Canon 5 Participate in Legal Education Program

[B.M. 850. October 2, 2001]

MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
RESOLUTION
ADOPTING THE REVISED RULES ON THE CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES
Considering the Rules on the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) for members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), recommended by the IBP, endorsed by the Philippine Judicial Academy, and reviewed and passed upon
by the Supreme Court Committee on Legal Education, the Court hereby resolves to approve, as it hereby approves, the
following Revised Rules for proper implementation:
Rule 1. PURPOSE
SECTION 1. Purpose of the MCLE. Continuing legal education is required of members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) to ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics
of the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law.
Rule 2. MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
SECTION 1. Commencement of the MCLE. Within two (2) months from the approval of these Rules by the Supreme Court
En Banc, the MCLE Committee shall be constituted and shall commence the implementation of the Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education (MCLE) program in accordance with these Rules.
SEC. 2. Requirements of completion of MCLE. Members of the IBP not exempt under Rule 7 shall complete every three (3)
years at least thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal education activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36
hours:
(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics equivalent to six (6) credit units.
(b) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial skills equivalent to four (4) credit units.
(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute resolution equivalent to five (5) credit units.
(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and procedural laws, and jurisprudence equivalent
to nine (9) credit units.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral advocacy equivalent to four (4) credit units.
(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and international conventions equivalent to two (2) credit
units.
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee equivalent
to six (6) credit units.

Rule 3. COMPLIANCE PERIOD

SECTION 1. Initial compliance period. -- The initial compliance period shall begin not later than three (3) months from the
adoption of these Rules. Except for the initial compliance period for members admitted or readmitted after the
establishment of the program, all compliance periods shall be for thirty-six (36) months and shall begin the day after the
end of the previous compliance period.

SEC. 2. Compliance Groups. -- Members of the IBP not exempt from the MCLE requirement shall be divided into three (3)
compliance groups, namely:
(a) Compliance group 1. -- Members in the National Capital Region (NCR) or Metro Manila are assigned to Compliance
Group 1.
(b) Compliance group 2. -- Members in Luzon outside NCR are assigned to Compliance Group 2.
(c) Compliance group 3. -- Members in Visayas and Mindanao are assigned to Compliance Group 3.
Nevertheless, members may participate in any legal education activity wherever it may be available to earn credit unit
toward compliance with the MCLE requirement.
SEC. 3. Compliance period of members admitted or readmitted after establishment of the program. Members admitted
or readmitted to the Bar after the establishment of the program shall be assigned to the appropriate Compliance Group
based on their Chapter membership on the date of admission or readmission.
The initial compliance period after admission or readmission shall begin on the first day of the month of admission or
readmission and shall end on the same day as that of all other members in the same Compliance Group.
(a) Where four (4) months or less remain of the initial compliance period after admission or readmission, the member is
not required to comply with the program requirement for the initial compliance.
(b) Where more than four (4) months remain of the initial compliance period after admission or readmission, the member
shall be required to complete a number of hours of approved continuing legal education activities equal to the number of
months remaining in the compliance period in which the member is admitted or readmitted. Such member shall be
required to complete a number of hours of education in legal ethics in proportion to the number of months remaining in
the compliance period. Fractions of hours shall be rounded up to the next whole number.
Rule 4. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT UNITS(CU)
SECTION 1. Guidelines. - CREDIT UNITS ARE EQUIVALENT TO CREDIT HOURS. CREDIT UNITS measure compliance with the
MCLE requirement under the Rules, based on the category of the lawyers participation in the MCLE activity. The following
are the guidelines for computing credit units and the supporting documents required therefor:
PROGRAMS/ACTIVITY CREDIT UNITS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
1. SEMINARS, CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, IN-HOUSE EDUCATION PROGRAMS, WORKSHOPS, DIALOGUES,
ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS BY APPROVED PROVIDERS UNDER RULE 7 AND OTHER RELATED RULES
1.1 PARTICIPANT/ 1 CU PER HOUR OF CERTIFICATE OF
ATTENDEE ATTENDANCE ATTENDANCE WITH
NUMBER OF HOURS
1.2 LECTURER FULL CU FOR THE PHOTOCOPY OF
RESOURCE SUBJECT PER PLAQUE OR
SPEAKER COMPLIANCE PERIOD SPONSORS
CERTIFICATION
1.3 PANELIST/REACTOR 1/2 OF CU FOR THE CERTIFICATION
COMMENTATOR/ SUBJECT PER FROM
MODERATOR/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD SPONSORING COORDINATOR/ ORGANIZATION
FACILITATOR
2. AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND REVIEW
2.1 LAW BOOK OF NOT FULL CU FOR THE PUBLISHED BOOK
LESS THAN 100 PAGES SUBJECT PER
COMPLIANCE PERIOD
2.2 BOOK EDITOR 1/2 OF THE CU OF PUBLISHED BOOK
AUTHORSHIP CATEGORY WITH PROOF AS
EDITOR
2.3 RESEARCH PAPER 1/2 OF CU FOR THE DULY
INNOVATIVE PROGRAM/ SUBJECT PER CERTIFIED/
CREATIVE PROJECT COMPLIANCE PERIOD PUBLISHED
TECHNICAL
REPORT/PAPER
2.4 LEGAL ARTICLE OF AT 1/2 OF CU FOR THE PUBLISHED ARTICLE
LEAST TEN (10) PAGES SUBJECT PER
COMPLIANCE PERIOD
2.5 LEGAL NEWSLETTER/ 1 CU PER ISSUE PUBLISHED
LAW JOURNAL EDITOR NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL
2.6 PROFESSORIAL CHAIR/ FULL CU FOR THE CERTIFICATION OF
BAR REVIEW LECTURE SUBJECT PER LAW DEAN OR
LAW TEACHING/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD BAR REVIEW
DIRECTOR
Rule 5. CATEGORIES OF CREDIT UNITS
SECTION 1. Classes of Credit units. -- Credit units are either participatory or non-participatory.
SEC. 2. Claim for participatory credit units. -- Participatory credit units may be claimed for:
(a) Attending approved education activities like seminars, conferences, conventions, symposia, in-house education
programs, workshops, dialogues or round table discussion.
(b) Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned panelist, reactor, commentator, resource speaker, moderator, coordinator
or facilitator in approved education activities.
(c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review class.
SEC. 3. Claim for non-participatory credit units. Non-participatory credit units may be claimed per compliance period for:

(a) Preparing, as an author or co-author, written materials published or accepted for publication, e.g., in the form of an
article, chapter, book, or book review which contribute to the legal education of the author member, which were not
prepared in the ordinary course of the members practice or employment.
(b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.
Rule 6. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT HOURS (CH)
SECTION 1. Computation of credit hours. -- Credit hours are computed based on actual time spent in an education activity
in hours to the nearest one-quarter hour reported in decimals.
Rule 7. EXEMPTIONS
SECTION 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The following members of the Bar are exempt from the MCLE requirement:
(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executive
Departments;
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members of the judiciary,
incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial
Academy program of continuing judicial education;
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Justice;
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor of the Office
of the Ombudsman;
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience for at least ten (10) years in
accredited law schools;
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and Professorial Lecturers of the Philippine
Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
SEC. 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE. The following Members of the Bar are likewise exempt:
(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.
(b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of Governors.
SEC. 3. Good cause for exemption from or modification of requirement A member may file a verified request setting forth
good cause for exemption (such as physical disability, illness, post graduate study abroad, proven expertise in law, etc.)
from compliance with or modification of any of the requirements, including an extension of time for compliance, in
accordance with a procedure to be established by the MCLE Committee.
SEC. 4. Change of status. The compliance period shall begin on the first day of the month in which a member ceases to be
exempt under Sections 1, 2, or 3 of this Rule and shall end on the same day as that of all other members in the same
Compliance Group.

SEC. 5. Proof of exemption. Applications for exemption from or modification of the MCLE requirement shall be under oath
and supported by documents.

Rule 8. STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF

EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

SECTION 1. Approval of MCLE program. Subject to the implementing regulations that may be adopted by the MCLE
Committee, continuing legal education program may be granted approval in either of two (2) ways: (1) the provider of the
activity is an accredited provider and certifies that the activity meets the criteria of Section 2 of this Rule; and (2) the
provider is specifically mandated by law to provide continuing legal education.

SEC. 2. Standards for all education activities. All continuing legal education activities must meet the following standards:

(a) The activity shall have significant current intellectual or practical content.

(b) The activity shall constitute an organized program of learning related to legal subjects and the legal profession,
including cross profession activities (e.g., accounting-tax or medical-legal) that enhance legal skills or the ability to practice
law, as well as subjects in legal writing and oral advocacy.

(c) The activity shall be conducted by a provider with adequate professional experience.

(d) Where the activity is more than one (1) hour in length, substantive written materials must be distributed to all
participants. Such materials must be distributed at or before the time the activity is offered.

(e) In-house education activities must be scheduled at a time and location so as to be free from interruption like telephone
calls and other distractions.

Rule 9. ACCREDITATION OF PROVIDERS

SECTION 1. Accreditation of providers. -- Accreditation of providers shall be done by the MCLE Committee.

SEC. 2. Requirements for accreditation of providers. Any person or group may be accredited as a provider for a term of
two (2) years, which may be renewed, upon written application. All providers of continuing legal education activities,
including in-house providers, are eligible to be accredited providers. Application for accreditation shall:

(a) Be submitted on a form provided by the MCLE Committee;

(b) Contain all information requested in the form;

(c) Be accompanied by the appropriate approval fee.

SEC. 3. Requirements of all providers. -- All approved accredited providers shall agree to the following:

(a) An official record verifying the attendance at the activity shall be maintained by the provider for at least four (4) years
after the completion date. The provider shall include the member on the official record of attendance only if the members
signature was obtained at the time of attendance at the activity. The official record of attendance shall contain the
members name and number in the Roll of Attorneys and shall identify the time, date, location, subject matter, and length
of the education activity. A copy of such record shall be furnished the MCLE COMMITTEE.

(b) The provider shall certify that:

(1) This activity has been approved BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE in the amount of ________ hours of which ______ hours
will apply in (legal ethics, etc.), as appropriate to the content of the activity;

(2) The activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by these Rules and such regulations
as may be prescribed by the MCLE COMMITTEE.

(c) The provider shall issue a record or certificate to all participants identifying the time, date, location, subject matter and
length of the activity.

(d) The provider shall allow in-person observation of all approved continuing legal education activity by THE MCLE
COMMITTEE, members of the IBP Board of Governors, or designees of the Committee and IBP staff Board for purposes of
monitoring compliance with these Rules.

(e) The provider shall indicate in promotional materials, the nature of the activity, the time devoted to each topic and
identity of the instructors. The provider shall make available to each participant a copy of THE MCLE COMMITTEE-
approved Education Activity Evaluation Form.

(f) The provider shall maintain the completed Education Activity Evaluation Forms for a period of not less than one (1)
year after the activity, copy furnished the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(g) Any person or group who conducts an unauthorized activity under this program or issues a spurious certificate in
violation of these Rules shall be subject to appropriate sanctions.
SEC. 4. Renewal of provider accreditation. The accreditation of a provider may be renewed every two (2) years. It may be
denied if the provider fails to comply with any of the requirements of these Rules or fails to provide satisfactory education
activities for the preceding period.
SEC. 5. Revocation of provider accreditation. -- the accreditation of any provider referred to in Rule 9 may be revoked by
a majority vote of the MCLE Committee, after notice and hearing and for good cause.
Rule 10. FEE FOR APPROVAL OF ACTIVITY AND ACCREDITATION OF PROVIDER
SECTION 1. Payment of fees. Application for approval of an education activity or accreditation as a provider requires
payment of the appropriate fee as provided in the Schedule of MCLE Fees.
Rule 11. GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
SECTION 1. Compliance card. -- Each member shall secure from the MCLE Committee a Compliance Card before the end
of his compliance period. He shall complete the card by attesting under oath that he has complied with the education
requirement or that he is exempt, specifying the nature of the exemption. Such Compliance Card must be returned to the
Committee not later than the day after the end of the members compliance period.
SEC. 2. Member record keeping requirement. -- Each member shall maintain sufficient record of compliance or exemption,
copy furnished the MCLE Committee. The record required to be provided to the members by the provider pursuant to
Section 3 of Rule 9 should be a sufficient record of attendance at a participatory activity. A record of non-participatory
activity shall also be maintained by the member, as referred to in Section 3 of Rule 5.
Rule 12. NON-COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
SECTION 1. What constitutes non-compliance. The following shall constitute non-compliance:
(a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance period;
(b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;
(c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of exempt status) within the prescribed
period;
(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such compliance within sixty (60) days from receipt
of non-compliance notice;
(e) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period;
(f) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade compliance with the
MCLE requirements.
SEC. 2. Non-compliance notice and 60-day period to attain compliance. -Members failing to comply will receive a Non-
Compliance Notice stating the specific deficiency and will be given sixty (60) days from the date of notification to file a
response clarifying the deficiency or otherwise showing compliance with the requirements. Such notice shall contain the
following language near the beginning of the notice in capital letters:
IF YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE MCLE REQUIREMENT BY (INSERT DATE 60 DAYS
FROM DATE OF NOTICE), YOU SHALL BE LISTED AS A DELINQUENT MEMBER AND SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE
LAW UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE IS RECEIVED BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE.
Members given sixty (60) days to respond to a Non-Compliance Notice may use this period to attain the adequate number
of credit units for compliance. Credit units earned during this period may only be counted toward compliance with the
prior compliance period requirement unless units in excess of the requirement are earned, in which case the excess may
be counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement.
Rule 13. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE
SECTION 1. Non-compliance fee. -- A member who, for whatever reason, is in non-compliance at the end of the compliance
period shall pay a non-compliance fee.
SEC. 2. Listing as delinquent member. -- A member who fails to comply with the requirements after the sixty (60) day
period for compliance has expired, shall be listed as a delinquent member of the IBP upon the recommendation of the
MCLE Committee. The investigation of a member for non-compliance shall be conducted by the IBPs Commission on Bar
Discipline as a fact-finding arm of the MCLE Committee.

SEC. 3. Accrual of membership fee. -- Membership fees shall continue to accrue at the active rate against a member during
the period he/she is listed as a delinquent member.

Rule 14. REINSTATEMENT

SECTION 1. Process. -- The involuntary listing as a delinquent member shall be terminated when the member provides
proof of compliance with the MCLE requirement, including payment of non-compliance fee. A member may attain the
necessary credit units to meet the requirement for the period of non-compliance during the period the member is on
inactive status. These credit units may not be counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement. Credit
units earned during the period of non-compliance in excess of the number needed to satisfy the prior compliance period
requirement may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement.

SEC. 2. Termination of delinquent listing is an administrative process. The termination of listing as a delinquent member
is administrative in nature AND it shall be made by the MCLE Committee.

Rule. 15. COMMITTEE ON MANDATORY CONTINUING

LEGAL EDUCATION

SECTION 1. Composition. The MCLE Committee shall be composed of five (5) members, namely, a retired Justice of the
Supreme Court as Chair, and four (4) members respectively nominated by the IBP, the Philippine Judicial Academy, a law
center designated by the Supreme Court and associations of law schools and/or law professors.
The members of the Committee shall be of proven probity and integrity. They shall be appointed by the Supreme Court
for a term of three (3) years and shall receive such compensation as may be determined by the Court.

SEC. 2. Duty of committee. The MCLE Committee shall administer and adopt such implementing rules as may be necessary
subject to the approval of the Supreme Court. It shall, in consultation with the IBP Board of Governors, prescribe a schedule
of MCLE fees with the approval of the Supreme Court.

SEC. 3. Staff of the MCLE Committee. Subject to approval by the Supreme Court, the MCLE Committee shall employ such
staff as may be necessary to perform the record-keeping, auditing, reporting, approval and other necessary functions.

SEC. 4. Submission of annual budget. The MCLE Committee shall submit to the Supreme Court for approval, an annual
budget [for a subsidy] to establish, operate and maintain the MCLE Program.

This resolution shall take effect on the fifteenth of September 2000, following its publication in two (2) newspapers of
general circulation in the Philippines.

Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2000, as amended on 02 October 2001.

Canon 6: Canons Apply to Lawyers in Government Service

RA 6713 Section 4

Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. - (A) Every public official and employee shall observe the
following as standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties:

(a) Commitment to public interest. - Public officials and employees shall always uphold the public interest over and above
personal interest. All government resources and powers of their respective offices must be employed and used efficiently,
effectively, honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in public funds and revenues.

(b) Professionalism. - Public officials and employees shall perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree of
excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill. They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication to
duty. They shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage.

(c) Justness and sincerity. - Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They must act with
justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall
at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs,
public policy, public order, public safety and public interest. They shall not dispense or extend undue favors on account of
their office to their relatives whether by consanguinity or affinity except with respect to appointments of such relatives to
positions considered strictly confidential or as members of their personal staff whose terms are coterminous with theirs.

(d) Political neutrality. - Public officials and employees shall provide service to everyone without unfair discrimination and
regardless of party affiliation or preference.

(e) Responsiveness to the public. - Public officials and employees shall extend prompt, courteous, and adequate service
to the public. Unless otherwise provided by law or when required by the public interest, public officials and employees
shall provide information of their policies and procedures in clear and understandable language, ensure openness of
information, public consultations and hearings whenever appropriate, encourage suggestions, simplify and systematize
policy, rules and procedures, avoid red tape and develop an understanding and appreciation of the socio-economic
conditions prevailing in the country, especially in the depressed rural and urban areas.
(f) Nationalism and patriotism. - Public officials and employees shall at all times be loyal to the Republic and to the Filipino
people, promote the use of locally produced goods, resources and technology and encourage appreciation and pride of
country and people. They shall endeavor to maintain and defend Philippine sovereignty against foreign intrusion.

(g) Commitment to democracy. - Public officials and employees shall commit themselves to the democratic way of life and
values, maintain the principle of public accountability, and manifest by deeds the supremacy of civilian authority over the
military. They shall at all times uphold the Constitution and put loyalty to country above loyalty to persons or party.

(h) Simple living. - Public officials and employees and their families shall lead modest lives appropriate to their positions
and income. They shall not indulge in extravagant or ostentatious display of wealth in any form.

(B) The Civil Service Commission shall adopt positive measures to promote (1) observance of these standards including
the dissemination of information programs and workshops authorizing merit increases beyond regular progression steps,
to a limited number of employees recognized by their office colleagues to be outstanding in their observance of ethical
standards; and (2) continuing research and experimentation on measures which provide positive motivation to public
officials and employees in raising the general level of observance of these standards.

A.C. No. 3056. August 16, 1991

FERNANDO T. COLLANTES, Complainant, vs. ATTY. VICENTE C. RENOMERON, Respondent.

FACTS:
Disbarment against Atty. Renomeron, Register of Deeds of Tacloban City.
Atty. Collantes, counsel for V& G Better Homes Subdivision, Inc. (V&G), filed an administrative case against Atty.
Renomeron, for the latter’s irregular actuations with regard to the application of V&G for registration of 163 pro forma
Deed of Absolute Sale with Assignment (in favor of GSIS) of lots in its subdivision.
V&G complied with the desired requirements, however, Renomeron suspended the registration of the documents
pending the compliance of the former with their “special conditions”, which was that V&G should provide him with weekly
round trip ticket from Tacloban to Manila plus P2,000.00 as pocket money per trip, or, in lieu thereof, the sale of
respondent’s Quezon City house and lot by V&G or GSIS representatives.
Renomeron formally denied the registration of the documents. He himself elevated the question on the
registrability of the said documents to Administrator Bonifacio (of the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration
Administration-NLTDRA). The Administrator then resolved in favor of the registrability of the documents.
Despite the resolution of the Administrator, Renomeron still refused the registration thereof but demanded from
the parties interested the submission of additional requirements not adverted in his previous denial.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent register of deeds, as a lawyer, may also be disciplined by the Court for his
malfeasance as a public official?

HELD:
The Court ruled that Renomeron may be disciplined by the Court as public official for his misconduct constituted
a violation of his oath as a lawyer.
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 (Legal Ethics, Ruben E. Agpalo, 1983 Edition, pp. 66-67).
The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official
tasks (Canon 6). 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, the Code of
Professional Responsibility forbids a lawyer to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01,
Code of Professional Responsibility), or delay any man's cause "for any corrupt motive or interest" (Rule 103).
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. (Rule 7.03, Code of Professional
Responsibility.)
This Court has ordered that only those who are "competent, honorable, and reliable" may practice the profession
of law (Noriega vs. Sison, 125 SCRA 293) for every lawyer must pursue "only the highest standards in the practice of his
calling" (Court Administrator vs. Hermoso, 150 SCRA 269, 278).
The acts of dishonesty and oppression which Attorney Renomeron committed as a public official have
demonstrated his unfitness to practice the high and noble calling of the law (Bautista vs. Judge Guevarra, 142 SCRA 632;
Court Administrator vs. Rodolfo G. Hermoso, 150 SCRA 269).
Attorney Vicente C. Renomeron was disbarred from the practice of law and his name was stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys.

Diana Ramos vs. Atty. Jose R. Imbang

AC No. 6788; August23, 2007

Facts : This case is about the disbarment or Suspension against Atty. JoseR. Imbang for multiple violations of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
1992, Ramos sought the assistance of Atty. Imbang in filing civil and criminal actions against the spouses Roque and
Elenita Jovellanos. She gave Imbang P8, 500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued a receipt for P5,000 only. Ramos tried
to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases againstthe Jovellanoses. Imbang never allowed her to enter the
courtroom and always told her to wait outside. He would then come out after several hours to inform her that the
hearing had been cancelled and rescheduled. This happened six times and for each “appearance” in court, respondent
charged her P350.Ramos was shocked to learn that Imbang never filed any case against the Jovellanoses and
that he was in fact employed in thePublic Attorney's Office (PAO)

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Imbang should be disbarred.

HELD: YES, as per SC’s decision Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. More
specifically, lawyers in government service are expected to be more conscientious of their actuations as they are
subject to public scrutiny. They are not only members of the bar but also public servants who owe utmost fidelity to public
service.
The SC supported this with three explanations:

1. Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees

• Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides Section 7. Prohibited
Acts and Transactions. -- In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the
Constitution and existing laws, the following constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official
and employee and are hereby declared unlawful (b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto,
public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not (1) Engage in the private practice of profession
unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict with their
official function.
• In this instance, Imbang received P5,000 from the complainant and issued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while
he was still connected with the PAO. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client
relationship.
2. Revised Administrative Code
• Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the Revised Administrative Code provides:oThe PAO shall be the principal
law office of the Government in extending free legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil,labor,
administrative and other quasi-judicial cases.• As a PAO lawyer, Imbang should not have accepted attorney's fees from
the complainant as this was inconsistent with the office's mission.

3. Code of Professional Responsibility

• Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:o CANON 1. — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION,OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECTFOR THE LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
• Every lawyer is obligated to uphold the law. This undertaking includes the observance of the above-mentioned
prohibitions blatantly violated by Imbang when he accepted the complainant's cases and received attorney's fees
in consideration of his legal services.
• Consequently, Imbang's acceptance of the cases was also a breach ofRule 18.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility because the prohibition on the private practice of profession disqualified him from acting as
Ramos' counsel.

Rule 6.01 Primary Duty: That justice is done

G.R. No. 109870 December 1, 1995

EDILBERTO M. CUENCA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

After his petition for review of the Court of Appeals' judgment1 affirming his conviction for violation of the "Trust Receipts
Law" (Presidential Decree No. 115) was denied by this Court in a Resolution dated February 9, 1994,2 petitioner filed on
July 6, 1994 a pleading entitled "SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL WITH MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL"3 setting forth, in relation to the motion for new trial:

6. The Motion for New Trial shall be grounded on newly discovered evidence and excusible (sic) negligence, and shall
be supported by affidavits of:

(i) an officer of private complainant corporation who will exculpate petitioner;

(ii) an admission against interest by a former officer of the owner of Ultra Corporation (the Corporation that
employed petitioner), which actually exercised control over the affairs of Ultra; and

(iii) the petitioner wherein he will assert innocence for the first time and explain why he was unable to do so earlier.

The Court in its July 27, 1994 Resolution,4 among other things, granted the substitution but denied the motion for leave
to file motion for new trial, "the petition having been already denied on February 9, 1994."

Notwithstanding, petitioner on August 8, 1994 filed a "MOTION TO ADMIT ATTACHED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL",5 and a
"MANIFESTATION AND SECOND MOTION TO ADMIT" on August 17, 1994.6 The Court thereafter required the Solicitor
General to comment on said motion and manifestation within ten (10) days from notice, in a Resolution dated September
7, 1994.7

In the Comment filed after three (3) extensions of time were given by the Court,8 the Solicitor General himself
recommends that petitioner be entitled to a new trial, proceeding from the same impression that a certain Rodolfo
Cuenca's (petitioner's brother) sworn statement is an admission against interest which may ultimately exonerate
petitioner from criminal liability. The full text of Mr. Rodolfo Cuenca's "Affidavit"9 reads:

RODOLFO M. CUENCA, Filipino, of legal age, with the residence at Urdaneta Village, Makati, Metro Manila, after being
duly sworn and (sic) state that:

1. During the years 1967 until February 1983, I was the President and Chief Executive Officer of Construction
Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP).

2. During that period, I controlled an effective majority of the voting shares of stock of CDCP.

3. Sometime in 1974, upon my initiative, CDCP together with its affiliated companies, organized a number of wholly-
owned service corporations. One of these was Ultra International Trading Corporation, whose purpose was to serve and
supply the needs of CDCP and its other subsidiaries with lower value goods and using Ultra's financial resources.

4. The directors in Ultra Corporation were nominees of CDCP, and received the instructions directly from me and or
Mr. Pedro Valdez, Chairman of CDCP.

5. From Ultra's inception, my brother, Mr. Edilberto M. Cuenca was appointed President and Chief Executive Officer.
On March, 1979, I instructed Ultra through my brother, Mr. Edilberto Cuenca to purchase for CDCP various steel materials.
These materials were received by CDCP and are covered by the trust receipts which are the subject of this case.

6. In 1980, CDCP suffered cashflow problems, and consciously omitted payment to Ultra for the delivery of the said
steel materials. As a nominee of CDCP, Mr. Edilberto M. Cuenca merely acted as agent for CDCP. As such, CDCP provided
him with the guarantees needed to persuade China Bank to issue the said trust receipts. On the basis of such guarantees,
along with informal assurances issued by CDCP to China Bank that the transactions of Ultra were undertaken for and on
behalf of CDCP and CDCP Mining Corporation, Ultra was able to obtain credit facilities, among which included the trust
receipts subject of this case.

7. However, Mr. Edilberto M. Cuenca had no power to cause the payment of said trust receipts because the common
Treasurer and controller of both CDCP and Ultra, Ms. Nora Vinluan, acted under my control and I did not allow her to
make the appropriate payments.

8. To my knowledge, CDCP has not paid Ultra the amounts corresponding to the materials covered by the trust
receipts subject of this case.

9. By the time final demand to pay on the trust receipts were (sic) served in 1984, Mr. Edilberto Cuenca was no
longer president of Ultra Corporation and could not have possibly cause (sic) Ultra Corporation to pay.

10. I have executed this affidavit in order to accept personal responsibility for the trust receipts subject of this case
and to exculpate Mr. Edilberto Cuenca of the criminal charges which he has asked this Honorable Court to review.

11. Accordingly, I also undertake to pay the civil obligations arising from the subject trust receipts.

(Sgd.)

RODOLFO M. CUENCA

Affiant
And the Solicitor General had this to say:

Ordinarily, it is too late at this stage to ask for a new trial.

However, the sworn statement of Rodolfo Cuenca is a declaration against his own interests under Section 38, Rule 130,
Revised Rules of Court and it casts doubt on the culpability of his brother Edilberto Cuenca, the petitioner. Hence, the
alleged confession of guilt should be given a hard look by the Court.

The People is inclined to allow petitioner to establish the genuineness and due execution of his brother's affidavit in the
interest of justice and fair play.

Under Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, prosecutors who represent the People of the
Philippines in a criminal case are not duty bound to seek conviction of the accused but to see that justice is done. Said
Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 states:

Canon 6 — These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks.

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. (Emphasis supplied.)

The above duty is well founded on the instruction of the U.S. Supreme Court in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935)
that prosecutors represent a sovereign "whose obligation to govern impartially is compelling as its obligation to govern at
all; and whose interest, therefore in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done
(Time to Rein in the Prosecution, by Atty. Bruce Fein, published on p. 11, The Lawyers Review, July 31, 1994). (Emphasis
supplied.)10

Although in "Goduco v. CA" (14 SCRA 282 [1965]) decided some twenty (20) years ago, this Court ruled that it is not
authorized to entertain a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial predicated on allegedly newly discovered evidence
the rationale of which being:

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is conclusive as to the facts, and cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, in an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court, the latter has no jurisdiction to entertain a motion for new
trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, for only questions of fact are involved therein.

the rule now appears to have been relaxed, if not abandoned, in subsequent cases like "Helmuth, Jr. v. People"11 and
"People v. Amparado".12

In both cases, the Court, opting to brush aside technicalities and despite the opposition of the Solicitor General, granted
new trial to the convicted accused concerned on the basis of proposed testimonies or affidavits of persons which the Court
considered as newly discovered and probably sufficient evidence to reverse the judgment of conviction. Being similarly
circumstanced, there is no nagging reason why herein petitioner should be denied the same benefit. It becomes all the
more plausible under the circumstances considering that the "People" does not raise any objection to a new trial, for
which reason the Solicitor General ought to be specially commended for displaying once again such statesmanlike gesture
of impartiality. The Solicitor General's finest hour, indeed.

WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion For New Trial is hereby GRANTED. Let the case be RE-OPENED and REMANDED to the
court of origin for reception of petitioner's evidence.
Rule 6.03 Not to Accept employment After Government Service

RA 6713 sec. 7 (b)

“(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public officials and employees during their incumbency
shall not:
(1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or
nominee in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their office unless expressly allowed by law;
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such
practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions; or
(3) Recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise which has a regular or pending official transaction with
their office.
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after resignation, retirement, or separation from
public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professional concerned cannot practice his
profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with, in which case the one-year prohibition shall
likewise apply.”

RA 3019 Sec. 3 (d)

“(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending
official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its termination.”

Gisela Huyssen vs Atty Fred L. Gutierrez

AC NO. 6707
March 24, 2006

GISELA HUYSSEN vs. ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ

A.C. No. 6707; March 24, 2006

Facts:
A. A Complaint for disbarment was filed by Huyssen against respondent Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez. Allegations are as
follows:
- that in 1995, while respondent was still connected with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), she
(petitioner herein) and her three sons, who are all American citizens, applied for Philippine Visas under Section 13[g] of
the Immigration Law
- Respondent told the petitioner that their visa applications will be acted favourably if they deposit a certain sum
of money for a period of one year which could be withdrawn after one year.
- Complainant deposited with respondent on six different occasions from April 1995 to April 1996 the total amount
of US$20,000, believing it was required by law.
- Respondent prepared receipts/vouchers as proofs that he received the amounts deposited by the complainant
but refused to give her copies of official receipts despite her demands
- Complainant demanded the deposited sum after a year but respondent failed to return.
- Thus, the World Mission for Jesus (of which complainant was a member) sent a demand letter to respondent for
the immediate return of the money
- In a letter (March 9, 1999), respondent promised to release the amount not later than 9 March 1999. But he failed
to do so.
- World Mission for Jesus sent another demand letter
- In a letter explaining the alleged reasons for the delay in the release of deposited amount (19 March 1999), he
enclosed two blank checks postdated to 6 April and 20 April 1999 and authorized complainant to fill in the amounts.
- When complainant deposited the postdated checks on their due dates, the same were dishonored because
respondent had stopped payment on the same.
- In a letter (25 April 1999) respondent explained again for stopping payments and gave complainant five postdated
checks with the assurance that said checks would be honoured
- Complainant deposited the five postdated checks on their due dates but they were all dishonored for having been
drawn against insufficient funds or payment thereon was ordered stopped by respondent.
- Hence, complainant referred the matter to a lawyer who sent two demand letters to respondent, which remained
unheeded.

B. Complaint disbarment was filed by Huyssen in the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP). On 15 November 2000, Victor C. Fernandez, Director for Bar Discipline, required respondent to submit
his answer within 15 days from receipt thereof
C. Counter-Affidavit dated 2 July 2001, respondent denied the allegations in the complaint claiming that having never
physically received the money mentioned in the complaint, he could not have appropriated or pocketed the same. He said
the amount was used as payment for services rendered for obtaining the permanent visas in the Philippines. Read defense
below:

[a)Through a close-friend, Jovie Galaraga, a Pastor and likewise a friend of the complainant, the latter was introduced to
me at my office at the Bureau of Immigration with a big problem concerning their stay in the Philippines, herself and three
sons, one of which is already of major age while the two others were still minors then. Their problem was the fact that
since they have been staying in the Philippines for almost ten (10) years as holders of missionary visas (9G) they could no
longer extend their said status as under the law and related polic[i]es of the government, missionary visa holders could
only remain as such for ten (10) years after which they could no longer extend their said status and have to leave the
country.
b)Studying their case and being U.S. Citizen (sic), I advised them that they better secure a permanent visa under Section 3
of the Philippine Immigration Law otherwise known as Quota Visa and thereafter, provided them with list of the
requirements in obtaining the said visa, one of which is that the applicant must have a $40,000 deposited in the bank. I
also inform that her son Marcus Huyssen, who was already of major age, has to have the same amount of show money
separate of her money as he would be issued separate visa, while her two minor children would be included as her
dependents in her said visa application. I advised them to get a lawyer (sic), complainant further requested me to refer to
her to a lawyer to work for their application, which I did and contacted the late Atty. Mendoza, an Immigration lawyer, to
do the job for the complainant and her family.
c)The application was filed, processed and followed-up by the said Atty. Mendoza until the same was finished and the
corresponding permanent visa were obtained by the complainant and her family. Her son Marcus Huyssen was given an
independent permanent visa while the other two were made as dependents of the complainant. In between the
processing of the papers and becoming very close to the complainant, I became the intermediary between complainant
and their counsel so much that every amount that the latter would request for whatever purpose was coursed through
me which request were then transmitted to the complainant and every amount of money given by the complainant to
their counsel were coursed thru me which is the very reason why my signature appears in the vouchers attached in the
complaint-affidavit;
d)That as time goes by, I noticed that the amount appeared to be huge for services of a lawyer that I myself began to
wonder why and, to satisfy my curiosity, I met Atty. Mendoza and inquired from him regarding the matter and the
following facts were revealed to me:
1)That what was used by the complainant as her show money from the bank is not really her money but money of World
Mission for Jesus, which therefore is a serious violation of the Immigration Law as there was a misrepresentation. This fact
was confirmed later when the said entity sent their demand letter to the undersigned affiant and which is attached to the
complaint-affidavit; ECISAD
2)That worst, the same amount used by the complainant, was the very same amount used by her son Marcus Huyssen, in
obtaining his separate permanent visa. These acts of the complainant and her son could have been a ground for
deportation and likewise constitute criminal offense under the Immigration Law and the Revised Penal Code. These could
have been the possible reason why complainant was made to pay for quite huge amount.
e)That after they have secured their visas, complainant and her family became very close to undersigned and my family
that I was even invited to their residence several times;
f)However after three years, complainant demanded the return of their money given and surprisingly they want to recover
the same from me. By twist of fate, Atty. Mendoza is no longer around, he died sometime 1997;
g)That it is unfortunate that the real facts of the matter is now being hidden and that the amount of money is now being
sought to be recovered from me;
h)That the fact is I signed the vouchers and being a lawyer I know the consequences of having signed the same and
therefore I had to answer for it and pay. I tried to raised the fund needed but up to the present my standby loan application
has not been released and was informed that the same would only be forthcoming second week of August. The same
should have been released last March but was aborted due to prevalent condition. The amount to be paid, according to
the complainant has now become doubled plus attorney's fees of P200,000.00.]

D. 4 September 2002 and April 2003 Complainant submitted her evidence

E. 25 August 2003 Complainant filed her Formal Offer of Evidence
F. 11 settings of hearings were all rest by respondent, who was allegedly out of the country to attend to his client's
needs. The last, on 28 September 2004, respondent failed to appear, despite due notice and without just cause.
G. 5 November 2004 Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan submitted her report recommending the
disbarment of respondent
a. Basis: From the letters sent by respondent, he made it appear that the US$20,000 was officially deposited with
the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. However, if this is true, how come only Petty Cash Vouchers were issued by
respondent to complainant to prove his receipt of the said sum and official receipts therefore were never issued by the
said Bureau? Also, why would respondent issue his personal checks to cover the return of the money to complainant if
said amount was really officially deposited with the Bureau of Immigration? All these actions of respondent point to the
inescapable conclusion that respondent received the money from complainant and appropriated the same for his personal
use. It should also be noted that respondent has failed to establish that the "late Atty. Mendoza" referred to in his Counter-
Affidavit really exists. There is not one correspondence from Atty. Mendoza regarding the visa application of complainant
and his family, and complainant has also testified that she never met this Atty. Mendoza referred to by respondent.
Considering that respondent was able to perpetrate the fraud by taking advantage of his position with the Board of Special
Inquiry of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, makes it more reprehensible as it has caused damage to the
reputation and integrity of said office. It is submitted that respondent has violated Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
H. 4 November 2004 IBP Board of Governors approved the Investigating Commissioner's report with modification.
Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez was DISBARRED from the practice of law and ordered to return the amount with legal interest from
receipt of the money until payment.
a. The case was also referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for prosecution for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Acts and to the Department of Justice for appropriate administrative action

Issue: WON respondent has violated Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and must severely
penalized.

Held: YES.

SC explained that:
A. Lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official task have more restrictions than lawyers in private
practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office.
B. Defense of respondent remains unsubstantiated as he failed to submit evidence on the matter. While he claims
that Atty. Mendoza already died, he did not present the death certificate of said Atty. Mendoza. Worse, the action of
respondent in shifting the blame to someone who has been naturally silenced by fate, is not only impudent but downright
ignominious. When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he deny the charges against
him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him. He must show proof that he still maintains that
degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of him. In the case at bar, respondent clearly fell short of
his duty. Records show that even though he was given the opportunity to answer the charges and controvert the evidence
against him in a formal investigation, he failed, without any plausible reason, to appear several times whenever the case
was set for reception of his evidence despite due notice. The defense of denial proferred by respondent is, thus, not
convincing. It is settled that denial is inherently a weak defense. To be believed, it must be buttressed by a strong evidence
of non-culpability; otherwise, such denial is purely self-serving and is with nil evidentiary value
C. When respondent issued the postdated checks as his moral obligation, he indirectly admitted the charge. Such
admissions were also apparent in the letters of respondent to complainant. (lifted parts of the letter were quoted by SC
decision)
D. Normally, this is not the actuation of one who is falsely accused of appropriating the money of another. As
correctly observed by the Investigating Commissioner, respondent would not have issued his personal checks if said
amount were officially deposited with the BID. This is an admission of misconduct.
E. WHAT WAS VIOLATED IN THE CPR?
a. Respondent's act of asking money from complainant in consideration of the latter's pending application for visas
is violative of Rule 1.01, which prohibits members of the Bar from engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or
deceitful acts.
b. Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code which bars lawyers in government service from
promoting their private interest. Promotion of private interest includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in
any transaction requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office.
i. Respondent's conduct in office betrays the integrity and good moral character required from all lawyers, especially
from one occupying a high public office. A lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or omission
which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government; he must also uphold the dignity of the
legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in
government service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher
than his brethren in private practice.
ii. In a desperate attempt to put up a smoke or to camouflage his misdeed, he went on committing another by issuing
several worthless checks, thereby compounding his case.
iii. Respondent's acts are more despicable. Not only did he misappropriate the money of complainant; worse, he had
the gall to prepare receipts with the letterhead of the BID and issued checks to cover up his misdeeds. Clearly, he does
not deserve to continue, being a member of the bar.
iv. Time and again, we have declared that the practice of law is a noble profession. It is a special privilege bestowed
only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and morally. A lawyer must at all times conduct himself,
especially in his dealings with his clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
He must faithfully perform his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. A violation of the high standards
of the legal profession subjects the lawyer to administrative sanctions which includes suspension and disbarment. More
importantly, possession of good moral character must be continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege
of law practice; otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege.
v. Indeed, the primary objective of administrative cases against lawyers is not only to punish and discipline the erring
individual lawyers but also to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the courts and the public from the
misconduct of lawyers, and to remove from the legal profession persons whose utter disregard of their lawyer's oath have
proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the bar. These pronouncement gain
practical significance in the case at bar considering that respondent was a former member of the Board of Special Inquiry
of the BID. It bears stressing also that government lawyers who are public servants owe fidelity to the public service, a
public trust. As such, government lawyers should be more sensitive to their professional obligations as their disreputable
conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public eye. As a lawyer, who was also a public officer, respondent miserably
failed to cope with the strict demands and high standards of the legal profession.
vi. Respondent's acts constitute gross misconduct; and consistent with the need to maintain the high standards of
the Bar and thus preserve the faith of the public in the legal profession, respondent deserves the ultimate penalty of
expulsion from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers
F. Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and ordered to return the amount he received
from the complainant with legal interest from his receipt of the money until payment.
a. This case shall be referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for criminal prosecution for violation of Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Acts and to the Department of Justice for appropriate administrative action.
b. Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Bar Confidant to be spread on the records of the respondent; the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for distribution to all its chapters; and the Office of the Court Administrator for
dissemination to all courts throughout the country.