeding
If during the pendency of disbarment preceding the
respondent was granted executive pardon, the dismissal
of the case on that sole basis will depend on whether the
executive pardon is absolute or conditional.
1. Absolute or unconditional pardon - the disbarment
case will be dismissed.
2. Conditional pardon - the disbarment case will not be
dismissed on the basis thereof.
An absolute pardon by the President is one that
operates to wipe out the conviction as well as the
offense itself. The grant thereof to a lawyer is a bar to a
proceeding for disbarment against him, if such
proceeding is based solely on the fact of such
conviction. (In re: Parcasio, A.C. No. 100, Feb. 18, 1976)
But where the proceeding to disbar is founded on the
professional misconduct involved in the transaction
which culminated in his conviction, the effect of the
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
pardon is only to relieve him of the penal consequences
of his act and does not operate as a bar to the
disbarment proceeding, inasmuch as the criminal acts
may nevertheless constitute proof that the attorney does
not possess good moral character. (In re: Lontok, 43
Phil. 293, Apr. 7, 1922)
READMISSION TO THE BAR OF LAWYERS WHO
HAVE BEEN REPARTRIATED
Effects of Loss and Re-acquisition of Filipino Citizenship
General Rule: The loss of Philippine citizenship ipso jure
terminates the privilege to practice law in the Philippines.
Exception:
The Constitution provides that the practice of all
professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino
citizens save in cases prescribed by law. Since Filipino
citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss
thereof terminates membership in the Philippine bar and,
consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice of
law. In other words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso
jure terminates the privilege to practice law in the
Philippines. The practice of law is a privilege denied to
foreigners.
The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by
reason of naturalization as a citizen of another country
but subsequently reacquired pursuant to R.A. 9225. This
is because all Philippine citizens who become citizens
of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their
Philippine citizenship under the conditions of R.A. 9225.
Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of
another country is deemed never to have lost his
Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance
with R.A. 9225. Although he is also deemed never to
have terminated his membership in the Philippine bar,
no automatic right to resume law practice accrues.
Before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship
pursuant to R.A. 9225 can resume his law practice, he
must first secure from the SC the authority to do so,
conditioned on:
1. The updating and payment in full of the annual
membership dues in the IBP;
2. The payment of professional tax;
3. The completion of at least 36 credit hours of
mandatory continuing legal education, this is especially
significant to refresh the applicant/petitioners knowledge
of Philippine laws and update him of legal developments;
and
4. The retaking of the lawyers oath which will not only
remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer
and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge
to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.
(Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law of
Benjamin Dacanay, B.M. No. 1678, Dec. 17, 2007)
LIABILITIES OF A LAWYER CIVIL LIABILITY
1) Client is prejudiced by lawyers negligence and
misconduct
2) Breach of fiduciary obligation
3) Civil liability to third persons
4) Libelous words in pleadings; violation of
communication privilege
5) Liability for costs of suit (treble costs) when lawyer
is made liable for insisting on clients patently
unmeritorious case or interposing appeal merely to delay
litigation
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
1) Prejudicing client through malicious breach of
professional duty
2) Revealing client secrets
3) Representing adverse interests
4) Introducing false evidence
5) Misappropriating clients funds (Estafa)
REMEDIES AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF
LAW OF LAWYERS
1. Declaratory relief;
2. Petition for Injuction;
3. Contempt of court;
4. Criminal complaint for Estafa against a person who
falsely represented himself to be an attorney to the
damage of a party;
5. Disqualification and complaints for disbarment; or
6. Administrative complaint against the erring lawyer or
government official.
CONTEMPT OF COURT
A. Nature
It is exercised on preservative and not on vindictive
principles and on corrective rather than the retaliatory
idea of punishment. It is criminal in nature.
The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all
courts. It is essential in the observance of order in
judicial proceedings and to enforcement of judgment,
orders and writs.
B. Kinds of Contempt
1) Direct Contempt
It consists of misbehavior in the presence of or near
a court or judge as to interrupt or obstruct the
proceedings before the court or the administration of
justice.
2) Indirect or Constructive Contempt
One committed away from the court involving
disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process,
order, judgment or command of the court, tending to
belittle, degrade, obstruct, interrupt or embarrass the
court.
a) Civil contempt failure to do something ordered
by the court which is for the benefit of the party.
b) Criminal contempt consists of any conduct
directed against the authority or dignity of the court.
C. Acts of a Lawyer Constituting Contempt
1. Misbehavior as officer of court
2. Disobedience or resistance to court order
3. Abuse or interference with judicial proceedings
4. Obstruction in administration of justice
5. Misleading courts
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
6. Making false allegations, criticisms, insults, veiled
threats against the courts
7. Aiding in unauthorized practice of law (suspended or
disbarred)
8. Unlawful retention of clients funds
9. Advise client to commit contemptuous acts
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
B.M. No. 850 August 22, 2000
PURPOSE
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.
REQUIREMENTS OF COMPLETION OF MCLE
Members of the IBP, unless exempted under Rule 7,
shall complete every 3 years at least 36 hours of
continuing legal education activities. The 36 hours shall
be divided as follows:
1. 6 hours legal ethics
2. 4 hours trial and pretrial skills
3. 5 hours alternative dispute resolution
4. 9 hours updates on substantive and procedural laws
and jurisprudence
5. 4 hours legal writing and oral advocacy
6. 2 hours international law and international
conventions
7. Remaining 6 hours such other subjects as may be
prescribed by the Committee on MCLE.
Classes of Credits
1. Participatory credit Attending approved education
activities like seminars, conventions, symposia, and the
like; speaking or lecturing, or assigned as panelist,
reactor, or commentator, etc.
in approved education activities; teaching in law school
or lecturing in bar review classes.
2. Non-participatory Preparing, as author or co-author,
written materials (article, book or book review) which
contribute to the legal education of the author member,
which were not prepared in the ordinary course of his
practice or employment; editing a law book, law journal
or legal newsletter.
COMPLIANCE
What constitute non-compliance?
1. Failure to complete education requirement within the
compliance period;
2. Failure to provide attestation of compliance or
exemption;
3. Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance
(including evidence of exempt status) within the
prescribed period;
4. Failure to satisfy the education requirement and
furnish evidence of such compliance within 60 days from
receipt of non-compliance notice;
5. Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the
prescribed period; or
6. Any other act or omission analogous to any of the
foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade compliance
with the MCLE requirements.
EXEMPTIONS
1. The President, Vice-President and the Secretaries
and Undersecretaries of Executive Departments;
2. Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives;
3. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the
Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members of the
judiciary, incumbent members of Judicial Bar Council,
incumbent members of the MCLE Committee,
incumbent court lawyers who have availed of the
Philippine Judicial Academy programs of continuing
judicial education (Amendment to Bar Matter 850,
Resolution of the Court En Banc, July 13, 2004);
4. The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and
Assistant Secretaries of the Dept. of Justice;
5. The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitor
General;
6. The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and
Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
7. The Chairman and Members of the Constitutional
Commissions;
8. The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman,
the Deputy Ombudsmen and the Special Prosecutor of
the Office of the Ombudsman;
9. Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-
judicial functions;
10. Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of
law who have teaching experience for at least 10 years
in accredited law schools;
11. The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of
the Corps of Professional and Professorial Lecturers of
the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
12. Governors and Mayors.
CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE
A member who fails to comply with the requirements
after the 60-day period shall be listed as delinquent
member by the IBP Board of Governors upon
recommendation of the Committee on MCLE.
Qualifications of Justices in the Supreme Court of
Court of Appeals
One must be:
1. A natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
2. At least 40 years of age;
3. A person who has been, for 15 years or more, a judge
of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law; and
4. A person of proven competence, integrity, probity and
independence. (Sec. 7(2), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
Qualifications of Judges in the RTC
One must be:
1. A natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
2. At least 35 years of age; and
3. For at least 10 years engaged in the practice of law in
the Philippines or held a public office in the Philippines
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
requiring admission to the practice of law as an
indispensable requisite.
Qualifications of Judges in the MTC
One must be:
1. A natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
2. At least 30 years of age; and
3. For at least 5 years, engaged in the practice of law in
the Philippines or held a public office in the Philippines
requiring admission to the practice of law as an
indispensable requisite.
THE NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR THE
PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY
CANON 1INDEPENDENCE
Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the Rule
of Law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A
judge shall, therefore, uphold and exemplify judicial
independence in both its individual and institutional
aspects.
SECTION 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial
function independently on the basis of their
assessment of the facts and in accordance with a
conscientious understanding of the law, free of any
extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat
or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter
or for any reason.
PEOPLE V. VENERACION
249 SCRA 244 (1995)
In one criminal case for the crime of rape and homicide,
the judge found defendants guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. Under the law, particularly RA 7659, the
punishment for the crime of rape with homicide is death.
However, in the subject case, the judge imposed upon
the accused the punishment of reclusion perpetua. A
court of law is no place for a protracted debate on the
morality or propriety of the sentence, where the law itself
provides for the sentence of death as a penalty in
specific and well-defined instances.
SECTION 2. In performing judicial duties, judges shall
be independent from judicial colleagues in respect of
decisions which the judge is obliged to make
independently.
TAHIL V. EISMA
64 SCRA 378 (1975)
The discretion of the Court to grant bail must be based
on the Courts determination as to whether or not the
evidence of guilt is strong. This discretion may be
exercised only after the evidence has been submitted at
the summary hearing conducted pursuant to Sec. 7 of
Rule 114 of the Rules. Respondents admission that he
granted bail to an accused upon the request of a
Congressman, despite his belief that the evidence of
guilt against said is strong, is indeed reprehensible.
SECTION 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in
any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute
pending before another court or administrative
agency.
SABITSANA, JR. V. VILLAMOR
RTJ NO. 90- 474, October 4, 1991
FACTS: Judge Villamor is the executive judge of RTC.
Acting on such capacity, he designated Judge Pitao as
the acting MCTC judge of a municipality. Judge Villamor,
by sending a note to Judge Pitao, assured the wife of a
certain accused in a criminal case, which had long been
pending before the MCTC that Judge Pitao should acquit
the accused. However, Judge Pitao decided otherwise.
This prompted Judge Villamor to direct Judge Pitao to
forward the record of the case to his sala. Judge
Villamor then acquitted the accused.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Villamor commit an act of
misconduct?
HELD: Yes. A judge should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all activities. A judge shall
not influence in any manner the outcome of litigation or
dispute pending before another court. This is so because
such interference does not only subvert the
independence of judiciary but also undermines the
peoples faith in its integrity and impartiality. In the
instant case, Judge Villamors act of sending a note to
Judge Pitao for the latter to decide a case in favor of the
accused constitutes undue interference.
SECTION 4. Judges shall not allow family, social or
other relationships to influence judicial conduct or
judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be
used or lent to advance the private interests of
others, nor convey or permit others to convey the
impression that they are in a special position to
influence the judge.
Judges Family includes:
1. Judges spouse
2. Son
3. Daughter
4. Son-in-law
5. Daughter-in-law
6. Other relative by consanguinity or affinity within the
sixth civil degree, or
7. Person who is a companion or employee of the judge
and who lives in the judges household (NCJC of the
Philippine Judiciary-Annotated, February 2007)
PADILLA V. ZANTUA
237 SCRA 670 (1994)
Constant company with a lawyer tends to breed intimacy
and camaraderie to the point that favors in the future
may be asked from respondent judge which he may find
hard to resist. The actuation of respondent Judge of
eating and drinking in public places with a lawyer who
has pending cases in his sala may well arouse suspicion
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
in the public mind, thus tending to erode the trust of the
litigants in the impartiality of the judge.
SECTION 5. Judges shall not only be free from
inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the
executive and legislative branches of government, but
must also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable
observer.
ALFONSO V. ALONZO-LEGASTO
A.M. No. MTJ 94-995, September 5, 2002
An executive judge has no authority to cause the
transfer of court employees as the jurisdiction to do so is
lodge solely upon the SC through the Office of the Court
Administrator. This is so because of the need to maintain
judicial independence. Moreover, a judge shall be free
from inappropriate connections with and influence from
the executive and legislative branch. Here, the judge did
not act independently of the LGU when she asked the
Mayor of QC to re- employ the displaced employees
instead of informing the SC through the OCA of the need
to streamline her court of its personal needs.
SECTION 6. Judges shall be independent in relation
to society in general and in relation to the particular
parties to a dispute which he or she has to
adjudicate.
SECTION 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold
safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties in
order to maintain and enhance the institutional and
operational independence of the Judiciary.
SECTION 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high
standards of judicial conduct in order to reinforce
public confidence in the Judiciary, which is
fundamental to the maintenance of judicial
independence.
Good Judges, Defined
In the case of Borromeo v. Mariano, G.R. No. 16808,
January 3, 1921, good judges are those who:
1. Have the mastery of the principles of law,
2. Discharge their duties in accordance with law,
3. Are permitted to perform the duties of the office
undeterred by outside influence, and
4. Are independent and self-respecting human units in a
judicial system equal and coordinate with the other two
departments of the government
CANON 2TEGRITY
Integrity is essential not only to the proper
discharge of the judicial office, but also to the
personal demeanor of judges.
SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is
their conduct above reproach, but that it is
perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable
observer.
ATTY. ARTURO ROMERO V. JUDGE GABRIEL VALLE
JR.
147 SCRA 197, January 9, 1987
FACTS: Atty. Romero charged Judge Valle with grave
misconduct and oppression. The case arose from a
dispute between Romero and Valle as to the proper
marking of Iglesia Filipinas inventory book in one civil
case where Judge Valle is the presiding judge of the
RTC where the case was lodged. Atty. Romero insisted
that it should be marked as Exh F while judge claimed
that it should be Exh G since there was already an Exh F
marked during the previous trial when counsel was
absent. Counsel, however, continued insisting in a loud
voice, which irritated the judge. Valle admonished
counsel not to bring his passion to the court and to
respect the court. He allegedly uttered embarrassing
remarks against Atty. Romero and even challenged the
latter for a fight. Valle then banged his gavel, left the
rostrum, and went to his chamber. Outside, he allegedly
held a gun with his right hand in an angry and menacing
manner.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Valle has violated the
Code of Judicial Conduct.
HELD: Yes. Judge Valle, in losing his temper, failed to
preserve order in his court. Judges have contempt
powers to endeavor counsel to appreciate his duties to
the court. He should have cited counsel in contempt
instead of walking out of the courtroom. His act of
carrying his licensed gun, though permitted, was not an
innocent gesture but with intent to intimidate counsel. He
violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics, which requires
that a judges official conduct should be free from the
appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior,
not only upon the bench and in the performance of
judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be
beyond reproach.
SECTION 2. The behavior and conduct of judges
must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the
Judiciary. Justice must not merely be done, but must
also be seen to be done.
IN MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM
AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL
CASTILLO
A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, February 8, 2011
A judge writing to resolve a dispute, whether trial or
appellate, is exempted from a charge of plagiarism even
if ideas, words or phrases from a law review article,
novel thoughts published in a legal periodical or
language from a partys brief are used without giving
attribution. Thus judges are free to use whatever
sources they deem appropriate to resolve the matter
before them, without fear of reprisal. This exemption
applies to judicial writings intended to decide cases for
two reasons: the judge is not writing a literary work and,
more importantly, the purpose of the writing is to resolve
a dispute. As a result, judges adjudicating cases are not
subject to a claim of legal plagiarism.
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
SECTION 3. Judges should take or initiate
appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers
or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of
which the judge may have become aware.
CANON 3IMPARTIALITY
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of
the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision
itself but also to the process by which the decision
is made.
SECTION 1. Judges shall perform their judicial
duties without favor, bias or prejudice.
DIMO REALTY & DEVELOPMENT, INC. V.
DIMACULANGAN
G.R. No. 130991, March 11, 2004
For a judge to be inhibited, allegations of partiality and
pre-judgment must be proven by clear and convincing
evidence. Here, mere allegation that the judge arbitrarily
issued the TRO
without presenting evidence showing bias on his part is
not sufficient. While Judge Santiago acted in excess of
his jurisdiction when he issued the TRO for such should
only be enforceable within his territorial jurisdiction, such
error may not necessarily warrant inhibition at most it is
correctible by certiorari
SECTION 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her
conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and
enhances the confidence of the public, the legal
profession and litigants in the impartiality of the
judge and of the Judiciary.
TALENS-DABON V. ARCEO
259 SCRA 354 (1996)
The integrity of the Judiciary rests not only upon the fact
that it is able to administer justice but also upon the
perception and confidence of the community that the
people who run the system have done justice. Hence, in
order to create such confidence, the people who run the
judiciary, particularly judges and justices, must not only
be proficient in both the substantive and procedural
aspects of the law, but more importantly, they must
possess the highest integrity, probity, and
unquestionable moral uprightness, both in their public
and private lives. Only then can the people be reassured
that the wheels of justice in this country run with fairness
and equity, thus creating confidence in the judicial
system.
SECTION 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so
conduct themselves as to minimize the occasions
on which it will be necessary for them to be
disqualified from hearing or deciding cases.
Rule of Necessity, Defined
In the case of Parayno v. Meneses, G.R. No. 112684,
Apr. 26, 1994, it is stated that a judge is not disqualified
to sit in a case where there is no other judge available to
hear and decide the case.
Furthermore, when all judges will be disqualified as
a result, it will not be permitted to destroy the only
tribunal with the power in the premises. The doctrine
operates on the principle that a basic judge is better than
no judge at all. It is the duty of the disqualified judge to
hear and decide the case regardless of objections or
disagreements.
SECTION 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a
proceeding is before or could come before them,
make any comment that might reasonably be
expected to affect the outcome of such proceeding
or impair the manifest fairness of the process. Nor
shall judges make any comment in public or
otherwise that might affect the fair trial of any
person or issue.
SECTION 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from
participating in any proceedings in which they are
unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it
may appear to a reasonable observer that they are
unable to decide the matter impartially. Such
proceedings include, but are not limited to instances
where:
(a) The judge has actual bias or prejudice
concerning a party or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceedings;
(b) The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a
material witness in the matter in controversy;
(c) The judge or a member of his or her family, has
an economic interest in the outcome of the matter in
controversy;
(d) The judge served as executor, administrator,
guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or matter in
controversy, or a former associate of the judge
served as counsel during their association, or the
judge or lawyer was a material witness therein;
(e) The judge s ruling in a lower court is the subject
of review;
(f) The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity
to a party litigant within the sixth civil degree or to
counsel within the fourth civil degree; or
(g) The judge knows that his or her spouse or child
has a financial interest, as heir, legatee, creditor,
fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in
controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any
other interest that could be substantially affected by
the outcome of the proceedings.
SECTION 6. A judge disqualified as stated above
may, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding,
disclose on the records the basis of disqualification.
If, based on such disclosure, the parties and
lawyers, independently of the judge s participation,
all agree in writing that the reason for inhibition is
immaterial or un-substantial; the judge may then
participate in the proceeding. The agreement, signed
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
by all parties and lawyers, shall be incorporated in
the record of the proceedings.
Grounds for Disqualification and Inhibition of Judges
under the Rules of Court
1. Mandatory of Compulsory Disqualification
Grounds: Specific and Exclusive
Role of the Judicial Officer: no discretion to sit or try
the case
2. Voluntary Inhibition
Grounds: no specific grounds but there is a broad basis
for such
Role of the Judicial Officer: the matter is left to the
sound discretion of the judge
QUERY OF EXECUTIVE JUDGE ESTRELLA T.
ESTRADA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAIOLOS,
BULACAN, ON TIHE CONFLICTING VIEWS OF
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT JUDGES MASADAO and
ELIZAGA
RE: CRIMINAL CASE NO. 4954-M
FACTS: Judge Roy A. Masadao, Jr., rendered a
decision in a criminal case finding the accused guilty of
the crime of estafa. Counsel for the accused, Atty. Efren
C. Moncupa, filed a motion for reconsideration. Retired
Justice J. B. L. Reyes entered his appearance for the
accused, wherefore, Judge Masadao issued an order
inhibiting himself from further sitting in the case on the
ground that retired Justice J. B. L. Reyes had been
among those who had recommended him to the Bench.
The case was raffled to the sala of Judge Luciano G.
Elizaga. Judge Elizaga returned the records of the case
with an accompanying letter stating a refusal to act on
the aforesaid motion for reconsideration and assailing
the re-raffling of the case as impractical and uncalled for.
ISSUE: Who shall resolve a motion for reconsideration
filed against the decision of Judge Roy A. Masadao, Jr.,
after he had voluntarily inhibited himself from further
sitting in Criminal Case No. 4954-M of the Regional Trial
Court of Bulacan, ranch 9, Malolos entitled "People of
the Philippines v. Jaime Tadeo"?
HELD: Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of
Court embodies the rule on disqualification and inhibition
of judges.
No judge or judicial off icer shall sit in any case in which
he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir.
legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to
either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or
affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed
according to the rules of civil law, or in which he has
been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or
counsel, in which he has presided in any inferior court
when his ruling or decision is the subject of review,
without written consent of an the parties in interest,
signed by them and entered upon the record.
On the other hand, where no grounds for
disqualification as above enumerated exist, as in the
case at bar, the rule on inhibition provides:
A judge may, in the exercise of his discretion,
disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid
reasons other than those mentioned above
It is clear from a reading of the law that intimacy or
friendship between a judge and an attorney of record of
one of the parties to a suit is no ground for
disqualification. The court held that the fact "that one of
the counsels in a case was a classmate of the trial judge
is not a legal ground for the disqualification of said judge.
To allow it would unnecessarily burden other trial judges
to whom the case would be transferred. Ultimately,
confusion would result, for under a different rule, a judge
would be barred from sitting in a case whenever one of
his former classmates (and he could have many)
appeared." Likewise, the rule applies when the lawyer of
the defendant was a former associate of the judge, when
he was practicing law.
Inhibition is not allowed at every instance that a
friend, classmate, associate or patron of a presiding
judge appears before him as counsel for one of the
parties to a case. "Utang na loob", per se, should not be
a hindrance to the administration of justice. Nor should
recognition of such value in Philippine society prevent
the performance of one's duties as judge. However,
where, as in this case, the judge admits that he may be
suspected of surrendering to the persuasions of utang
na loob or he may even succumb to it considering that
he "and the members of his family, no less, shall ever
remain obliged in eternal gratitude to Justice Reyes", the
negative answer to the question of judge Elizaga yields
to exceptions in extraordinary cases.
CANON 4PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are
essential to the performance of all the activities of a
judge.
SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
Prohibitions:
- Actual impropriety
- Appearance of impropriety
SECTION 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny,
judges must accept personal restrictions that might
be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen
and should do so freely and willingly. In particular,
judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is
consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
SECTION 3. Judges shall, in their personal relations
with individual members of the legal profession who
practice regularly in their court, avoid situations
which might reasonably give rise to the suspicion or
appearance of favoritism or partiality.
SECTION 4. Judges shall not participate in the
determination of a case in which any member of
their family represents a litigant or is associated in
any manner with the case.
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
SECTION 5. Judges shall not allow the use of their
residence by a member of the legal profession to
receive clients of the latter or of other members of
the legal profession.
SECTION 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are
entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association
and assembly, but in exercising such rights, they
shall always conduct themselves in such a manner
as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and
the impartiality and independence of the Judiciary.
RE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE
ACUNA
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891, July 28, 2005
FACTS: Judge Acuna was charged with improper
conduct for allegedly making humiliating statements
such as putris, and putang-ina. In his answer, Judge
Acuna claimed that those words are only his favorite
expressions and they are not directed to any particular
person. He further maintained that his behavior is
justified by the fact that he is still mourning the sudden
demise of his eldest son.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Acuna is guilty of
improper conduct.
HELD: Yes. Judges are demanded to be always
temperate, patient and courteous both in the conduct
and language. Indeed, judges should so behave at all
times because having accepted the esteemed position of
a judge he ought to have known that more is expected of
him than ordinary citizen. Here, the judges use of
humiliating and insensitive expressions like putris and
putang- ina is improper as such intemperate language
detracts from how he should conduct himself. Moreover,
it does not matter whether such expressions were
directed to a particular person or not, as they give the
impression of a persons ill manners.
SECTION 7. Judges shall inform themselves about
their personal fiduciary and financial interests and
shall make reasonable efforts to be informed about
the financial interests of members of their family.
SECTION 8. Judges shall not use or lend the
prestige of the judicial office to advance their private
interests, or those of a member of their family or of
anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit others
to convey the impression that anyone is in a special
position improperly to influence them in the
performance of judicial duties.
SECTION 9. Confidential information acquired by
judges in their judicial capacity shall not be used or
disclosed for any other purpose related to their
judicial duties.
UMALE V. VILLALUZ
G.R. No. L-33508 May 25, 1973
FACTS: Petitioner Leon Umale impugns the validity of
the order of respondent Judge Onofre A. Villaluz
disqualifying or inhibiting himself from trying the robbery
charge against sixteen (16) accused. Petitioner Leon
Umale is the complainant in the said robbery case.
However, without any party moving for his
disqualification or inhibition, respondent Judge Onofre
Villaluz voluntarily inhibited himself from trying the case
on the ground that before the criminal case was filed in
his court, he already had personal knowledge of the
same; and directed the immediate forwarding of the
records of the case to the Executive Judge of the Court
of First Instance of Pasig, Rizal, for proper disposition.
ISSUE: Whether respondent Judge Onofre A. Villaluz
can voluntarily inhibit himself without any motion therefor
by the parties on the ground of his personal knowledge
of the case even before the same was filed.
HELD: Yes. A judge may voluntarily inhibit himself by
reason of his being related to a counsel within the fourth
civil degree (no expressly included as a ground in par. 1
of Rule 137); because Rule 126 (the old rule) "does not
include nor preclude cases and circumstances for
voluntary inhibition which depends upon the discretion of
the officers concerned." Herein respondent Judge has
personal knowledge of the case. Such personal
knowledge on his part might generate in his mind some
bias or prejudice against the complaining witness or any
of the accused or in a manner unconsciously color his
judgment one way or the other without the parties having
the opportunity to cross-examine him as a witness.
A salutary norm is that he reflects on the probability that
a losing party might nurture at the back of his mind the
thought that the judge had unmeritoriously tilted the
scales of justice against him. It is possible that the
respondent Judge might be influenced by his personal
knowledge of the case when he tries and decides the
same on the merits, which would certainly constitute a
denial of due process to the party adversely affected by
his judgment or decision. It is best that, after some
reflection, the respondent Judge on his own initiative
disqualified himself from hearing the robbery case filed
by herein petitioner and thereby rendered himself
available as witness to any of the parties and therefore
maybe subject to cross-examination.
SECTION 10. Subject to the proper performance of
judicial duties, judges may:
(a) Write, lecture, teach and participate in activities
concerning the law, the legal system, the
administration of justice or related matters;
(b) Appear at a public hearing before an official body
concerned with matters relating to the law, the legal
system, the administration of justice or related
matters;
(c) Engage in other activities if such activities do not
detract from the dignity of the judicial office or
otherwise interfere with the performance of judicial
duties.
SECTION 11. Judges shall not practice law whilst the
holder of judicial office.
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
SECTION 12. Judges may form or join associations
of judges or participate in other organizations
representing the interests of judges.
SECTION 13. Judges and members of their families
shall neither ask for nor accept, any gift, bequest,
loan, or favor in relation to anything done or to be
done or omitted to be done by him or her in
connection with the performance of judicial duties.
ATTY. DAVID G. OMPOC vs. JUDGE NORITO E.
TORRES
FACTS: A civil case for ejectment was filed and it was
assigned to Judge Norito Torres. While the case was
being tried, at one time he invited Atty. Ompoc to see
him at his residence and he instructed the former to
bring his client along with him. At the meeting, Judge
Torres gave them a guide what evidence and argument
they have to present. Also in that meeting, Judge Torres
requested the client, who is engage in the business of
Car Decor to install a brand new air conditioner on his
Toyota Hi-Ace and said air conditioner was installed
without Judge Torres paying for it. As the ejectment case
progressed, Judge Torres had been pestering Atty.
Ompocs client with request for loans which Judge
Torres never acknowledged by means of a receipt and
he was given by Atty. Ompocs client sums of money in
various amounts and on different dates. These loans
have never been paid up to now and are certainly will
not be paid, to the end of time because Judge Norito
Torres is smart enough not to sign anything.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Torres committed gross
misconduct.
HELD: Yes. Receiving money from a party litigant is the
kind of gross and flaunting misconduct on the part of the
judge, who is charged with the responsibility of
administering the law and rendering justice. Members of
the judiciary should display not only the highest integrity
but must, at all times, conduct themselves in such
manner as to be beyond reproach and suspicion.
SECTION 14. Judges shall not knowingly permit
court staff or others subject to their influence,
direction or authority, to ask for, or accept, any gift,
bequest, loan or favor in relation to anythingdone, to
be done or omitted to be done in connection with
their duties or functions.
SECTION 15. Subject to law and to any legal
requirements of public disclosure, judges may
receive a token gift, award, or benefit as appropriate
to the occasion on which it is made, provided that
such gift, award or benefit might not be reasonably
perceived as intended to influence the judge in the
performance of official duties or otherwise give rise
to an appearance of partiality.
CANON 5
Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the
courts is essential to the due performance of the
judicial office.
SECTION 1. Judges shall be aware of and
understand diversity in society and differences
arising from various sources, including, but not
limited to, race, color, sex, religion, national origin,
caste, disability, age, marital status, sexual
orientation, social and economic status, and other
like causes.
SECTION 2. Judges shall not, in the performance of
judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias
or prejudice towards any person or group on
irrelevant grounds.
SECTION 3. Judges shall carry out judicial duties
with appropriate consideration for all persons, such
as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff and
judicial colleagues, without differentiation on any
irrelevant ground, immaterial to the proper
performance of such duties.
SECTION 4. Judges shall not knowingly permit court
staff or others subject to his or her influence,
direction or control to differentiate between persons
concerned, in a matter before the judge, on any
irrelevant ground.
SECTION 5. Judges shall require lawyers in
proceedings before the court to refrain from
manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice
based on irrelevant grounds, except such as are
legally relevant to an issue in proceedings and may
be the subject of legitimate advocacy.
CANON 6
Competence and diligence are pre-requisites to the
due performance of judicial office.
SECTION 1. The judicial duties of a judge take
precedence over all other activities.
SECTION 2. Judges shall devote their professional
activity to judicial duties, which include not only the
performance of judicial functions and
responsibilities in court and the making of
decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the
judicial office or the court's operations.
SECTION 3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to
maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills and
personal qualities necessary for the proper
performance of judicial duties, taking advantage for
this purpose the training and other facilities which
should be made available, under judicial control, to
judges.
ABAD V. BLEZA, 1986
As a matter of public policy, in the absence of fraud,
dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his
judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action,
even though such acts are erroneous. Even on the
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER FOR FINALS (Atty. Magbanua)
assumption that the judicial officer has erred in the
appraisal of the evidence, he cannot be held
administratively or civilly liable for his judicial action. A
judicial officer cannot be called to account in a civil
action for acts done by him in the exercise of his judicial
function, however erroneous. Not every error or mistake
of a judge in the performance of his duties makes him
liable therefor. To hold a judge administratively
accountable for every
erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that
he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and
would make his position unbearable.
DAGUDAG V JUDGE PADERANGA
FACTS: Illegal forest products possessed by NMC
Container Lines, Inc were seized by the DENR. The
items were found to be lacking the required legal
documents and were consequently abandoned by the
unknown owner. Later a certain Roger C. Edma filed a
writ of replevin for the release of said confiscated
products. Respondent Judge issued the writ despite the
fact that an administrative case was already pending
before the DENR.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Paderanga is liable for
gross ignorance of the law and for conduct
unbecoming a judge.
HELD: Yes. Judge Paderanga should have dismissed
the replevin suit outright for three reasons.
First, under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies, courts cannot take cognizance of cases
pending before administrative agencies. In the instant
case, Edma did not resort to, or avail of, any
administrative remedy. Second, under the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction, courts cannot take cognizance of
cases pending before administrative agencies of special
competence. Third, the forest products are already in
custodia legis and thus cannot be the subject of replevin.
Judge Paderangas acts of taking cognizance of the
replevin suit and of issuing the writ of replevin constitute
gross ignorance of the law.
Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary states that competence is a
prerequisite to the due performance of judicial office.
Section 3 of Canon 6 states that judges shall take
reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their
knowledge necessary for the proper performance of
judicial duties. Judges should keep themselves abreast
with legal developments and show acquaintance with
laws. The rule that courts cannot prematurely take
cognizance of cases pending before administrative
agencies is basic.
SECTION 4. Judges shall keep themselves informed
about relevant developments of international law,
including international conventions and other
instruments establishing human rights norms.
SECTION 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties,
including the delivery of reserved decisions,
efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS.
JUDGE DOYON
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2108 November 25, 2008
FACTS: After the conducted judicial audit, respondent
Judge Orlando P. Doyon was found to have neglected
his duties. The audit team reported that there were six
civil cases and nine criminal cases where no action was
made for a considerable length of time and other cases
which were already beyond the period to resolve and
beyond the reglementary period to decide. At the time
the findings were made, respondent judge has already
retired which he also used as a defense in order to
exculpate himself.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Doyon is guilty of neglect
and undue delay of rendering justice.
HELD: The Court held that the Constitution requires trial
judges to dispose of all cases or matters within three
months. The New Code of Judicial Conduct also
provides in Canon 6, Section 5 thereof that judges shall
perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of
reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable
promptness. The reason for this rule is that justice
delayed is justice denied. Undue delay in the disposition
of cases results in a denial of justice which, in turn,
brings the courts into disrepute and ultimately erodes the
faith and confidence of the public in the judiciary. Thus,
the failure of judges to render judgments within the
required period constitutes gross inefficiency and
warrants the imposition of administrative
sanction.
SECTION 6. Judges shall maintain order and
decorum in all proceedings before the court and be
patient, dignified and courteous in relation to
litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom
the judge deals in an official capacity. Judges shall
require similar conduct of legal representatives,
court staff and others subject to their influence,
direction or control.
SECTION 7. Judges shall not engage in conduct
incompatible with the diligent discharge of judicial
Duties.