Sei sulla pagina 1di 16

Legal and Judicial Ethics Review

2nd Semester, Schoolyear 2018-19

12 November 2018
Atty. Victoria V. Loanzon

Part I. Legal Ethics

I – Preliminaries
A. Sources of Ethical Standards for Members of the Bench and Bar:
(1) Constitution
Article VIII – The Judicial Department, Sec. 5(5), Article VII – The Executive Department, Sec.
13, Article VI – The Legislative Department, Sec.14, Article IX – Constitutional Commissions,
IX-A, Sec. 2;
(2) The Attorney’s Oath;
(3) The Code of Professional Responsibility;
(4) The Code of Judicial Ethics;
(5) The Rules of Court;
(6) 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice;
(7) MCLE Rules;
(8) JBC Rules;
(9) Issuances of the Supreme Court;
(10) Legislations from Congress (creation and jurisdiction of appellate and other lower courts,
also the Lapid Law on legal aid service of lawyers);
(11) S.C. A.M. 17-03-09: Rule on Community Legal Aid Service
(12) Jurisprudence; and
(13) Scholarly Writings on Legal and Judicial Ethics

Gacias v. Balauitan (507 SCRA 8, 2006): There is no distinction between the personal life of the
lawyer and his life as a lawyer.

B. The Attorney’s Oath

“I, ________________ do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
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 wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, neither
give aid nor consent to the same;
I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the
best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my
clients; and
I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion. So help me God.” (Rules of Court, Form 28)

Alawi v. Alauya, A.M. SDC-97-2-P, February 24, 1997: Only individuals who successful passed
the bar examinations and are considered full-fledged lawyers can use the prefix “Atty.”

The Four-fold duty of a lawyer under the Attorney’s Oath: Duty to Society, Duty to the Legal
Profession, Duty to the Courts and Duty to the Clients.

C. Different Roles of a Lawyer

1. Attorneys-at Law: a class of persons who are by license, officers of the court, empowered to
appear, prosecute and defend, and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are
developed by law as a consequence. This must be distinguished from an Attorney-in-Fact. An
attorney-in-fact is an agent not necessarily a lawyer whose authority is strictly limited by the
instrument appointing him. His authority is provided in a special power of attorney or a general
power of attorney or letter of authority.
2. Counsel de officio: a counsel, appointed or assigned by the court, from among such members
of the bar in good standing who, by reason of their experience and ability may adequately defend
the accused. The person need not be a member of the bar if no lawyer is available in a given
locality. (Sec. 7, Rule 116, Rules of Court)

A counsel de officio is appointed to defend an indigent in a criminal action (Sections 3, 4, and 5,
Rule 116; Sec. 32, Rule 138); or to represent a destitute party in a case (Sec.31, Rule 138).
3. Attorney Ad Hoc: a person named and appointed by the court to defend an absentee defendant
in a suit in which the appointment is made.
4. Attorney of Record: a member of the bar appointed by a client to represent in cause of a court
and upon whom service of papers may be made.
5. Of Counsel: a member of the bar who is associated with a law office but does not normally
appear as counsel of record of cases handled by the law office.
6. Lead Counsel: a member of the bar who charged with the principal management and direction
of a party-litigant.
7. House Counsel: a member of the bar who acts as attorney for a business company as an
employee of such company and renders legal advice on matters necessary in the ordinary course
of its business.
8. Amicus Curiae: a friend of the court. A person with strong interest in or views on the subject
matter of the action. One who is considered as an experience and impartial attorney to help in the
disposition of issues submitted to the Court. (Sec. 36, Rule 138)
9. Amicus Curiae par Excellence: bar associations who appear in court as amici curiae or
friends of the court. Like an individual amicus curiae, amicus curiae par excellence do not
represent any party to the case but act as consultant in a doubtful issue for resolution of the court.
They do not receive any compensation for their legal services to the court.
10. Counsel de parte: a lawyer retained by a party litigant, usually, for a fee, to prosecute or
defend his cause in court. The term implies freedom of choice either on the part of the lawyer to
accept the employment or on the part of the litigant to continue or terminate the retainer at any
11. Pro bono Counsel: a lawyer who renders legal services without charging any professional
fees but does not shoulder the costs of litigation on behalf of his client.
12. Advocate: a lawyer who pleads on behalf of a third party.
13. Barrister: In England, a person entitled to practice law as an advocate or counsel in superior
14. Solicitor: In England, a person prosecuting or defending suits in a Court of Chancery. A
Court of Chancery is a court which administers equity and proceeding according to the forms
and principles of equity.
15. Proctor: In England, an attorney in the admiralty and ecclesiastical courts whose duties and
business correspond exactly to those of an attorney-at-law or solicitor in a Chancery.

II. Practice of Law

A. Concept: a) Privilege: The practice of law is a mere privilege and not a right. The
admission of lawyers and the rules governing the practice of law is a constitutional
mandate given to the Supreme Court. (Article VIII, Section 5 (5), Constitution)

The legal professional is also reserved to Filipino citizens. (Article XII, Section14,
Cayetano v. Monsod (201 SCRA 210): Practice of law under modem conditions consists in no
small part of work performed outside of any court and having no immediate relation to
proceedings in court. It embraces conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a large variety of
subjects, and the preparation and execution of legal instruments covering an extensive field of
business and trust relations and other affairs.

Lim-Santiago v. Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio, A.C. No. 6705 (31 March 2006): The act of being a
legal consultant is a practice of law. To engage in the practice of law is to do any of those acts
that are characteristic of the legal profession (In re: David, 93 Phil. 461). It covers any activity,
in or out of court, which required the application of law, legal principles, practice or procedures
and calls for legal knowledge, training and experience.

Paguia v. Office of the President (621 SCRA 600): Petitioner’s suspension from the practice of
law bars him from performing "any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of
law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience." Certainly, preparing a petition raising
carefully crafted arguments on equal protection grounds and employing highly legalistic rules of
statutory construction to parse Section 23 of RA 7157 falls within the proscribed conduct.

Natanauan v. Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino, A.C. No. 4269 (11 October 2016): The practice of law
is neither a natural nor a constitutional right but a privilege bestowed by the State only upon the
deserving and worthy for conferment of such privilege.

Spouses Eustaquio v. Atty. Edgar R. Navales, A.C. No. 10465 (8 June 2016: It is settled that the
Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law. As such, when the Court
orders a lawyer suspended from the practice of law, he must desist from performing all functions
requiring the application of legal knowledge within the period of suspension. This includes
desisting from holding a position in government requiring the authority to practice law

B. The elements of the legal profession are: organization, learning, and the spirit of public

C. Legal Profession, not a business. The practice of law includes: the preparation of
pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings; conveyancing, the
preparation of legal instruments of all kinds; and the giving of all legal advice to clients.

Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc., (Bar Matter No. 550, June 17, 1993): The practice of law cannot
be pursued through a stock corporation and a lawyer should not allow non-lawyers to render
legal matters.

III. Requirements for Admission to the Practice of Law

A. Educational Qualifications
Republic Act No. 7662 (1993)
RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Sec. 6.
RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Sec. 5.
In the Matter of the Petition for Disbarment of Telesforo A. Diao, A.C. No. 244 (29 March
1963): A bar passer who does not possess any pre-law degree cannot be allowed membership in
the legal profession.
Patrick A. Caronan v. Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. “Atty. Patrick A. Caronan,” A.C. No. 11316
(12 July 2016): A bar passer who assumes the identity of another and based on this identity also
uses the Transcript of Records of that person to obtain admission to a college of law is not
considered a candidate for admission to the practice of law for gross misrepresentation. The
Court ordered his name stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys and he was perpetually barred
from admission to the bar.

B. Citizenship and Residency

Article XII, Sec. 14, Constitution
RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Sec. 2.
Dacanay v. Baker & McKenzie, et al., A.C. No. 2131 (10 May 1985): An American law firm
cannot be allowed to practice law in the Philippines.

C. Bar Examinations
RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Sec. 7-16
Bar Subjects (Sec. 9, Rule 138, Rules of Court): Political Law, Labor and Social Legislation,
Civil Law, Taxation, Mercantile Law, Criminal Law, Remedial Law and Legal and Judicial
Ethics and Practical Exercises
Aguirre v. Rana, B.M. No. 1036 (10 June 2003): A bar passer who engages in the practice of law
before taking his oath was no longer allowed by the Court to become a full-fledged lawyer.

D. Good Moral Character

RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Sec. 2.
Figueroa v. Barranco, SBC Case No. 519 (31 July 1997): After 27 years, a bar passer was
allowed to take his oath as a lawyer upon proof of good moral character.

Re: Petition of Al Argosino to Take the Lawyer’s Oath, B.M. No. 712 (19 March 1997): A
person convicted of homicide based on a plea agreement was eventually allowed to take his oath
as a lawyer upon proof of good moral character.

Good moral character is a continuing requirement.
Mecaral v. Velasquez (A.C. No 8392 June 29, 2010): A lawyer who detained his office staff for
a substantial period of time and considered her as his”sex slave” was disbarred.

Cordon v. Balicanta (390 SCRA 299 (2002): A lawyer who used his knowledge of the law to
effectively defraud his client of the estate of her husband was disbarred.

Arellano University, Inc. v. Mijares III, (605 SCRA 93, 2009): A lawyer who solicited money
from his client which he disclosed was used as a “facilitation fee” to bribe a public officer was
ordered disbarred by the Court.

E. Oath-Taking

F. Signing of the Roll of Attorneys

RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Sec. 17.
In re: Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys, Michael O. Medado, B.M. No. 2540 (24
September 2013): A lawyer who asked the Court to sign the Roll of Attorneys 32 years after
passing the bar was fined P32,000.00 and suspended from the practice of law for a period of one

E. Membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6397 (1971)
In the Matter of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines (9 January 1973): The Court
ordered the organization of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to ensure that lawyers are
reminded of their role of officers of the Court and as such, they instruments in the administration
of justice.


In re: Atty. Marcial Edrillon, A.M. No. 1928 (3 August 1978): The membership in the IBP is a
constitutionally-mandated duty. Payment of IBP dues is mandatory.
Santos v. Atty. Francisco R. Llamas, A.M. No. 4749 (20 January 2000): The payment of IBP
dues is an obligation imposed on all lawyers. There is no legal basis to grant discount to lawyers
who have reached the age of 60 years old.

IV. Non-lawyers Authorized to Appear in Court

A. Law Student Practice Rule: Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court allows a law student to
represent indigent clients provided one has successfully completed the 3rd year of a prescribed
four-year curriculum and enrolled in a recognized law school’s clinical legal education program
> In Bar Matter No.730 dated June 10, 1998, the Supreme Court required that law student
practice before the Regional Trial Court must be under the direct supervision and control of a
member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

> Under Section 34 of the Rules of Court, a law student may appear before the first level court as
an agent or friend of a party without the supervision of a member of the bar.
RULES OF COURT, Rule 116, Sec. 7:Appointment of counsel de oficio. — The court,
considering the gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the questions that may arise, shall
appoint as counsel de oficio only such members of the bar in good standing who, by reason of
their experience and ability, can competently defend the accused. But in localities where such
members of the bar are not available, the court may appoint any person, resident of the province
and of good repute for probity and ability, to defend the accused.

LABOR CODE, Art. 222 – Non-lawyers can appear in NLRC cases if they appear for
themselves or they represent their organization or members thereof.
ACT NO. 2259, Sec. 9: Any person claiming any interest in any part of the lands, whether
named in the notice or not, shall appear before the Court by himself, or by some person in his
behalf and shall file an answer on or before the return day or within such further time as may be
allowed by the Court.

A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, Sec. 17 (1 February 2016): Section 17. Appearance of Attorneys Not
Allowed. - No attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a party at the hearing, unless the
attorney is the plaintiff or defendant.
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 latter's consent.

B. Proceedings where lawyers are prohibited from appearing: proceedings before the
Lupong Tagapamayapa and court ordered mediation

C. Sanctions for practice or appearance without authority

1. Lawyers without authority: Contempt of Court (Sec. 1, Rule 71)
Acts constituting contempt: Misbehavior as an officer of the court, disobedience or resistance
to a lawful order of the court, abuse or unlawful interference with judicial proceedings,
obstruction in the administration of justice, misleading the court or making false allegations,
criticisms, insults or veiled threats against the court, aiding in the unauthorized practice of
law, unlawful retention of clients, advising a client to commit a contemptuous act,
publications which tend to impede, obstruct, embarrass or influence courts.

2. Persons who are not lawyers: Indirect Contempt (Sec. 3 (e), Rule 71)
Ciocon-Reer v. Lubao, 674 SCRA 13: Not all administrative complaints against judges merit a
corresponding penalty. In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in
his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. The Court held that the remedy of the
complainants in this case is judicial in nature.
The Court held that Karaan was engaged in unauthorized practice of law. the OCA was able to
establish the pattern in Karaan’s unauthorized practice of law. He would require the parties to
execute a special power of attorney in his favor to allow him to join them as one of the plaintiffs
as their attorney-in-fact. Then, he would file the necessary complaint and other pleadings "acting
for and in his own behalf and as attorney-in-fact, agent or representative" of the parties. The fact
that Karaan did not indicate in the pleadings that he was a member of the Bar, or any PTR,
Attorney’s Roll, or MCLE Compliance Number does not detract from the fact that, by his
actions, he was actually engaged in the practice of law.

V. Prohibitions and Restrictions on the Private Practice of Law by Public Officials

A. Prohibitions
CONSTITUTION, Art. VII, Sec. 13 – Executive Branch
CONSTITUTION, Art. IX (A), Sec. 2 – Constitutional Commissions
CONSTITUTION, Art. XI, Sec. 8 – Office of the Ombudsman
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Sec. 90, par. (a) – Governors, Mayors
RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Sec. 35: Certain attorneys not to practice. — 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.

B. Restrictions
CONSTITUTION, Art. VI, Sec. 14 – Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Sec. 90, par. (b) – Vice-Governors and members of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Vice-Mayors and councilors, barangay elective officials


Section1: x x x It is a condition of the pension provided for herein that no retiring Justice during
the time that he is receiving said pension shall appear as counsel before any court in any civil
case wherein the Government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof is the adverse party,
or in any criminal case wherein and officer or employee of the Government is accused of an
offense committed in relation to his office, or collect any fee for his appearance in any
administrative proceedings to maintain an interest adverse to the Government, insular, provincial
or municipal, or to any of its legally constituted officers.


A. The Lawyer and Society

Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and
promote respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01. Shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, deceitful conduct

Ecraela v. Pangalangan, A.C. No. 10676 (8 September 2015): The Court found disbarred Atty..
Ian Raymond A. Pangalangan for his illicit relations, chronic womanizing, abuse of authority as
an educator, and "other unscrupulous activities" which cause "undue embarrassment to the legal
profession." Such actions constituted deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and grossly
immoral conduct in violation of the Lawyer's Oath.

Carrie-Anne Reyes v. Atty. Ramon Nieva, A.C. No. 8560 (6 September 2016): A lawyer was
suspended for inappropriate conduct with a staff who undergoing an OJT program at CAAP. The
Court suspended Nieva for two years for sexual harassment which exhibited his immoral
conduct. The Court said that good moral conduct requirement has four (4) ostensible purposes,
namely: (a) to protect the public; ( b) to protect the public image of lawyers; ( c) to protect
prospective clients; and ( d) to protect errant lawyers from themselves.

Sebastian v. Atty. Dorotheo Calis, A.C. No. 5118 (9 September 1999): A lawyer was disbarred
by the Court for allowing a client to travel on a fraudulent travel document. The Court disbarred
respondent for jeopardizing the life and liberty of complainant when he made her travel with
spurious documents. Not only are respondent’s acts illegal, they are also detestable from the
moral point of view. His utter lack of moral qualms and scruples is a real threat to the Bar and
the administration of justice.

Rule 1.02. Shall not counsel defiance of the law

Fernando Chu v. Atty. Jose C. Guico, Jr., A.C. No. 10573(13 January 2015): Lawyer who made
a client believe that with P580,000.00, he can secure a favorable judgment was ordered isbarred.
Rule 1.03. Shall not encourage corruptly motivated suit, or delay any man’s cause

Linsangan v. Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672 (4 September 2009): A lawyer who
enticed seafarers to transfer representation to his law office by extending financial assistance of
P50,000.00 to each of them was suspended by the Court.

Rule 1.04. Shall encourage client to avoid or end controversy

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
Rule 2.01 – Shall not reject the cause of the defenseless or oppressed
Rule 2.02 - Shall not refuse to render legal advice
Rule 2.03 – Shall not solicit legal business

Linsangan v. Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino, supra.

Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc., B.M. No. 553 (7 June 1993): The practice of law cannot done through
a stock corporation.

Rule 2.04 – Shall not charge rates lower than customary

Canon 3 - A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair,
dignified, and objective information or statement of facts.
Rule 3.01 – Shall not use false or unfair claims on his qualifications

Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc., supra.

Rule 3.02 – Shall not use false, misleading, or assumed firm name

Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name "Sycip, Salazar,Feliciano, Hernandez
& Castillo," et al., (30 July 1979): There is no prohibition in the continued use of the name of a
deceased partner provided there is no deception. There must be an indication that the partner is
already deceased.

Rule 3.03Rule 3.03 – Withdrawal of partners accepting public office

Rule 3.04 – Shall not use media to attract legal business

Cruz v Salva, G.R. No. L-12871 (25 July 1959): The Court will not countenance the resort to
media in order to win public opinion. (See more detailed discussion found in the other section of
the course outline.)

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.

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 the law and

Bar Matter No. 850 (Re: Rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for
Active Members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, see also Resolution of the
Court dated 17 February 2015)

Bar Matter No. 1922 (Re: Recommendation of the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education [MCLE] Board to Indicate in All Pleadings Filed with the Courts the Counsel's
MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption); see also Resolution of the
Court dated 14 January 2014

Samuel Arnado v. Atty. Homobono Adaza, A.C. No. 9834 (26 August 2015): The Court held that
respondent had been remiss in his responsibilities by failing to comply with Bar Matter No. 850.
His application for exemption for the First and Second Compliance Periods was filed after the
compliance periods had ended. He did not follow-up the status of his application for exemption.
The Court issued the following directives:
(1) REMIND the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Office to promptly act on matters that
require its immediate attention, such as but not limited to applications for exemptions, and to
communicate its action to the interested parties within a reasonable period;
(2) DENY the prayer of Atty. Homobono A. Adaza to be exempted from MCLE compliance as
the matter had already been denied with finality by the MCLE Governing Board on 28
November 2013;
(3) DECLARE Atty. Homobono A. Adaza as a delinquent member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and SUSPEND him from the practice of law for SIX MONTHS, or until he has
fully complied with the MCLE requirements for the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Compliance
Periods, whichever is later, and he has fully paid the required non-compliance and reinstatement

People v. Jesus Arrojado, G.R. No. 207041 (9 November 2015): Accused moved for dismissal of
the case for failure of the Prosecutor to indicate her MCLE Compliance Certificate Number. The
Prosecutor contends that: (1) the term "pleadings" as used in B.M. No. 1922 does not include
criminal Informations filed in court; (2) the failure of the investigating prosecutor to indicate in
the Information the number and date of issue of her MCLE Certificate of Compliance is a mere
formal defect and is not a valid ground to dismiss the subject Information which is otherwise
complete in form and substance. The Court dismissed the case against Arrojado for failure of the
Prosecutor to comply with B.M. Matter 850.

Nenita D. Sanchez v. Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos, A.C. No. 10543 (16 March 2016): The respondent
misrepresented his professional competence and skill to the complainant. He did not know the
distinction between the grounds for legal separation and for annulment of marriage. The case
unquestionably contemplated by the parties and for which his services was engaged, was no
other than an action for annulment of the complainant's marriage with her husband with the

intention of marrying her British fiance. They did not contemplate legal separation at all, for
legal separation would still render her incapacitated to re-marry.
The respondent shall be fined in the amount of P10,000.00 for his misrepresentation of his
professional competence, and he is further to be ordered to return the entire amount of
P70,000.00 received from the client, plus legal interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the date
of this decision until full payment.
The respondent's statement in his answer that the demand from Atty. Martinez should be treated
"as a mere scrap of paper or should have been addressed by her counsel x x x to the urinal
project of the MMDA where it may service its rightful purpose" constituted simple misconduct
that this Court cannot tolerate. For this, he was reprimanded by the Court.

Canon 6 - These canons shall apply to lawyers in government services in the discharge of
their tasks.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7613 (1989), Sec. 4 provides for the 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.

Lorenzana v. Fajardo (462 SCRA 1): For accepting employment as a member of the PLEB of
Quezon City while concurrently employed as Legal Officer V of the Manila Urban Settlement
Office, in violation of the Constitution and the statutes, which in turn contravene his Attorneys
Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility; and by engaging in the illegal practice of law,
Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months
effective from notice and is REPRIMANDED and WARNED that any repetition of similar acts
would be dealt with more severely.
Facturan v. Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr., A.C. No. 11069, PERLAS-BERNABE, J. (8
June 2016): Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a
member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. Rule
6.02 of Canon 6 is particularly directed to lawyers in the government service, enjoining them
from using one's public position to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance private interests; or
(3) allow private interests to interfere with public duties.
Respondent Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr. was found GUILTY of violating Rule 6.02,
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon his receipt of this Decision, and
is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more

Florencio v. Atty. Jovencio LL. Mayor, A.C. No. 7314 (25 August 2015): The Court found as
unacceptable the respondent’s gross delay in performing what is supposedly a purely ministerial
act on his part, his unexplained and unsanctioned resort to "archiving" which led to the
disappearance of the case records, and his gross ignorance of the law in refusing to issue a writ
of execution against what the SEC has essentially certified to be a company hiding under a new
name. The respondent's actions were not a product of ignorance, indolence, or negligence, but
rather, were clearly borne out of a willful, deliberate, and wholly malicious intent to misuse his
position by favoring one of the parties thus causing no small degree of serious injury to the
complainant therein and to the integrity of the legal process as a whole.
The Court held ATTY. JOVENCIO LL. MAYOR, JR. guilty of grave misconduct and gross
ignorance of the law in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession. He is
thus ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name is stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys, effective immediately.

Rule 6.01 – Primary duty of public prosecutor is not to convict to see that justice is done. A
prosecutor violates this duty when he suppresses evidence and conceals a witness to allow the
accused to establish his innocence.

Cuenca v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109870 (1 December 1995): 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. Citing Berger v. United States,
295 U.S. 78 (1935), the Court said 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.

Rule 6.02 – Shall not use public position to advance private interests

Rule 3.03 – Withdrawal of partners accepting public office

Samonte v. Gatdula, A.M. No. P-99-1292 (26 February 1999): Respondent did not categorically
deny why his name is included in the Law Firm of Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and
Celera. This may be considered as an admission that it is his name which appears on the calling
card, a permissible form of advertising or solicitation of legal services. The card clearly gives the
impression that he is connected with the said law firm. The inclusion/retention of his name in the
professional card constitutes an act of solicitation which violates Section 7 sub-par. (b) (2) of
Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees" which declares it unlawful for a public official or employee to, among
others, engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law. Atty. Gatdula was reprimanded by the Court.
Rule 3.04 – Shall not use media to attract legal business

Cruz v Salva, G.R. No. L-12871 (25 July 1959): According to the petitioner and not denied by
the respondent, the investigation was conducted not in respondent's office but in the session hall
of the Municipal Court of Pasay City evidently, to accommodate the big crowd that wanted to
witness the proceeding, including members of the press. Not only this, but in the course of the
investigation, as shown by the transcript of the stenographic notes taken during said
investigation, on two occasions, the first, after Oscar Caymo had concluded his testimony
respondent Salva, addressing the newspapermen said, "Gentlemen of the press, if you want to
ask questions I am willing to let you do so and the question asked will be reproduced as my
own"; and the second, after Jose Maratella y de Guzman had finished testifying and respondent
Salva, addressing the newsmen, again said, "Gentlemen of the press is free to ask questions as
The members of Court were greatly disturbed and annoyed by such publicity and sensationalism,
all of which may properly be laid at the door of respondent Salva. In this, he committed what
was regard a grievous error and poor judgment for which we fail to find any excuse or
satisfactory explanation. His actuations in this regard went well beyond the bounds of prudence,
discretion and good taste. It is bad enough to have such undue publicity when a criminal case is
being investigated by the authorities, even when it being tried in court; but when said publicity
and sensationalism is allowed, even encouraged, when the case is on appeal and is pending
consideration by this Tribunal, the whole thing becomes inexcusable, even abhorrent, and this
Court, in the interest of justice, is constrained and called upon to put an end to it and a deterrent
against its repetition by meting an appropriate disciplinary measure, even a penalty to the one
The Court Francisco publicly reprehended and censured Salva for the uncalled for and wide
publicity and sensationalism that he had given to and allowed in connection with his
investigation, which it considered and found to be contempt of court; and, furthermore, he is
warned that a repetition of the same would meet with a more severe disciplinary action and

Rule 6.03 – Shall not accept engagement/employment in any matter he had

intervened in while in public service

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7613 (1989), sec. 7, par. (b).

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019 (1960), sec. 3, par. (d).

Gisela Huyssen v. Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez, A.C. No. 6707, (24 March 2006): The Court said that
the respondent’s act of asking money from complainant in consideration of the latter’s pending
application for visas is violative of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
prohibits members of the Bar from engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or
deceitful acts. 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. Respondent’s
conduct in office betrays the integrity and good moral character required from all lawyers,
especially from one occupying a high public office.
Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez was 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. The case was 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.

PNB v. Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo, A.C. No. 3701 (28 March 1995): The IBP found a deliberate
intent on the part of respondent to devise ways and means to attract as clients former borrowers
of complainant bank since he was in the best position to see the legal weaknesses of his former
employer, a convincing factor for the said clients to seek his professional service. In sum, the
IBP saw a deliberate sacrifice by respondent of his ethics in consideration of the money he
expected to earn.
Having been an executive of complainant bank, respondent sought to litigate as counsel for the
opposite side, a case against his former employer involving a transaction which he formerly
handled while still an employee of complainant, in violation of Canon 6 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility; and on adverse influence and conflicting interests under Canon 15.

10 | P a g e
The Court affirmed the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors and suspended
respondent for three years.

Atty. Rutillo B. Pasok v. Atty. Felipe G. Zapatos, A.C. No. 7388 (19 October 2016): The
respondent could not accept work or employment from anyone that would involve or relate to
any matter in which he had intervened as a judge except on behalf of the body or authority that
he served during his public employment. The restriction as applied to him lasted beyond his
tenure in relation to the matters in which he had intervened as judge. Accordingly, the fact that
he was already retired from the Bench, or that he was already in the private practice of law when
he was engaged for the case was inconsequential.
Although the respondent removed himself from the cases once his neutrality and impartiality
were challenged, he ultimately did not stay away from the cases following his retirement from
the Bench, and acted thereon as a lawyer for and in behalf of the defendant. The retired judge
was suspended for one month.

Lawyers who represent the government:

a)Lawyers tasked to represent government:
OSG, OGCC, lawyers in regular departments, bureaus, offices, lawyers in the government
financial institutions, lawyers in government owned and controlled corporations, lawyers
who serve the government’s interest under special contracts/or engagements, lawyers
under the local government units;
b) Government lawyers tasked to prosecute: Public Prosecutors from the DOJ and Office of
the Ombudsman;
c) Government lawyers who represent indigent litigants: Public Attorneys’ Office

B. The Lawyer and the Legal Profession

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 the Matter of the Inquiry into the 1989 Elections of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
A.M. No. 491 (6 October 1989): The Supreme Court en banc, exercising its power of
supervision over the Integrated Bar, resolved to suspend the oath-taking of the IBP officers-elect
and to inquire into the veracity of the reports on intensive electioneering and overspending by the
Mr. Jurado mentioned the resentment of Atty. Drilon's rivals who felt at a disadvantage because
Atty. Drilon allegedly used PNB helicopters to visit far-flung IBP chapters on the pretext of
distributing Bigay Puso donations, and she had the added advantage of having regional directors
and labor arbiters of the Department of Labor and Employment (who had been granted leaves of
absence by her husband, the Labor Secretary) campaigning for her. Jurado's informants alleged
that there was rampant vote-buying by some members of the U.P. Sigma Rho Fraternity, as well
as by some lawyers of ACCRA where Mrs. Drilon is employed, and that government positions
were promised to others by the office of the Labor Secretary.
The Court annulled the results of the IBP elections and instituted, among others, the following
1. Section 47 of Article VII is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 47. National Officers. — The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall have a President
and Executive Vice-President to be chosen by the Board of Governors from among nine (9)
regional governors, as much as practicable, on a rotation basis. The governors shall be ex
oficio Vice-President for their respective regions. There shall also be a Secretary and
Treasurer of the Board of Governors to be appointed by the President with the consent of the

2. At the end of the President's two-year term, the Executive Vice-President shall
automatically succeed to the office of president. The incoming board of governors shall
then elect an Executive Vice-President from among themselves. The position of
Executive Vice-President shall be rotated among the nine (9) IBP regions. One who has
served as president may not run for election as Executive Vice-President in a succeeding
election until after the rotation of the presidency among the nine (9) regions shall have
been completed; whereupon, the rotation shall begin anew.

3. Section 33(b), Art. V, IBP By-Laws, is hereby amended as follows:

(b) The President and Executive Vice President of the IBP shall be the Chairman and
Vice-Chairman, respectively, of the House of Delegates. The Secretary, Treasurer, and

11 | P a g e
Sergeant-at-Arms shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the House of
4. Section 37, Article VI is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 37. Composition of the Board. — The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall be
governed by a Board of Governors consisting of nine (9) Governors from the nine (9)
regions as delineated in Section 3 of the Integration Rule, on the representation basis of
one (1) Governor for each region to be elected by the members of the House of Delegates
from that region only. The position of Governor should be rotated among the different
Chapters in the region.

Santos v. Atty. Francisco R. Llamas, supra.

Re: 2003 Bar Examinations, B.M. 1222 – Atty. dela Cruz (4 February 2004): On 22 September
2003, the day following the bar examination in Mercantile Law, Justice Jose C. Vitug, Chairman
of the 2003 Bar Examinations Committee, was apprised of a rumored leakage in the examination
on the subject. After making his own inquiries, Justice Vitug reported the matter to Chief Justice
Hilario G. Davide, Jr., and to the other members of the Court, recommending that the bar
examination on the subject be nullified and that an investigation be conducted forthwith.
The Committee finds that the leaked test questions in Mercantile Law were the questions which
the examiner, Attorney Marcial O. T. Balgos, had prepared and submitted to Justice Jose C.
Vitug, as chairman of the 2003 Bar Examinations Committee. The questions constituted 82% of
the questions asked in the examination in Mercantile Law in the morning of September 21, 2003,
Sunday, in some cases with slight changes which were not substantial and in other cases exactly
as proposed by Atty. Balgos.
Dela Cruz was disbarred.

Rule 7.01 – Shall be answerable for false statement in application to Bar

Zaguirre v. Atty. Alfredo Castillo, A.C. No. 4921 (6 March 2003): Complainant and respondent
met sometime in 1996 when the two became officemates at the NBI. Respondent courted
complainant and promised to marry her while representing himself to be single. During their
affair, respondent was preparing for the bar examinations which he passed. On May 10, 1997, he
was admitted as a member of the Philippine Bar. It was only around the first week of May 1997
that complainant first learned that respondent was already married when his wife went to her
office and confronted her about her relationship with respondent.
On September 10, 1997, Castillo executed an affidavit, admitting his relationship with the
complainant and recognizing the unborn child she was carrying as his. On December 9, 1997,
complainant gave birth to a baby girl, Aletha Jessa. By this time however, respondent had started
to refuse recognizing the child and giving her any form of support.
The illicit relationship with Carmelita took place while respondent was preparing to take the bar
examinations. Thus, it cannot be said that it is unknown to him that an applicant for admission to
membership in the bar must show that he is possessed of good moral character, a requirement
which is not dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar. This qualification is not
only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but its continued possession is
essential to maintain one's good standing in the profession; it is a continuing requirement to the
practice of law.
The Court found respondent GUILTY of Gross Immoral Conduct and ordered to suffer
INDEFINITE SUSPENSION from the practice of law.

Atty. Patrick Caronan v. Richard Caronan, a.k.a. Atty. Patrick Caronan, supra
Rule 7.02 - Shall not support any unqualified Bar applicant
Rule 7.03 - Shall not engage in conduct adversely affecting the profession
Melvyn G. Garcia v. Atty. Raul h. Sesbreño (A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457, February 03,
2015, per curiam)
Dr. Elmar o. Perez v. Atty. Tristan A. Catindig and Atty. Karen E. Baydo (A.C. No. 5816, March
10, 2015, per curiam)
Tiong v. Florendo (662 SCR A 1)
Garrido v. Garrido, (611 SCRA 508)
Pacao v. Atty. Sinamar Limos, A.C. No. 11246 (14 June 2016)
Antero M. Sison, Jr. v. Atty. Manuel N. Camacho, A.C. No. 10910 (12 January 2016)
Canon 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards
his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Que v. Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr., A.C. No. 7054 (4 December 2009)

12 | P a g e
Rule 8.01 – Shall not use abusive or improper language
The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda Aseoche v. Attys. Restituto S. Lazaro and Rodel R. Merta,
A.C. No. 8210 (5 September 2016)
Spouses Nuezca v. Atty. Ernesto Villagarcia, A.C. No. 8210 (8 August 2016)
Rule 8.02 – Shall not encroach on professional employment of another
Linsangan v. Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino, supra.
Canon 9 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of
Aguirre v. Rana, supra.
In re: Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys, Michael A. Medado, Petitioner, supra.
Rule 9.01 – Shall not delegate work to non-lawyers
Rule 9.02 - Shall not divide fees for legal services with non-lawyers
Lijauco v. Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado, A.C. No. 6317 (31 August 2006)
Plus Builders v. Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr., A.C. No. 7056 (13
September 2006)
Tan Tek Beng v. David, supra.

C. The Lawyer and the Courts

Canon 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, sec. 20, par. (d).
Rule 10.1 – Shall do no falsehood
Maligaya v. Atty. Antonio G. Doronilla, A.C. No. 6198 (15 September 2006)
Cheryl Vasco-Tamaray v. Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis, A.C. No. 10868 (26 January 2016)

Rule 10.2 - Shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresentQue v. Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr.,
Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum dated January 11, 2010 of Acting Director Aleu A. Amante, PIAB-C,
Office of the Ombudsman, A.M. No. 10-1-13- SC (2 March 2010), see also Resolutions dated 15
June 2010 and 20 March 2012
Rule 10.03 – Shall not misuse rules of procedure
Francisco v. Atty. Romeo M. Flores, A.C. No. 10753 (26 January 2016)

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.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 159486-88 (25 November 2003)
In Re: Published Alleged Threats by Atty. Leonard de Vera, A.M. No. 01-12-03- SC (29 July
Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled “Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the
University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and
Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court, ”A.M. No. 10-10-4- SC, 19 October 2010Rule 11.01 -
Shall appear properly attired
Rule 11.02 - Shall punctually appear
Rule 11.03 - Shall abstain from offensive language and behavior before the courts
In the Matter of Proceedings for Disciplinary Action Against Atty. Vicente
Raul Almacen in L-27654 (18 February 1970)
Pobre v. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, A.C. No. 7399 (25 August 2009)
Judge Maribeth Rodriguez-Manahan v. Atty. Rodolfo Flores, A.C. No. 8954, November 13, 2013*
Rule 11.04 – Shall not attribute to a judge unsupported or immaterial motives
In re: re: Supreme Court Resolution dated 28 April 2003 in G.R. Nos. 145817 and 145822, A.C.
No. 6332 (17 April 2002)
Re: Interview with Atty. Lorna Kapunan on Corruption in the Judiciary, A.M. No. 13-11-09-SC
Roxas v. Zuzuarregui, et. al., G.R. No. 152072 (12 July 2007)
Rule 11.05 – Shall submit grievances to proper authorities
Canon 12 - A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice.
Rule 12.01 – Shall be adequately prepared
Rule 12.02 – Shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause
Salabao v. Atty. Andres Villaruel, A.C. No. 8084, August 24, 2015*
RULES OF COURT, Rule 7, Sec. 5; see also Rule 45, Sec. 4; Rule 65, Sec. 3.
Rule 12.03 – Shall not let extensions lapse

13 | P a g e
Enriquez v. Atty. Edilberto Lavadia, Jr., A.C. No. 5686 (16 June 2015)
Chua v. Atty. Arturo M. de Castro, A.C. No. 10671 (25 November 2015)
Davao Import Distributors Inc. v. Atty. Johnny Landero, A.C. No. 5116, April 13, 2015*
Caoile v. Atty. Marcelino Macaraeg, A.C. No. 720, June 17, 2015*
Rule 12.04 – Shall not delay a case or misuse court processes
Rexie Efren Bugaring v. Hon. Español, A.C. No. 133090 (19 January 2001)
Avida v. Atty. Al C. Argosino, A.C. No. 7437 (17 August 2016)
Rule 12.05 - Shall refrain from talking to witness while he is under examination
Sambajon v. Atty. Jose A. Suing, A.C. No. 7062 (26 September 2006)
Rule 12.06 – Shall not assist a witness to misrepresent himself/impersonate another
Rule 12.07Rule 12.07 - Shall not abuse or harass witness
RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, Sec. 3.
Rule 12.08 – Shall avoid testifying on behalf of his client, exceptions

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.
Fajardo v. Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez, A.C. No. 9018 (20 April 2016)
Rule 13.01 - Shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to judges
Rule 13.02 – Shall not make statements in the media to arouse public opinion
Cruz v Salva, supra.
Foodsphere, Inc. v. Atty. Melanio L. Mauricio, Jr., A.C. No. 7199 (22 July 2009)
Belo-Henares v. Atty. Roberto “Argee” C. Guevarra, A.C. No. 11394 (1 December 2016)
Rule 13.03 – Shall not invite interference from another agency of government in judicial
Maglasang v. People, G.R. No. 90083 (4 October 1990)
De Bumanlag v. Bumanlag, A.M. No. 188 (29 November 1976)

D. The Lawyer and the Client

Canon 14 - A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy.
Rule 14.01 – Shall not decline to represent on account of race, sex, creed, status,
or opinion as to guilt
RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Sec. 20, par. (h)(i).
Francisco v. Jaime Juanito P. Portugal, A.C. No. 6155 (14 March 2006)
Rule 14.02 - Shall not decline appointment as counsel de officio or amicus curiae
RULES OFRULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Sec. 20, par. (h)(i).
Rule 14.02 - Shall not decline appointment as counsel de officio or amicus curiae
RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Sec. 31.
RULES OF COURT, Rule 116, Sec. 6-8.
RULES OF COURT, Rule 124, Sec. 2.
In the Matter of Atty. Lope E. Adriano, G.R. No. L-26868 (27 February 1969)
People v. Bermas, G.R. No. 120420 (21 April 1999)
Rule 14.03 – Valid grounds to refuse representation
Perez v. Atty. Danilo de la Torre, A.C. No. 6160 (30 March 2006)
Canoy v. Atty. Jose Max S. Ortiz, A.C. No. 5485 (16 March 2005)
Rule 14.04 – Shall observe same standard of conduct as with paying clients
In the Matter of Atty. Lope E. Adriano, supra.
Canoy v. Atty. Jose Max S. Ortiz, supra.
RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Sec. 21
Sy et al. v. Fairland Knitcraft Co., G.R. No. 182915, December 12, 2011*

Canon 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.
Rule 15.01 - Shall ascertain whether there is a conflict of interest
Camino v. Atty. Ryan Rey L. Pasagui, A.C. No. 11095 (20 September 2016)
Spouses Sabitsana v. Muertegui, G.R. No. 181359 August 5, 2013*
Daging v. Atty. Riz Davis, A.C. No. 9395, November 12, 2014*
Rule 15.02 - Shall be bound by rule on privileged communication
Hadjula v. Atty. Roceles F. Madianda, A.c. No. 6711 (3 July 2007)
Rule 15.03 - Shall not represent conflicting interests
See cases under Rule 15.01
Rule 15.04 – May act as mediator/conciliator/arbitrator
Rule 15.05 - Shall give candid and honest opinion
14 | P a g e
Rollon v. Atty. Camilo Naraval, A.C. No. 6424 (4 March 2005)
Rule 15.06 - Shall not state or imply ability to influence
Reddi v. Atty. Diosdado C. Cebrio, Jr., A.C. No. 7027 (30 January 2009)
Plumptre v. Atty. Socrates Rivera, A.C. No. 11350 (9 August 2016)
Rule 15.07 – Shall impress compliance with the laws
Chu v. Atty. Jose Guico, Jr., A.C. No. 10573 (13 January 2015)
Rule 15.08 – Lawyers with dual professions
Dr. Gamilla, et al. v. Atty. Eduardo Jr. Mariño, Jr., A.C. No. 4763 (20 March 2003)

Canon 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his profession.
CIVIL CODE, Art. 1491, par.(5).
Rule 16.01 - Shall account for all money and property
Salomon v. Atty. Joselito C. Frial, A.C. No. 7820 (12 September 2008)
Viray v. Atty. Eugenio Sanicas, A.C. No. 7337, September 29, 2014*
Rule 16.02 - Shall keep client’s fund separate
Hernandez v. Atty. Jose C. Go, A.C. No. 1526 (31 January 2005)
Tarog v. Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort, A.C. No. 8253 (15 March 2011)
Rule 16.03 - Shall deliver funds on demand; lien
Busiños v. Atty. Francisco Ricafort, A.C. No. 4349 (22 December 1997)
Anacta v. Atty. Eduardo Resurreccion, A.C. No. 9074, August 14, 2012*
Datu Ismael Malangas v. Atty. Paul Zaide, A.C. No. 10675, May 31, 2016*
Rule 16.04 – Shall not borrow money
Spouses Concepcion v. Atty. Elmer A. Dela Rosa, A.C. No. 10681 (3 February 2015)
Yu v. Atty. Berlin de la Cruz

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.
Sison, Jr. v. Atty. Manuel N. Camacho, A.C. No. 10910 (12 January 2016)
In re: Suspension of Atty. Leon G. Maquera from the practice of law, B.M. No.793 (30 July

Canon 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Sanchez v. Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos, A.C. No. 10543 (16 March 2016)
Donga-as v. Attys. Rose Beatrix Cruz-Angeles and Wylie M. Paler, A.C. No. 11113 (9 August
Diona v. Balague et al., G.R. No. 173559, January 7, 2013*
Rule 18.01 – Shall not undertake legal service if unqualified
De Juan v. Atty.Oscar Baria III, A.C. No. 5817 (27 May 2004)
Rollon v. Atty. Camilo Naraval, supra.
Rule 18.02 - Shall adequately prepare
Rule 18.03 – Shall be liable for neglect of legal matters
Fabie v. Atty. Leonardo M. Real, A.C. No. 10574 (20 September 2016)
Roberto P. Nonato v. Atty. Eutiguio M. Fudolin, Jr., A.C. No 10138 (16 June 2015)
Dominic Paul D. Lazareto v. Atty. Dennis N. Acorda, A.C. No. 9603 (16 June 2015)
VC Ponce Company Inc. v. Municipality of Paranaque, G.R. No. 178431, November 12, 2012*
Spouses Warriner v. Atty. Reni Dublin, A.C. No. 5239, November 18, 2013*
Cabauatan v. Atty. Freddie Venida, A.C. No. 10043, November 20, 2013*
FAJ Construction & Development Corp. v. Susan Saulog, G.R. No. 200759, March 25, 2015*
Rule 18.04 - Shall keep client informed
Ruiz v. Santos, G.R. No. 166386 (27 January 2009)
Vda. de Robosa v. Attys. Juan B. Mendoza and Eusebio P. Navarro, Jr., A.C. No. 6056 (9
September 2015)

Canon 19 - A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.
Patrocina H. Salabao v. Atty. Andres C. Villaruel, Jr., A.C. No. 8084
(24 August 2015)
Rule 19.01 – Shall employ only fair and honest means
Belo v. Atty. Roberto “Argee” C. Guevarra, supra.
Rule 19.02 - Shall call upon client to rectify fraud
Dalisay v. Atty. Melanio Mauricio, Jr., A.C. No. 5655 (22 April 2005)
Rule 19.03 – Shall not allow client to dictate procedure
Olvida v. Atty. Arnel C. Gonzales, A.C. No. 5732 (16 June 2015)

15 | P a g e
Canon 20 - A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.
RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Sections 24 and 32.
Masmud v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 183385 (13 February 2009)
Municipality of Tiwi v. Antonio Betito, G.R. No. 171873, July 9, 2010*
Rule 20.01 – Factors determining fees
Rule 20.02 - Fees in case of referral
Rule 20.03 - Acceptance of money from persons other than client
Sison, Jr. v. Atty. Manuel N. Camacho, supra.
RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, sec. 20.
Rule 20.04 - Shall avoid compensation controversies
Ramos v. Atty. Patricio A. Ngaseo, A.C. No. 6210 (9 December 2004)
Canon 21 – A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after
the attorney-client relation is terminated.
RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Sec. 20, par.(e)
RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 24, par.(b)
Hilado v. David, et al., G.R. No. L-961 (21 September 1949)
Bun Siong Yao v. Atty. Leonardo A. Aurelio, A.C. No. 7023 (30 March 2006)
Rule 21.01 – Shall not reveal confidences; exceptions
Rule 21.02 - Shall not use information to client’s disadvantage
Uy v. Atty. Gonzales, A.C. No. 5280 (30 March 2004)
Rule 21.03 – Shall not give information to outside agency
Rule 21.04 - Disclosure to partners and associates
Rule 21.05 – Shall adopt measures to prevent disclosure
Rule 21.06 – Shall avoid indiscreet conversation
Rule 21.07 - Shall not reveal consultation; exception

Canon 22 - A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice
appropriate in the circumstances.
Rule 22.01 – Causes for withdrawal
Intestate Estate of Luis Domingo v. Aquino, G.R. No. L-28078 (29 April 1971)
Montano v. Integrated Bar of the Philippines and Atty. Juan C. Dealca, A.C. No. 4215 (21 May
Rule 22.02 – Duties of withdrawing lawyer
Obando v. Figueras, G.R. No. 134854 (18 January 2000)

VIII. Disbarment Proceedings

1. Constitutional Duty of the Supreme Court to Discipline Lawyers

Bernardino v. Atty. Victor Rey Santos, A.C. No. 10583 (18 February 2015)
Spouses Buffe v. Sec. Raul M. Gonzalez, et al., A.C. No. 8168 (12 October 2016)
2. Procedure
Bar MatterNature of proceedings (read Rule 139-B)
The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda Aseoche v. Attys. Restituto S.Lazaro and Rodel R. Merta,
Carrie-Anne Reyes v. Atty. Ramon Nieva, supra.
Yumul-Espina v. Atty. Benedicto Tabaquero, A.C. No. 11238 (21 September 2016)
Heirs of Atilano v. Atty. Roberto E. Examen, A.C. No. 10132 (24 March 2015)
Coronel v. Atty. Nelson Cunanan, A.C. No. 6738 (12 August 2015)
Datu Dumanlag v. Atty. Winston B. Intong, A.C. No. 8638 (10 October 2016)
Datu Duque v. COMELEC Chairman Sixto Brillantes, et al., A.C. No. 9912 (21 September
Rodica v. Atty. Mauel Lazaro et al., A.C. No. 9259, August 23, 2012*

4. Effects of disciplinary penalty

Sps. Eustaquio v. Atty. Edgar Navales, A.C. No. 10465 (8 June 2016)
Alvin S. Feliciano v. Atty. Carmelita Bautista-Lozada, A.C. No. 7593 (11 March 2015)
5. Reinstatement
Maniago v. Atty. Lourdes De Dios, A.C. No. 7472 (30 March 2010)
Macarubo v. Macarurubo

16 | P a g e