U.P.

LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

1
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

2
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

3
 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS AND PRACTICAL EXERCIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS a.   Candor, Fairness and Good Faith to the

Courts.......................................................... 23  
I.   LEGAL ETHICS ...................................... 1   b.   Respect for Courts and Judicial
Officers. ....................................................... 25  
  Practice of Law ........................................ 2   c.   Assistance in the Speedy and Efficient
1.   Concept ......................................................... 2   Administration of Justice ............................ 27  
a.   Definition ............................................. 2   d.   Reliance on Merits of His/Her Cause
b.   Privilege, not Right ............................. 2   and Avoidance of Any Impropriety Which
c.   Profession, not Business ..................... 2   Tends to Influence or Gives the Appearance
2.   Qualifications for Admission to the Bar ....... 3   of Influence upon the Courts ...................... 30  
3.   Continuing Requirements for Membership in 4.   To the Clients (Canons 14-22) ..................... 31  
the Bar..................................................................... 5   a.   Availability of Service Without
a.   Good Moral Character ......................... 5   Discrimination ............................................. 31  
b.   Citizenship ........................................... 6   b.   Candor, Fairness, and Loyalty to
4.   Appearance of Non-Lawyers ........................ 6   Clients ......................................................... 34  
a.   Law Student Practice .......................... 7   c.   Client’s Moneys and Properties ........ 38  
b.   Non-Lawyers in Courts ........................ 7   d.   Fidelity to Client’s Cause ................... 40  
c.   Non-Lawyers in Administrative e.   Competence and Diligence ................ 41  
Tribunals ....................................................... 7   f.   Representation with Zeal within Legal
d.   Proceedings Where Lawyers Are Bounds ........................................................ 42  
Prohibited from Appearing .......................... 8   g.   Attorney’s fees ................................... 43  
5.   Sanctions for Practice or Appearance h.   Preservation of Client’s Confidences 46  
Without Authority ................................................... 8   i.   Withdrawal of services ...................... 48  
a.   Lawyers without Authority .................. 8  
b.   Persons Who Are Not Lawyers ............ 8     Suspension, Disbarment, Discipline of
6.   Public Officials and the Practice of Law ....... 8   Lawyers............................................................... 49  
a.   Prohibition or Disqualification of 1.   Nature and Characteristics of Disciplinary
Former Government Attorneys..................... 8   Actions against Lawyers ....................................... 49  
b.   Public Officials Who Cannot Practice a.   Sui Generis ......................................... 49  
Law or Can Practice Law with Restrictions .. 9   b.   Prescription ....................................... 49  
7.   Lawyers Authorized to Represent the 2.   Grounds ...................................................... 50  
Government ............................................................ 9   3.   Proceedings ................................................. 51  
8.   Lawyer’s Oath ............................................... 9   4.   Discipline of Filipino Lawyers Practicing
Abroad .................................................................. 52  
  Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer 5.   Discipline of Lawyers in Government ......... 52  
under the Code of Professional Responsibility 6.   Presumption of Innocence, Burden of Proof,
[CPR]…. ............................................................... 10   Quantum of Proof ................................................. 53  
1.   To Society (Canons 1-6) .............................. 10   7.   Disciplinary Measures................................. 53  
a.   Respect for Law and Legal 8.   Mitigating and Aggravating
Processes…. ................................................ 10   Circumstances…. .................................................. 53  
b.   Efficient and Convenient Legal 9.   Effect of Executive Pardon ......................... 54  
Services ........................................................ 13   10.   Effect of Compromise Agreements ............ 54  
c.   True, Honest, Fair, Dignified and
Objective Information on Legal Services..... 14     Readmission to the Bar .......................... 55  
d.   Participation in the Improvement of 1.   Lawyers Who Have Been Suspended ......... 55  
and Reforms in the Legal System ............... 15   2.   Lawyers Who Have Been Disbarred ........... 55  
e.   Participation in Legal Education 3.   Lawyers who have been Repatriated ......... 55  
Program ....................................................... 16     Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
f.   Applicability to Government (MCLE).. .............................................................. 56  
Lawyers….. ................................................... 16   1.   Purpose ....................................................... 56  
2.   To the Legal Profession (Canons 7-9) ......... 18   2.   Requirements ............................................. 56  
a.   Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Rule 3.   Compliance ................................................. 57  
139-A) ........................................................... 18   4.   Exemptions ................................................. 57  
b.   Upholding the Dignity and Integrity of 5.   Sanctions .................................................... 58  
the Profession .............................................. 19  
c.   Courtesy, Fairness and Candor toward   Notarial Practice .................................... 59  
Professional Colleagues ............................. 20   1.   Qualifications of a Notary Public................ 59  
d.   No Assistance in Unauthorized 2.   Term of Office of a Notary Public ............... 59  
Practice of Law ........................................... 22   3.   Powers and Limitations .............................. 59  
3.   To the Courts (Canons 10-13) ..................... 23   a.   Powers ............................................... 59  
b.   Limitations ........................................ 60  

i
 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS AND PRACTICAL EXERCIES

4.   Notarial Register ......................................... 61  

a.   Entries ................................................ 61  
b.   Closing................................................ 61  
c.   Submission ........................................ 62  
5.   Jurisdiction of Notary Public and Place of
Notarization .......................................................... 62  
6.   Revocation of Commission ......................... 62  
7.   Competent Evidence of Identity ................. 63  
8.   Sanctions .................................................... 63  
a.   Administrative Sanctions .................. 63  
b.   Criminal sanctions ............................ 63  
II.   JUDICIAL ETHICS ................................64  
  Sources .................................................. 65  
1.   New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary (Bangalore Draft) ................. 65  
2.   Code of Judicial Conduct ............................ 65  
  Administrative Jurisdiction over Judges
and Justices ........................................................ 65  
1.   Supreme Court ........................................... 65  
2.   All Other Courts .......................................... 65  
  Disqualifications of Justices and Judges
[Rule 137, ROC] ................................................... 66  
1.   Compulsory ................................................. 66  
2.   Voluntary .................................................... 67  
  Initiation of Complaint against Judges and
Justices. .............................................................. 69  
  Discipline of Members of the Judiciary ... 69  
1.   Supreme Court ........................................... 69  
2.   Lower Courts and Justices of Court of
Appeals, and Sandiganbayan, and Court of Tax
Appeals (Rule 140)................................................ 69  
3.   Grounds ...................................................... 70  
III.   FORMS ................................................ 74  
  Parts Common to Forms ......................... 75  
  Quitclaims in Labor Cases ...................... 78  
  Contract of Lease ................................... 79  
  Contracts of Sale .................................... 80  
  Promissory Notes ................................... 85  
  Verification and Certification of Non-Forum
Shopping ............................................................ 86  
  Notice of Hearing and Explanation ........ 87  
  Affidavits ............................................... 89  

ii
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

LEGAL ETHICS
Legal and Judicial Ethics

Page 1 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
 Practice of Law
1.   Concept
a.   Definition
The practice of law is any activity, in or out of court,
which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. It is to give notice
or render any kind of service, which device or service
requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or
skill [Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113 (1991)].
According to Justice Padilla, in his dissent in Cayetano
v. Monsod, the following factors are considered in
determining whether there is practice of law:
1.   Habituality –implies customarily or habitually
holding one's self out to the public as a lawyer.
2.   Application of law, legal principles, practice or
procedure –calls for legal knowledge, training
and experience.
3.   Compensation–implies that one must have
presented himself to be in the active and
continued practice of the legal profession and
that his professional services are available to the
public for compensation, as a service for his
livelihood or in consideration of his said services.
4.   Attorney-client relationship
The test is the activity, NOT who/what he or she is.
When lawyers teach law, they are considered engaged
in the practice of law. Their actions as law professors
must be measured against the same canons of
professional responsibility as the fact of their being
law professors is inextricably entwined with the fact
that they are lawyers. [ Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty:
”Restoring Integrity: A statement by the Faculty of the
UP College of Law on the allegations of plagiarism and
misrepresentation in the SC”, A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC
(2011)].
b.   Privilege, not Right
The right to practice law is not a natural or
constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to
persons of good moral character with special
qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The
exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of
integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment,
and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the
court. A bar candidate who is morally unfit cannot
practice law even if he passes the bar examinations
[Aguirre v. Rana, B.M. No. No. 1036 (2003)].
While the practice of law is not a right but a privilege,
the Court will not unwarrantedly withhold this
privilege from individuals who have shown mental
Page 2 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
fitness and moral fiber to withstand the rigors of the
profession [In re: Michael Medado, B.M. No. 2540
(2013)].
Respondent falsely used complainant's name,
identity, and school records to gain admission to the
Bar. Since complainant — the real "Patrick A.
Caronan" never took the Bar Examinations, the IBP
correctly recommended that the name "Patrick A.
Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of Attomeys. The IBP
was also correct in ordering that respondent, whose
real name is "Richard A. Caronan," be barred from
admission to the Bar. In this case, respondent never
completed his college degree. While he enrolled at the
PLM in 1991, he left a year later and entered the PMA
where he was discharged in 1993 without graduating.
Clearly, respondent has not completed the requisite
pre-law degree. The Court does not discount the
possibility that respondent may later on complete his
college education and earn a law degree under his real
name. However, his false assumption of his brother's
name, identity, and educational records renders him
unfit for admission to the Bar. The practice of law,
after all, is not a natural, absolute or constitutional
right to be granted to everyone who demands it.
Rather, it is a privilege limited to citizens of good
moral character [Caronan v. Caronan, A.C No. 11316
(2016)].
c.   Profession, not Business
Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which
duty to public service, not money, is the primary
professional but a secondary consideration [Burbe v.
Magulta, A. C. No. 99-634 (2002)].
Atty. Ancheta, should have advised complainants to
accept the judgment of the Court of Appeals and
accord respect to the just claim of the opposite party.
He should have tempered his clients' propensity to
litigate and save them from additional expense in
pursuing their contemplated action. Instead, he gave
them confident assurances that the case could still be
reopened and even furnished them a copy of his
prepared "motion to reopen case." Despite receipt of
the P30,000 acceptance fee, he did not act on his
client's case. Moreover, he prevailed upon
complainants to give him P200,000.00 purportedly
to be used to bribe the Justices of the Court of Appeals
in order to secure a favorable ruling, palpably showing
that he himself was unconvinced of the merits of the
case. Atty. Ancheta's misconduct betrays his lack of
appreciation that the practice of law is a profession,
not a money-making trade [Spouses Tolentino v. Atty.
Ancheta, A.C. No. No. 6387, (2016)].
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
2.  Q ualifications for
Admission to the Bar
1
Section 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court . Who may
practice law. – Any person heretofore duly
admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter
admitted as such in accordance with the provisions
of this rule, and who is in good and regular
standing, is entitled to practice law.
Sec. 2, Rule 138. Requirements for all applicants
for admission to the bar. – Every applicant for
admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen
of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age,
of good moral character, and a resident of the
Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme
Court satisfactory evidence of good moral
character; and that no charges against him,
involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are
pending in any court in the Philippines.
Requisites for admission to the bar
a.   Citizenship
b.   Residence: his/her duties to his client and to the
court will require that he/she be readily accessible
and available
c.   Age (at least 21 years old): maturity and discretion
are required in the practice of law
d.   Good moral character and no charges involving
moral turpitude
The purposes for this requirement are:
1.   To protect the public;
2.   To protect the public image of lawyers;
3.   To protect prospective clients; and
4.   To protect errant lawyers from themselves
[Dantes v. Dantes, A.C. No. No. 6486 (2004)].
e.   Legal education (consisting of pre-law and law
proper);
f.   Pass the bar examinations
g.   Take the lawyer’s oath
h.   Sign the roll of attorneys.
Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become
an attorney-at-law. Two essential requisites for
becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely:
his lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and
his signature in the roll of attorneys [Aguirre v. Rana,
supra].
Legal Education
a.   Pre-law
2
Sec. 6, Rule 138 . Pre-law. – An applicant for
admission to the bar examination shall present a
certificate issued by the proper government agency
that, before commencing the study of law, he or she
1 2
Hereinafter, RoC
Page 3 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an
authorized and recognized university or college,
requiring for admission thereto the completion of a
four-year high school course, the course of study
prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or
sciences.
A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his
or her Bachelor of Laws degree or its equivalent in
a foreign law school must present proof of having
completed a separate bachelor's degree course.
b.   Law proper
Sec. 5, Rule 138. Additional Requirement for Other
Applicants. — All applicants for admission other
than those referred to in the two preceding sections
shall, before being admitted to the examination,
satisfactorily show that they have successfully
completed all the prescribed courses for the degree
of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree, in a
law school or university officially recognized by the
Philippine Government or by the proper authority in
the foreign jurisdiction where the degree has been
granted.
No applicant who obtained the Bachelor of Laws
degree in this jurisdiction shall be admitted to the
bar examination unless he or she has satisfactorily
completed the following course in a law school or
university duly recognized by the government: civil
law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law,
public and private international law, political law,
labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence,
taxation and legal ethics.
A Filipino citizen who graduated from a foreign law
school shall be admitted to the bar examination
only upon submission to the Supreme Court of
certifications showing: (a) completion of all courses
leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its
equivalent degree; (b) recognition or accreditation
of the law school by the proper authority; and (c)
completion of all the fourth year subjects in the
Bachelor of Laws academic program in a law school
duly recognized by the Philippine Government.
In B.M. No. No. 1552-A (2010), the Supreme Court
approved the guidelines on the legal apprenticeship
program in the Supreme Court and other collegiate
appellate courts, allowing qualified 4th year law
students to undergo the Legal Apprenticeship
Program for at the said courts for at least 160 hours.
In A.M. No. 15-04-03-SC (Re Letters of Justice Jose C.
Vitug [Ret], Founding Dean of Angeles University
Foundation (AUF) School of Law, dated 7 February
2015, and of Judge Ave A. Zurbito-Alba, Municipal Trial
As amended by B.M. No. 1153 (2010)
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
court, Daraga, Albay,), the Supreme Court lifted the
prohibition on the accommodation of students to
undergo on-the-job training/practicum in the lower
courts.
Legal Education Board
Under R.A. No. 7662 (Legal Education Reform Act of
1993), the Legal Education Board (LEB) was created in
order to uplift the standards of legal education by
undertaking appropriate reforms in the legal
education system, requiring proper selection of law
students, maintaining quality among law schools, and
requiring legal apprenticeship and continuing legal
education.
It is comprised of a Chairman (preferably former
justice of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals), 4
regular members (a representative of the IBP, a
representative of the Philippine Association of Law
Schools (PALS), a representative from the ranks of
active law practitioners, a representative from the law
students' sector, and the Secretary of the Department
of Education or his representative as an ex
officio member.
The functions of the Board include:
a.   Administering the legal education system in the
country;
b.   Supervising the law schools in the country;
c.   Setting the standards of accreditation for law
schools taking into account, among others, the
size of enrollment, the qualifications of the
members of the faculty, the library and other
facilities, without encroaching upon the academic
freedom of institutions of higher learning;
d.   Accrediting law schools that meet the standards
of accreditation;
e.   Prescribing minimum standards for law
admission and minimum qualifications and
compensation of faculty members;
f.   Prescribing the basic curricula for the course of
study aligned to the requirements for admission
to the Bar, law practice and social consciousness;
g.   Establishing a law practice internship as a
requirement for taking the Bar which a law
student shall undergo with any duly accredited
private or public law office or firm or legal
assistance group anytime during the law course
for a specific period that the Board may decide,
but not to exceed a total of twelve (12) months. For
this purpose, the Board shall prescribe the
necessary guidelines for such accreditation and
the specifications of such internship which shall
include the actual work of a new member of the
Bar; and
h.   Adopting a system of continuing legal education.
The LEB promulgated LEB Memorandum Order No 1,
Series of 2011 to set forth the policies and standards of
Page 4 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
legal education and manual of regulations for law
schools.
In Dec. 2016, LEB promulgated LEB Memorandum
Order No. 7, Series of 2016 which required the
Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhilSAT) as a
pre-requisite for admission to the basic law courses
leading either to a Bachelor of Laws or Juris Doctor
degree beginning school year 2017-2018.
Bar Examinations
All applicants for admission shall file with the clerk of
the Supreme Court the evidence required under Sec. 2
at least 15 days before the beginning of the
examination. If the applicant is not covered by Secs. 3
and 4, they shall also file within the same period the
affidavit and certificate required by Sec. 5 [Sec. 7, Rule
138, RoC].
The clerk of the Supreme Court shall publish the
notice of applications for admission in newspapers
published in Filipino, English and Spanish, for at least
10 days before the beginning of the examination [Sec.
8, Rule 138, RoC].
Examinees shall not bring papers, books or notes into
the examination rooms. The questions shall be the
same for all examinees and a copy thereof, in English
or Spanish, shall be given to each examinee.
Examinees shall answer the questions personally
without help from anyone.
Upon verified application made by an examinee
stating that his penmanship is so poor that it will be
difficult to read his answers without much loss of time,
the Supreme Court may allow such examinee to use a
typewriter in answering the questions. Only noiseless
typewriters shall be allowed to be used.
The committee of bar examines shall take such
precautions as are necessary to prevent the
substitution of papers or commission of other frauds.
Examinees shall not place their names on the
examination papers. No oral examination shall be
given [Sec. 10, Rule 138, RoC].
Examination for admission to the bar of the
Philippines shall take place annually in the City of
Manila. They shall be held in 4 days to be designated
by the chairman of the committee on bar examiners
[Sec. 11, Rule 138, RoC].
Political and
Morning
International Law
First Day
Labor and Social
Afternoon
Legislation
Second Morning Civil Law
Day Afternoon Taxation
Morning Mercantile Law
Third Day
Afternoon Criminal Law
U.P. LAW BOC
Morning Remedial law
Fourth
Legal Ethics and
Day Afternoon
Practical Exercises
A candidate is deemed to have passed his
examinations successfully if he obtained a general
average of 75%in all subjects, without falling below
50%in any subject [Sec. 14, Rule 138, RoC].
The relative weights of the subjects used in
determining the average are as follows:
Subject % 1.   First grade regular examination for appointment
Civil Law 15%
Labor and Social Legislation 10%
Mercantile Law 15%
Criminal Law 10%
Political and International Law 15%
Taxation 10%
Remedial Law 20%
Legal and Ethics and Practical Exercises 5%
Examinations shall be conducted by a committee of
bar examiners to be appointed by the Supreme Court.
This committee shall be composed of a Justice of the
Supreme Court as chairman, and 8 members of the
bar, who shall hold office for a period of one year. The
names of the members of this committee shall be
published in each volume of the official reports [Sec.
12, Rule 138, RoC].
Pursuant to B.M. No. 1161 (2004), 2 examiners are
designated per bar subject.
The Bar Confidant acts as a sort of liaison officer
between the court and the Bar Chairman on the other
hand, and the individual members of the committee
on the other. He is at the same time a deputy clerk of
court.
th
Not later than February 15 after the examination, or
as soon thereafter as may be practicable, the
committee shall file its report on the result of such
examination. The examination papers and notes of the
committee shall be filed with the clerk and may there
be examined by the parties in interest, after the court
has approved the report [Sec. 15, Rule 138, RoC].
Candidates who have failed the bar examinations 3
times shall be disqualified from taking another
th
examination, provided that they may take a 4 and 5
examination if they show to the satisfaction of the
court that they have enrolled in and passed regular 4
year review classes as well as attended a pre-bar
review course in a recognized law school for each
examination [Sec. 16, Rule 138, RoC, as amended by
B.M. No. 1161 (2004)].
No candidate shall endeavor to influence any member
of the committee, and during examination, the
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
candidates shall not communicate with each other nor
shall they give or receive any assistance. Any violator
shall be barred from the examination, and the same to
count as a failure against him, and further disciplinary
action may be taken in the discretion of the court [Sec.
13, Rule 138, RoC].
Under R.A. No. 1080 (An Act Declaring the Bar and
Board Examinations as Civil Service Examinations), as
amended by R.A. No. 1844, the Bar examinations is
declared as civil service examinations equivalent to:
to a position which requires proficiency in law; and
2.   Second grade regular examination for
appointment to a position which does not require
proficiency in law.
3.  Continuing Requirements
for Membership in the Bar
a.   Good Moral Character
Absence of a proven conduct or act which has been
historically and traditionally considered as a
manifestation of moral turpitude. The act or conduct
need not amount to a crime; and even if it does
constitute an offense, a conviction upon a criminal
charge is not necessary to demonstrate bad moral
character although it may show moral depravity
[“Legal and Judicial Ethics” by Agpalo (2004)].
This requirement is not only a condition precedent to
admission to the practice of law, its continued
possession is also essential for remaining in the
practice of law. Good moral character is what a
person really is, as distinguished from good
reputation, the estimate in which he is held by the
public in the place where he is known [In the Matter of
the Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling In
The 2002 Bar Examinations and For Disciplinary Action
As Member of The Philippine Shari’a Bar, B.M. No. 1154
(2004)].
All aspects of moral character and behavior may be
inquired into in respect of those seeking admission to
the Bar. The scope of such inquiry is, indeed, said to be
properly broader than inquiry into the moral
proceedings for disbarment. The requirement of good
th
moral character to be satisfied by those who would
seek admission to the bar must of necessity be more
th
stringent than the norm of conduct expected from
members of the general public. The Supreme Court
may deny lawyer’s oath-taking based on a conviction
for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (hazing
case). But after submission, for the Court’s
examination and consideration, relevant evidence to
show that he is a different person now, that he has
become morally fit for admission to the ancient and
Page 5 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
learned profession of the law [In re: Argosino, A.M. No.
712 (1997)].
Question of moral turpitude is for the Supreme Court
to decide, which is why applicants are required to
disclose any crime which they have been charged.
Concealment or withholding from the Court
information about charges and indictments is a
ground for disqualification of applicant or for
revocation of license [Agpalo 2004].
By concealing pending criminal cases, the applicant
(in a petition to take the Bar Examinations) then flunks
the test of fitness even if the cases are ultimately
proven to be unwarranted or insufficient to impugn or
affect the good moral character of the applicant [In the
Matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S.
Meling In The 2002 Bar Examinations and For
Disciplinary Action As Member of The Philippine Shari’a
Bar, B.M. No. 1154 (2004)].
b.   Citizenship
The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall
be limited to Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed
by law [Sec. 14, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution].
Ratio: Citizenship ensures allegiance to the Republic
and its laws.
i.   Reacquisition of the Privilege to
Practice Law in the Philippines
under R.A. No. 9225 or the
Citizenship Retention and
Reacquisition Act of 2003
Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to
the bar and is, in fact, a continuing requirement for
the practice of law. The loss thereof means
termination of the petitioner’s membership in the bar;
ipso jure the privilege to engage in the practice of law…
Thus, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of
another country and later re-acquires his Philippine
citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, remains to be a
member of the Philippine Bar. However, the right to
resume the practice of law is not automatic. R.A. No.
9225 provides that a person who intends to practice
his profession in the Philippines must apply with the
proper authority for a license or permit to engage in
such practice [In re: Petition to re-acquire the privilege
to practice law in the Philippines of Muneses, B.M. No.
2112 (2012)]
In In re: Petition to re-acquire the privilege to practice
law in the Philippines of Muneses, in pursuance to the
qualifications laid down by the Court for the practice
of law, the Office of the Bar Confidant [hereinafter,
OBC] required Muneses to submit the original or
Page 6 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
certified true copies of the following documents in
relation to his petition:
1.   Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine
Citizenship;
2.   Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine
citizenship);
3.   Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines;
4.   Identification Certificate issued by the Bureau of
Immigration;
5.   Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP;
6.   Certification from the IBP indicating updated
payments of annual membership dues;
7.   Proof of payment of professional tax; and
8.   Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE
office.
These documents will be submitted to the OBC and
will be reviewed by the Court en banc for resolution.
Before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship
pursuant to R.A. No. 9225 can resume his law
practice, he must first secure from this Court the
authority to do so, conditioned on:
1.   the updating and payment in full of the annual
membership dues in the IBP;
2.   the payment of professional tax;
3.   the completion of at least 36 credit hours of
mandatory continuing legal education; this is
especially significant to refresh the
applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine
laws and update him of legal developments and
4.   the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not
only remind him of his duties and responsibilities
as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also
renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines.
Compliance with these conditions will restore his good
standing as a member of the Philippine bar [Petition
for Leave to Resume Practice of Law of Dacanay, B.M.
No. 1678 (2007)].
4.  A ppearance of Non-
Lawyers
General rule: Only members of the bar can appear and
handle cases in court
Exceptions: The following are also allowed in
exceptional circumstances:
a.   Law students;
b.   By an agent/friend;
c.   By the litigant himself.
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
a.   Law Student Practice
A law student who has successfully completed 3rd
year of the regular four-year prescribed law curriculum
and is enrolled in a recognized law school's clinical
legal education program approved by the Supreme
Court, may appear without compensation in any civil,
criminal or administrative case before any trial court,
tribunal, board or officer, to represent indigent clients
accepted by the legal clinic of the law school [Sec. 1,
Rule 138-A, RoC].
The appearance of the law student shall be under the
direct supervision and control of a member of the IBP
duly accredited by the law school. Any and all
pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other
papers to be filed, must be signed by the supervising
attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic [Sec. 2,
Rule 138-A, RoC].
Direct supervision and control by the supervising
attorney requires his or her physical presence during
the hearing [In Re: Need that law student practicing
under rule 138-A be actually supervised during trial,
B.M. No. 730 (1997)].
The Rules safeguarding privileged communications
between attorney and client shall apply [Sec. 3, Rule
138-A, RoC].
The law student shall comply with the standards of
professional conduct governing members of the bar.
Failure of an attorney to provide adequate supervision
of student practice may be a ground for disciplinary
action [Sec. 4, Rule 138-A, RoC].
Sec. 34, Rule 138, RoC is clear that appearance before
the inferior courts by a non-lawyer is allowed,
irrespective of whether or not he is a law student. Thus,
a law student may appear under the circumstances of
Sec. 38, as an agent or a friend of a party litigant,
without complying with the requirements of Rule 138-
A, e.g., supervision of a lawyer [Cruz v. Mina, G.R. No.
154207 (2007)].
b.   Non-Lawyers in Courts
Pursuant to Sec. 34, Rule 138, RoC, in any court, a
party may conduct his litigation in person.
Before the MTC – A party may conduct his case or
litigation in person with the aid of an agent or friend
appointed by him.
•   The agent or friend is not engaged in the practice
of law, since there is no habituality in the activity
and no attorney-client relationship exists.
In any other court – A party may conduct his litigation
personally.
Page 7 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
A non-lawyer conducting his own litigation is bound by
the same rules in conducting the trial of his case. He
cannot, after judgment, claim that he was not properly
represented [Agpalo (2004)].
An attorney who is otherwise disqualified to practice
law, or has been disbarred or suspended from
practice, can validly prosecute or defend his own
litigation, he having as much right as that of a layman
[Danforth v. Egan, 119 N.W. 1021 (1909)].
When a person conducts his litigation in person, he is
not engaged in the practice of law [Agpalo (2004)].
Sec. 34, Rule 138, RoC does not distinguish between
civil and criminal cases. However, in criminal cases,
the rule is qualified:
1.   Under Sec. 1(c), Rule 115, RoC, the accused may
defend himself in person “when it sufficiently
appears to the court that he can properly protect
his rights without the assistance of counsel.”
2.   Under Sec. 7, Rule 116, RoC, in determining
whether a counsel de oficio should be appointed,
or, for that matter, whether a counsel de parte
should be required (conversely, whether the
accused should be allowed to defend himself in
person), the gravity of the offense and the
difficulty of the questions that may arise should be
considered.
While the right to be represented by counsel is
immutable, the option to secure the services of
counsel de parte is not absolute. The court may
restrict the accused’s option to retain a counsel de
parte if:
1.   He insists on an attorney he cannot afford;
2.   He chose a person not a member of the bar;
3.   The attorney declines for a valid reason (e.g.,
conflict of interest) [People v. Serzo, G.R. No.
118435 (1997)].
In criminal cases, in localities where members of the
bar are not available, the court may appoint any
person (i.e., non-lawyer), who is a resident of the
province and of good repute for probity and ability to
defend the accused, in lieu of a counsel de oficio [Sec.
7, Rule 116, RoC]. In relation to Sec. 34, Rule 138, this
is only allowed in the municipal trial court.
A juridical person must always appear in court through
a duly-licensed member of the bar, except in the MTC
where it may be represented by a non-lawyer agent.
c.   Non-Lawyers in
Administrative Tribunals
There are laws which allow representation of another
by non-lawyers before such bodies:
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

1.   Art. 222, Labor Code allows non-lawyers to

appear before the NLRC or any Labor Arbiter if
5.  S anctions for Practice or
(a) they represent themselves, or (b) they Appearance Without
represent their organizations members
Authority
The 2011 NLRC Rule of Procedure, promulgated
pursuant to Art 225(a), Labor Code, allows (a) a.   Lawyers without Authority
non-lawyers, who are not necessarily a party to
the case, to represent a union or members Under Sec. 27, Rule 138, RoC, corruptly or willfully
thereof, (b) non-lawyers who are duly-accredited appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
members of any legal aid office recognized by the authority to do so is a ground for disbarment or
Department of Justice or IBP, and (c) non-lawyer suspension.
owners of establishments, to appear before it.
2.   Under Sec. 9, Act 2259 (Cadastral Act), a claimant b.   Persons Who Are Not Lawyers
may appear by himself, or by some person in his
behalf, before a cadastral court.
For BOTH persons who are not lawyers AND lawyers
3.   Under Sec. 50, R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive
who appear without authority, the following may be
Agrarian Reform Law), as amended by R.A. No.
availed of:
9700, responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed
to represent themselves, their fellow farmers, or •   Petition for injunction
their organizations in any proceedings before the •   Declaratory relief
DAR: Provided, however, That when there are two •   Contempt of court [Sec. 3 (e), Rule 71, RoC]
or more representatives for any individual or •   Administrative complaint against the erring
group, the representatives should choose only lawyer or government official
one among themselves to represent such party or •   Criminal complaint for estafa against the person
group before any DAR proceedings who falsely represented himself as a lawyer to the
damage of another.
In order that these laws will not infringe upon the
power of the Supreme Court to regulate the practice of
law, the following limitations must be observed:
6.  P ublic Officials and the
1.   The non-lawyer should confine his work to non- Practice of Law
adversary contentions and should not undertake
purely legal work (i.e., examination of witness, a.   Prohibition or Disqualification
presentation of evidence);
2.   The services should not be habitual; of Former Government
3.   Attorney’s fees should not be charged [Agpalo Attorneys
(2004)].
General Rule: The appointment or election of an
d.   Proceedings Where Lawyers attorney to a government office disqualifies him from
engaging in the private practice of law
Are Prohibited from Appearing
Under Sec. 7(b), R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and
1.   In small claims cases, no attorney shall appear in
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees),
behalf of or represent a party at the hearing,
public officials and employees during their
unless the attorney is the plaintiff or defendant. If
incumbency shall not:
the court determines that a party cannot properly
1.   Own, control, manage or accept employment as
present his/her claim or defense and needs
officer employee, consultant, counsel, broker,
assistance, the court may, in its discretion, allow
agent, trustee or nominee / in any private
another individual who is not an attorney to assist
enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by
that party upon the latter's consent [Sec. 17, Rules
their office / unless expressly allowed by law;
of Procedure in Small Claims Cases].
2.   Engage in the private practice of their profession
2.   In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings,
unless authorized by the Constitution or law,
the parties must appear in person without the
provided that such practice will not conflict or
assistance of the counsel or representative,
tend to conflict with their official functions;
except for minors and incompetents who may be
3.   Recommend any person to any position in a
assisted by their next of kin who are not lawyers
private enterprise which has a regular or pending
[Sec 415, R.A. No. 7160 (Local Government
official transaction with their office.
Code)].

Page 8 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period
of 1 year after resignation, retirement or separation
from public office, except in case of the second.
The 1-year prohibition also applies to practice of
profession in connection with any matter before the
office he used to be with.
b.   Public Officials Who Cannot
Practice Law or Can Practice
Law with Restrictions
Absolute prohibition
1.   Judges and other officials or employees of
superior courts as [Sec. 35, Rule 148, RoC];
2.   Officials and employees of the Office of the
Solicitor General [Sec. 35, Rule 148, RoC];
3.   Government prosecutors [Lim-Santiago v.
Sagucio, A.C. No. 6705 (2006)];
4.   President, vice-president, cabinet members, their
deputies and assistants [Sec. 15, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution];
5.   Chairmen and members of constitutional
commissions [Sec. 2, Art. IX-A, 1987 Constitution];
6.   Members of the Judicial and Bar Council [Sec. 2,
Art. IX-A, 1987 Constitution];
7.   Ombudsman and his deputies [par. 2, Sec. 8 (2),
Art. X, 1987 Constitution];
8.   All governors, city and municipal mayors [Sec.
90(a), R.A. No. 7160];
9.   Civil service officers or employees whose duties
require them to devote their entire time at the
disposal of the government [Catu v Rellosa, A.C.
No. 5738 (2008)];
10.   Those who, by special law, are prohibited from
engaging in the practice of their legal profession.
Relative prohibition
1.   No senator or member of the House of
Representatives may personally appear as
counsel before any court of justice or before the
Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other
administrative bodies [Sec. 14, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution]
•   The word “appearance” includes not only
arguing a case before any such body, but also
filing a pleading on behalf of a client [Ramos
v. Manalac, G.R. No. L-2610 (1951)].
•   Neither can he allow his name to appear in
the pleading as part of a firm name, because
the office of an attorney being originally of
agency, amounts to the signing of a non-
qualified senator or congressman [In Re:
David, AM No. 98 (1953)].
2.   Sanggunian members may practice law except
during session hours and provided they shall not:
a.   Appear as counsel before any court in any civil
case wherein a local government unit or any
Page 9 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
office, agency, or instrumentality of the
government is the adverse party;
b.   Appear as counsel in any criminal case
wherein an officer or employee of the national
or local government is accused of an offense
committed in relation to his office;
c.   Collect any fee for their appearance in
administrative proceedings involving the
local government unit of which he is an
official; and
d.   Use property and personnel of the
government except when the sanggunian
member concerned is defending the interest
of the government [Sec. 90(b), R.A. No. 7160].
3.   Under Sec. 1, R.A. No. 910, the pension of justices
therein is provided with a condition that no
retiring justice, during the time that he is
receiving said pension shall:
a.   Appear as counsel before any court in any civil
case wherein the Government or any
subdivision or instrumentality thereof is the
adverse party;
b.   In any criminal case wherein and officer or
employee of the government is accused of an
offense committed in relation to his office; or
c.   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.
4.   There are civil employees whose duty do not
require that their entire time be at the disposal of
the government. Absent any express prohibition
in law, they can practice law provided they secure
a written permit from their department head [Zeta
v Malinao, AM. No P-220(1978)].
7.  Lawyers Authorized to
Represent the Government
Any official or other person appointed or designated
in accordance with law to appear for the
Government of the Philippines shall have all the
rights of a duly authorized member of the bar to
appear in any case in which said government has an
interest direct or indirect [Sec. 33, Rule 138, RoC].
8.  L awyer’s Oath
An applicant who has passed the required
examination, or has been otherwise found to be
entitled to admission to the bar, shall take and
subscribe before the Supreme Court the
corresponding oath of office [Sec. 17, Rule 138, RoC].
The lawyer's oath is not a mere ceremony or
formality for practicing law. Every lawyer should at
all times weigh his actions according to the sworn
U.P. LAW BOC
promises he makes when taking the lawyer's oath. If
all lawyers conducted themselves strictly according to
the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the administration of justice will
undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier for everyone
concerned [In re: Argosino, supra].
I, ____________________ do solemnly swear that I
will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines; I will support the 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, nor
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 as to 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.
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
 Duties and Responsibilities
of a Lawyer under the Code
of Professional
Responsibility [CPR]
Under the Sec. 20, Rule 138, RoC, it is the duty of an
attorney:
1.   To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and to support the Constitution and
obey the laws of the Philippines;
2.   To observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts of justice and judicial officers;
3.   To counsel or maintain such actions or
proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and
such defenses only as he believes to be honestly
debatable under the law;
4.   To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the
causes confided to him, such means only as are
consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to
mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
artifice or false statement of fact or law;
5.   To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every
peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his
client, and to accept no compensation in
connection with his client’s business except from
him or with his knowledge and approval;
6.   To abstain from all offensive personality and to
advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or
reputation of a party or witness, unless required
by the justice of the cause with which he is charge;
7.   Not to encourage either the commencement or
the continuance of an action or proceeding, or
delay any man’s cause, from any corrupt motive or
interest;
8.   Never to reject, for any consideration personal to
himself, the cause of the defenseless or
oppressed;
9.   In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all
fair and honorable means, regardless of his
personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to
present every defense that the law permits, to the
end that no person may be deprived of life or
liberty, but by due process of law.
1.   To Society (Canons 1-6)
a.   Respect for Law and Legal
Processes
CANON 1. A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution,
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
law and legal process.
Page 10 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC
rd
Note: Canon 1 is the 3 top source of Questions on the
CPR. It was asked 18 times in the last 20 years as of
2014 [Lex Pareto (2014)].
Freedom of speech and of expression, like all
constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that
freedom of expression needs on occasion to be
adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements
of equally important public interests. One of these
fundamental public interests is the maintenance of
the integrity and orderly functioning of the
administration of justice [Zaldivar v. Gonzales, G.R. No.
Nos. 79690-707 and 80578 (1988)].
The responsibility of a ‘public’ lawyer (such as Special
Prosecutor), who owes duties of fidelity and respect to
the Republic and to the Supreme Court as the
embodiment and the repository of the judicial power
in the government of the Republic, to uphold the
dignity and authority of the Supreme Court and not to
promote distrust in the administration of justice is
heavier than that of a private practicing lawyer
[Zaldivar v. Gonzales, supra].
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
An unlawful conduct is act or omission which is
against the law. It is a transgression of any provision
of law, which need not be penal. [Re: Report on the
Financial Audit Conducted on the Books of Accounts of
Atty. Kho A.M, P-06-2177 (2007)]
Dishonesty involves lying or cheating. It is a disposition
to cheat, deceive, defraud. [Agpalo (2004)]
Grossly Immoral
Immoral Conduct
Conduct
Acts that are willful, When it is so corrupt as
flagrant, or shameless, to constitute a criminal
and that show a moral act, or so unprincipled
indifference to the as to be reprehensible to
opinion of the upright a high degree, or when
and respectable committed under such
members of the scandalous or revolting
community circumstances as to
shock the community’s
sense of decency
Penalty of disbarment
[Perez v. Catindig, A.C. No. No. 5816 (2015)]
Moral Character is the objective reality of what a
person really is while good reputation is the opinion
of the public generally entertained of a person or the
estimate in which he is held by the public where he is
known [Royong v. Oblena, A.C. No. 376 (1963)]
Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct
which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which
shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
good and respectable members of the community.
For such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the
same must be "grossly immoral," that is, it must be so
corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
[Ui v. Bonifacio, A.M. No. 3319 (2000)].
Examples of Grossly Immoral Acts
•   Wanton disregard for the sanctity of marriage as
shown when the lawyer pursued a married woman
and thereafter cohabited with her [Guevarra v.
Eala, A.C. No. No. 7136 (2007)]
•   Rape of a neighbor’s wife, which constitutes
serious moral depravity, even if his guilt was not
proved beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal
prosecution for rape [Calub v. Suller, A.C. No. No.
1474 (2000)]
•   Obtaining money from a client, without rendering
proper legal services, and appropriating the
proceeds of the insurance policies of the client’s
deceased husband [Freeman v. Zenaida, A.C. No.
6246 (2011)]
•   Falsifying documents [Cobalt Resources, Inc. v
Aguardo, A.C. No. 10781, (2016)]
•   The issuance of checks without sufficient funds to
cover the same. [Aca v. Salvado, A.C. No. No.
10952, (2016)]
Examples of Acts Not Considered Grossly Immoral
•   Mere intimacy between a man and a woman, both
of whom possess no impediment to marry,
voluntarily carried and devoid of deceit on the part
of the respondent, even if a child was born out of
wedlock of such relationship; it may suggest a
doubtful moral character but not grossly immoral
[Figueroa v. Barranco, SBC Case No. 519 (1997)]
•   Stealing a kiss from a client [Advincula v.
Macabata, A.C. No. No. 7204 (2007)]
•   Making sexual advances towards a client, but
stopping right after the client refused such
advances [Roa v Moreno, A.C. No. 8382 (2010)].
•   Although siring a child with a woman other than
his legitimate wife constituted immorality, he
committed the immoral conduct when he was not
yet a lawyer. The degree of his immoral conduct
was not as grave than if he had committed the
immorality when already a member of the
Philippine Bar [Advincula v. Advincula A.C. No.
9226 (2016)].
A lawyer may not be disciplined for failure to pay her
obligation [Toledo v. Abalos, 315 SCRA 419 (1999)], but
unwarranted obstinacy in evading the payment of a
debt has been considered as a gross misconduct.
[Constantino v. Saludares, 228 SCRA 233 (1993)].
Moral turpitude includes everything which is done
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good
morals. It involves an act of baseness, vileness, or
Page 11 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
depravity in the private duties which a man owed his
fellowmen, or to society in general [Barrios v. Martinez,
A.C. No. No. 4585 (2004)].
Murder, estafa, rape, violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.
22 (Bouncing Checks Law), bribery, bigamy, adultery,
seduction, abduction, concubinage and smuggling,
falsification of a public document, are considered
crimes involving moral turpitude.
In order to hold the lawyer amenable to disbarment by
reason of his or her having committed a crime
involving moral turpitude, it is not enough to show
that there is a pending case involving moral turpitude
against him or her because Section 27 of Rule 138
expressly requires that he or she must have been
found by final judgment guilty of the crime involving
moral turpitude. [Interadent Zahntechnik Phil., Inc. v.
Atty. Rebecca S. Francisco-Simbillo, A.C. No. 9464,
(2016)]
A lawyer is obligated to promote respect for legal
processes. This includes order of the commission on
Bar Discipline of the IBP. [Lex Pareto, Bar 2002]
Rule 1.02. A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal profession.
The promotion of organizations, with knowledge of
their objectives, for the purpose of violating or evading
the laws constitutes to malpractice of gross
misconduct in his office [In re: Terrell, G.R. No. 1203
(1903)].
The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; it will
not denounce criticism made by anyone against the
Court for, if well-founded, can truly have constructive
effects in the task of the Court, but it will not
countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of
our people’s faith in the judicial system, let alone, by
those who have been privileged by it to practice law in
the Philippines [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
159486 (2003)].
A lawyer should advise his client to uphold the law,
not to violate or disobey it. Conversely, he should not
recommend to his client any recourse or remedy that
is contrary to law, public policy, public order, and
public morals [Coronel v. Cunanan, A.C. No. 6738
(2015)].
Rule 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive
or interest, encourage any suit or delay any man’s
cause.
Barratry or “Maintenance”: the offense of inciting or
stirring up quarrels, litigation or groundless lawsuits,
either at law or otherwise [Bouvier]
Page 12 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Ambulance-chasing
Unethical practice of inducing personal injury victims
to bring suits. The practice of lawyers in frequenting
hospitals and homes of the injured to convince them
to go to court [Lex Pareto (2014)]
Accident-site solicitation of any kind of legal business
by laymen employed by an attorney for the purpose or
by the attorney himself.
Supports perjury, the defrauding of innocent persons
by judgments, upon manufactured causes of actions
and the defrauding of injured persons having proper
causes of action but ignorant of legal rights and court
procedure.
A lawyer’s conduct of vindictiveness is a decidedly
undesirable trait especially when one resorts to using
the court not to secure justice but merely to exact
revenge warrants his dismissal from the judiciary.
[Saburnido v. Madrono, A.C. No. No. 4497 (2001)]
Ambulance Chasing Barratry
Refers to personal injury Refers to any action
Refers to cases brought Refers to suits before
before judicial bodies judicial or non-judicial
bodies
Other prohibited acts include:
•   Volunteering advice to bring lawsuits, except
where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it a
duty to do so
•   Hunting up defects in titles or other causes of
action in order to be employed to bring suit or
breed litigation [Agpalo (2004)]
Rule 1.04. A lawyer shall encourage his clients to
avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a
fair settlement.
The function of a lawyer is not only to conduct
litigation but to avoid it where possible, by advising
settlement or withholding suit. He must act as
mediator for compromise rather than an instigator of
controversy and a predator of conflict [Agpalo (2004)].
It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily
a layman to the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on
the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his
client's cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden
duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit,
rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer
must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and
temper his client’s propensity to litigate. A lawyer's
oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his
duty to his client; its primacy is indisputable
[Castañeda v. Ago, G.R. No. L-28546 (1975)]
U.P. LAW BOC
b.   Efficient and Convenient Legal
Services
CANON 2. A lawyer shall make his legal services
available in an efficient and convenient manner
compatible with the independence, integrity and
effectiveness of the profession.
Note: asked 4 times in the last 20 years as of 2014 [Lex
Pareto (2014)]
Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any
person by reason of poverty. [Sec. 11, Art. III, 1987
Constitution]
A person in need of legal services should be able to
find a lawyer who is qualified to provide them. It is the
responsibility of the bar to make such services
available [Agpalo (2004)].
Rule 2.01. A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid
reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the
oppressed.
Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions. It could be that for some lawyers,
especially the neophytes in the profession, being
appointed counsel de oficio is an irksome chore. For
those holding such belief, it may come as a surprise
that counsel of repute and of eminence welcome such
an opportunity. It makes even more manifest that law
is indeed a profession dedicated to the ideal of service
and not a mere trade. It is understandable then why a
high degree of fidelity to duty is required of one so
designated. [Ledesma v. Climaco, G.R. No. L-23815
(1974)]
Legal aid is not a matter of charity. It is a means for the
correction of social imbalance that may and often do
lead to injustice, for which reason it is a public
responsibility of the bar [Sec. 1, Art. 1, IBP Handbook,
Guidelines Governing the Establishment and
Operation of the Legal Aid Office].
See also Canon 14 below.
Rule 2.02. In such cases, even if the lawyer does not
accept a case, he shall not refuse to render legal
advice to the person concerned if only to the extent
necessary to safeguard the latter’s rights.
Although no lawyer-client relationship is created
when a lawyer categorically refuses to accept a case, a
lawyer is still bound to give legal advice to the
defenseless and oppressed to protect their rights.
Advice may be on what preliminary steps to take until
the client has secured the services of counsel. But he
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
shall refrain from giving legal advice if the reason for
not accepting the case is that there involves a conflict
of interest between him and a prospective client or
between a present client and a prospective client.
[Agpalo (2004)]
Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be
done any act designed to primarily solicit legal
business.
A well-known lawyer has been engaged to run a
program in which he encourages indigent party
litigants to consult him free of charge about their legal
problems over a radio and television network. Has he
violated any ethical rules? – YES, as it involves indirect
advertising and solicitation and is likewise violative of
the confidentiality of lawyer-client relationship. His
act may also be considered as a form of self-praise
hence subject to discipline [In re: Tagorda, G.R. No.
32329, (1929), cited in Lex Pareto (2014); Linsangan v.
Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672 (2009)].
Law is not a business but a profession. Unlike a
businessman, the lawyer has:
1.   Relation to the administration of justice involving
sincerity, integrity and reliability as an officer of
the court
2.   Duty of public service;
3.   Relation to clients with the highest degree of
fiduciary;
4.   Relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by
candor, fairness and unwillingness to resort to
business methods of advertising and
encroachment on their practice, or dealing
directly with their clients [Agpalo (2004)]
The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose
of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice [Sec. 27, Rule 138,
RoC].
A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business
or other lawful occupation. Impropriety arises,
though, when the business is of such a nature or is
conducted in such a manner as to be inconsistent
with the lawyer’s duties as a member of the bar. This
inconsistency arises when the business is one that can
readily lend itself to the procurement of professional
employment for the lawyer; or that can be used as a
cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyer’s behalf; or
is of a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be
regarded as the practice of law [Villatuya v.
Tabalingcos, A.C. No. 6622 (2012)].
The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-
merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome
of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to
a client as well as to the community has a way of
publicizing itself and catching public attention. That
Page 13 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
publicity is a normal by-product of effective service
which is right and proper. A good and reputable
lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and
to magnify his success [Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc.,
B.M. No. 553 (1993)].
Rule 2.04. A lawyer shall not charge rates lower
than those customarily prescribed unless the
circumstances so warrant.
Ratio: The practice of law is profession and not a trade.
It is improper to lower your legal rates just because
another lawyer has offered a lower legal fee. [Lex
Pareto (2014)]
This rule prohibits the competition in the matter of
charging professional fees for the purposed of
attracting clients in favor of the lawyer who offers
lower rates. The rule does not prohibit a lawyer from
charging a reduced fee or none at all to an indigent or
to a person who would have difficulty paying the fee
usually charged for such services [Agpalo (2004)].
c.   True, Honest, Fair, Dignified
and Objective Information on
Legal Services
CANON 3. A lawyer in making known his legal
services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified
and objective information or statement of facts.
th
Note: Canon 3 is 5 top source of Questions on CPR; it
was asked 12 times in the last 20 years as of 2014 [Lex
Pareto (2014)].
Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the use
of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or
claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
Allowable advertisement
1.   Ordinary simple professional card;
2.   Publication in reputable law list with brief
biographical and other informative data which
may include:
a.   Name;
b.   Associates;
c.   Address;
d.   Phone numbers;
e.   Branches of law practiced;
f.   Birthday;
g.   Day admitted to the bar;
h.   Schools and dates attended;
i.   Degrees and distinctions;
j.   Public or quasi-public offices;
k.   Posts of honor;
l.   Legal authorships;
m.   Teaching positions;
Page 14 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
n.   Associations;
o.   Legal fraternities and societies;
p.   References and regularly represented clients
must be published for that purpose [Ulep v.
The Legal Clinic, Inc., supra].
3.   Publication of simple announcement of opening
of law firm, change of firm;
4.   Listing in telephone directory but not under
designation of special branch of law;
5.   If acting as an associate (specializing in a branch
of law), may publish a brief and dignified
announcement to lawyers (law list, law journal);
6.   If in media, those acts incidental to his practice
and not of his own initiative;
7.   Writing legal articles;
8.   Activity of an association for the purpose of legal
representation.
The law list must be a reputable law list published
primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere
supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade
journal or periodical which is published primarily for
other purposes.
Prohibited Advertisements [Sec. 27, Canon of
Professional Ethics (hereinafter, CPE)]
1.   Through touters of any kind whether allied real
estate firms or trust companies advertising to
secure the drawing of deeds or wills;
2.   Offering retainers in exchange for executorships
or trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer;
3.   Furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments
concerning the manner of their conduct, the
magnitude of the interests involved, the
importance of lawyer’s position, and all other like
self-laudation.
A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his
profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a
manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods.
Further, the advertisements of “The Legal Clinic”
seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous
marriage, and other circumventions of law which their
experts can facilitate, that are highly reprehensible
[Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, supra].
A lawyer may not properly publish his brief
biographical and informative data in a daily paper,
magazine, trade journal or society program in order to
solicit legal business. A paid advertisement in the
newspaper which reads, “Annulment of Marriage
Specialist” is also prohibited [Khan v. Simbillo, A.C.
No. 5299 (2003)].
The use of a card containing “As a notary public, he
can execute for you a deed of sale, can renew lost
documents and can make your application for
homestead and execute any kind of affidavit. As a
lawyer, he can help you collect your loans as well as
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
any complaint for or against you.” is a form of
prohibited advertisement. [In re: Tagorda, supra].
In the last analysis, where to draw the line is a question
of good faith and good taste.
Entering into other businesses
For it to constitute as inconsistent with the lawyer’s
profession, it is advisable that they be entirely
separate and apart such that a layman could
distinguish between the two functions.
The lawyer must make it clear to his client whether he
is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.
Rule 3.02. In the choice of a firm name, no false,
misleading or assumed name shall be used. The
continued use of the name of a deceased partner is
permissible provided that the firm indicates in all
its communications that said partner is deceased.
The continued use of the name of a deceased partner
is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its
communications that said partner is deceased
[Agpalo (2004)].
Ratio: All partners by their joint efforts over a period of
years contributed to the goodwill attached to the firm
name, and the removal of the deceased partner’s
name disturbs the client goodwill built through the
years.
Firms may not use misleading names showing
association with other firms to purport legal services
of highest quality and ties with multinational business
enterprise especially when such firm attached as an
associate cannot legally practice law in the Philippines
[Dacanay v. Baker and McKenzie, A.C. No. 2131 (1985)].
Rule 3.03. Where a partner accepts public office, he
shall withdraw from the firm and his name shall be
dropped from the firm name unless the law allows
him to practice law concurrently.
Purpose: To prevent the law firm from using his name
to attract legal business and to avoid suspicion of
undue influence.
A civil service officer or employee whose duty or
responsibility does not require his entire time to be at
the disposal of the government may not engage in the
private practice of law without the written permit from
the head of the department concerned [Agpalo
(2004)].
It is 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, provided that such practice will not conflict or
Page 15 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
tend to conflict with official functions. The inclusion or
retention of the public official’s name in the
professional card constitutes as a unlawful
continuance of engagement in private practice.
[Samonte v. Gatdula, A.M. No. P-99-1292 (1999)].
Absolute and relative prohibition of public officials
from practice of law
When any of those absolutely prohibited officials is
appointed/elected/qualified, he ceases, as a general
rule, to engage in the private practice of law and his
right to practice is suspended during his tenure in
office.
See also Public Officials and the Practice of Law
above.
Rule 3.04. A lawyer shall not pay or give anything
of value to representatives of the mass media in
anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract
legal business.
Purpose: To prevent some lawyers from gaining an
unfair advantage over others through the use of
gimmickry, press agentry or other artificial means.
This rule prohibits making indirect publicity gimmick,
such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments,
procuring his photograph to be published in
connection with cases which he is handling, making a
courtroom scene to attract the attention of
newspapermen, or arranging for the purpose an
interview with him by media people [Agpalo 2004].
It is bad enough to have such undue publicity when a
criminal case is being investigated by the authorities,
even when it is 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 liable [Cruz v.
Salva, G.R. No. L-12871 (1959)].
d.   Participation in the
Improvement of and Reforms
in the Legal System
CANON 4. A lawyer shall participate in the
development of the legal system by initiating or
supporting efforts in law reform and in the
improvement of the administration of justice.
Note: asked 2 times in the last 20 years as of 2014 [Lex
Pareto (2014)].
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
This is a duty that flows from the lawyer’s sense of
public responsibility [Agpalo (2004)].
Examples:
•   Presenting position papers or resolutions for the
introduction of pertinent bills in Congress;
•   Submitting petitions to the Supreme Court for the
of the RoC.
•   Writing legal publications or books as an avenue
of improving the legal system
The Misamis Oriental Chapter of the IBP was
commended by the Supreme Court when it
promulgated a resolution requesting the IBP’s
National Committee on Legal Aid to ask for the
exemption from the payment of filing, docket and
other fees of clients of the legal aid offices in the
various IBP chapters [Re: Request of NCLA to Exempt
Legal Aid Clients from Paying Filing, Docket and Other
Fees (2009)].
e.   Participation in Legal
Education Program
CANON 5. A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal
developments, participate in continuing legal
education programs, support efforts to achieve
high standards in law schools as well as in the
practical training of law students and assist in
disseminating information regarding the law and
jurisprudence.
Purpose: The lawyer’s life is one of continuous and
laborious study; otherwise, his skill and knowledge of
law and related disciplines will lag behind and
become obscure due to obsoleteness.
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
[hereinafter, MCLE] Program
A program which requires lawyers to show proof of
having undertaken improvement in their knowledge
as a precondition for renewing their license to practice
[Lex Pareto (2014)]
See also Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
below.
There is no doubt that Atty. Flores failed to obey the
trial court’s order to submit proof of his MCLE
compliance notwithstanding the several opportunities
given him. Court orders are to be respected not
because the judges who issue them should be
respected, but because of the respect and
consideration that should be extended to the judicial
branch of the Government. Disrespect to judicial
incumbents is disrespect to that branch the
Government to which they belong, as well as to the
State which has instituted the judicial system
Page 16 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
[Rodriguez-Manahan v. Flores, A.C. No. No. 8954
(2013)].
Atty. Echanez’s acts of: (a) not complying with two
MCLEs for two compliance periods; (b) repeatedly
indicating false MCLE compliance numbers in his
pleadings before the trial courts; and, (c) repeatedly
failing to obey legal orders of trial court, IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline and also the Supreme
Court despite due notice, taken together, constitute
serious cases that merits disbarment. [Mapalad vs.
Atty. Echanez; A.C. No. 10911 (2017)].
f.   Applicability to Government
Lawyers
CANON 6. These canons shall apply to lawyers in
government service in the discharge of their official
duties.
Note: not in the Bar Syllabus; asked 5 times in the last
20 years as of 2014 [Lex Pareto (2014)].
Generally speaking, 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. However, if
said misconduct as a government official also
constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer, then
he may be disciplined by this Court as a member of
the Bar… A member of the Bar who assumes public
office does not shed his professional obligations.
Hence, the CPR… was not meant to govern the
conduct of private practitioners alone, but all lawyers
including those in government service. This is clear
from Canon 6 of said Code. Lawyers in government are
public servants who owe the outmost fidelity to the
public service. Thus, they should be more sensitive in
the performance of their professional obligations, as
their conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny
of the public. [Vitriolo v. Dasig, A.C. No. 4984 (2003)].
Lawyers in government service should be more
conscientious with their professional obligations
consistent with the time-honored principle of public
office being a public trust. The ethical standards under
the CPR are rendered even more exacting as to
government lawyers because they have the added
duty to abide by the policy of the State to promote a
high standard of ethics, competence, and
professionalism in public service [Liang Fuji vs.
Gemma Armi M. Dela Cruz, A.C. No. 11043 (2017)].
May a former government lawyer appear in a case
against the government? – YES, he may appear in a
case unless there is a specific ethical rule or provision
of law which prohibits him from doing so [Lex Pareto
(2014)].
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
When may a former government lawyer be prohibited
from accepting a legal engagement?
•   A lawyer shall not after leaving the government
service accept engagement or employment in
connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service;
•   Retired members of the judiciary receiving
pensions form the government should not
practice law where the government is the adverse
party or in a criminal case involving a government
employee in the performance of his duties as such
[Lex Pareto (2014)].
Sec. 4, R.A. No. 6713 provides the norms of conduct of
public officials and employees.
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.
A public prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer with the
two-fold aim which is that guilt shall not escape or
innocence suffers. He should not hesitate to
recommend to the court the acquittal of an accused if
the evidence in his possession shows that the accused
is innocent [Agpalo (2004)].
In criminal cases, a public prosecutor should be
present for the following reasons:
1.   To protect the interest of the State (As the
criminal case is in reality a crime against the
State);
2.   To see to it that justice is done (Rule 6.01)
Naturally, the private prosecutor is interested only
to convict the accused. However, the primary duty
of the public prosecutor is not to convict, but to
see that justice is done [Lex Pareto (2014)].
A prosecuting attorney, by the nature of his office, is
under no compulsion to file a particular criminal
information where he is not convinced that he has
evidence to prop up the averments thereof, or that
the evidence at hand points to a different
conclusion. This is not to discount the possibility of
the commission of abuses on the part of the
prosecutor. But we must have to recognize that a
prosecuting attorney should not be unduly compelled
to work against his conviction. In case of doubt, we
should give him the benefit thereof. A contrary rule
may result in our courts being unnecessarily swamped
with unmeritorious cases. Worse still, a criminal
suspect's right to due process - the sporting idea of fair
play - may be transgressed. So it is, that in People
vs. Sope, this Court made the pronouncement that "[i]t
is very logical that the prosecuting attorney, being the
Page 17 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
one charged with the prosecution of offenses, should
determine the information to be filed and cannot be
controlled by the offended party." [People v. Pineda,
G.R. No. L-26222 (1967)]
Rule 6.02. A lawyer in the government service shall
not use his public position to promote or advance
his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere
with his public duties.
A lawyer should not use his position to feather his
private law practice and accept any private legal
business that may conflict with his official duties. In
case of conflict, he should terminate his professional
relationship, and his official duties must prevail
[Agpalo (2004)].
Government employees are expected to devote
themselves completely to public service. For this
reason, the private practice of profession is prohibited.
Lawyers in government service cannot handle private
cases for they are expected to devote themselves full-
time to the work of their respective offices [Ramos v.
Imbang, A.C. No. 6788 (2007)].
Rule 6.03. A lawyer shall not, after leaving
government service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in said service.
How government lawyers may leave government
service:
1.   Retirement;
2.   Resignation;
3.   Expiration of the term of office;
4.   Abandonment;
5.   Dismissal
General rule: Practice of profession is allowed
immediately after leaving public service.
Exceptions: The lawyer cannot practice as to matters
with which he had connection during his term. This
prohibition lasts:
•   For one year, if he had not intervened;
•   Permanently, if he had intervened.
The “matter” contemplated are those that are
adverse-interest conflicts (substantial relatedness
and adversity between the government matter and the
new client’s matter in interest) and congruent-interest
representation conflicts (prohibits lawyers from
representing a private practice client even if the
interests of the former government client and the new
client are entirely parallel). “Intervention” should be
significant and substantial which can or have affected
the interest of others (i.e. an act of a person has the
power to influence the subject proceedings) [PCGG v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. Nos. 151809-12 (2005)].
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Sec. 7 of R.A. No. 6713 generally provides for the
prohibited acts and transactions of public officials and
employees. Sec. 7(b)(2) prohibits them from engaging
in the private practice of their profession during their
incumbency. As an exception, a public official or
employee can engage in the practice of his or her
profession under the following conditions: first, the
private practice is authorized by the Constitution or by
the law; and second, the practice will not conflict, or
tend to conflict, with his or her official functions. The
prohibitions continue to apply for a period of one year
after the public official or employee’s resignation,
retirement, or separation from public office, except for
the private practice of profession under subsection
(b)(2), which can already be undertaken even within
the one-year prohibition period. As an exception to
this exception, the one-year prohibited period applies
with respect to any matter before the office the public
officer or employee used to work with. [Query of Karen
Silverio-Buffe, A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC (2009)].
Sec. 3(d) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act) also considers it an unlawful and
corrupt practice for a public official to accept or have
any member of his family accept employment in a
private enterprise which has pending official business
with him during the pendency of his office or within
one year after its termination.
In the case of Pasay Law and Conscience Union, Inc. v.
Paz, a former Legal Officer and Legal Prosecutor of
PARGO who participated in the investigation of the
Anti-Graft case against Mayor Pablo Cuneta later on
acted as counsel for the said Mayor in the same anti-
graft case. The Court found the said counsel guilty of
representing clients with conflicting interest and
suspended him from the practice of law for 2 months
[A.M. No. 1008 (1980)].
2.  T o the Legal Profession
(Canons 7-9)
a.   Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (Rule 139-A)
Bar Integration
The Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect
the integration of the Philippine Bar under such
conditions as it shall see fit in order to raise the
standards of the legal profession improve the
administration of justice and enable the bar to
discharge its public responsibility more effectively.
[Sec. 1, R.A. No. 6397 (An Act Providing for the
Integration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating
Funds Therefor)].
Page 18 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any
group of which he is not already a member. He
became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar
Examinations. All that integration actually does is to
provide an official national organization for the well-
defined but unorganized and uncohesive group of
which every lawyer is already a member [In the matter
of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, (1973)].
The IBP is essentially a semi-governmental entity, a
private organization endowed with certain
governmental attributes. While it is composed of
lawyers who are private individuals, the IBP exists to
perform certain vital public functions and to assist the
government particularly in the improvement of the
administration of justice, the upgrading of the
standards of the legal profession, and its proper
regulation.
The basic postulate of the IBP is that it is non- political
in character and that there shall be neither lobbying
nor campaigning in the choice of the IBP Officers. The
fundamental assumption is that the officers would be
chosen on the basis of professional merit and
willingness and ability to serve. The ardor with which
the candidates pursued the presidency of the
association detracted from the dignity of the legal
profession. The spectacle of lawyers bribing or being
bribed to vote did not uphold the honor of the
profession nor elevate it in the public’s esteem [In re:
1989 Elections of the IBP, A.M. No. 491 (1989)].
General Objectives of the IBP
1.   To elevate the standards of the legal profession;
2.   To improve the administration of justice;

3.   To enable the bar to discharge its public
responsibility more effectively [Sec. 2, IBP By-
Laws].
Purposes of the IBP
1.   To assist in the administration of justice;
2.   To foster and maintain on the part of its members
high ideals of integrity, learning, professional
competence, public service and conduct;
3.   To safeguard the professional interest of its
members;
4.   To cultivate among its members a spirit of
cordiality and brotherhood;
5.   To provide a forum for the discussion of law,
jurisprudence, law reform, pleading, practice and
procedure, and the relations of the bar to the
bench and to the public, and publish information
relating thereto;
6.   To encourage and foster legal education;
7.   To promote a continuing program of legal
research in substantive and adjective law, and
make reports and recommendations thereon.
[Sec. 2, IBP By-Laws]
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
i.   Membership and Dues
Sec. 9, Rule 139-A. Membership Dues. – Every
member of the IBP shall pay such annual dues as
the Board of Governors shall determine with the
approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed sum
equivalent to 10% of the collection from each
Chapter shall be set aside as a Welfare Fund for
disabled members of the Chapter and the
compulsory heirs of deceased members thereof.
Sec. 10, Rule 139-A. Effect of non-payment of dues.
– Subject to the provisions of Sec. 12 of this Rule,
default in the payment of annual dues for 6 months
shall warrant suspension of membership in the IBP,
and default in such payment for 1 year shall be a
ground for the removal of the name of the
delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.
A membership fee in the IBP is an exaction for
regulation, while the purpose of a tax is revenue. If the
Court has inherent power to regulate the bar, it
follows that as an incident to regulation, it may
impose a membership fee for that purpose. It would
not be possible to push through an Integrated Bar
program without means to defray the concomitant
expenses. The doctrine of implied powers necessarily
includes the power to impose such an exaction [In the
matter of the IBP, supra].
A lawyer can engage in the practice of law only by
paying his dues, and it does not matter if his practice
is “limited.” The exemption granted to senior citizens
in R.A. No. 7432 (Seniors Citizen Act) does not include
payment or membership or association dues [Santos v.
Llamas, A.C. No. 4749 (2000)].
In a case involving a Filipino lawyer staying abroad,
the Supreme Court said that there is nothing in the law
or rules, which allows his exemption from payment of
membership dues. At most, he could have informed
the Secretary of the IBP of his intention to stay abroad
before he left. In such case, his membership in the IBP
could have been terminated and his obligation to pay
dues discontinued [Letter of Atty. Arevalo, B.M. No.
1370 (2005)].
b.   Upholding the Dignity and
Integrity of the 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.
The bar has to maintain a high standard of legal
proficiency, honesty, and fair dealing to be an effective
instrument in the proper administration of justice. In
order to do so, it is necessary that every lawyer should
Page 19 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
strive to uphold the honor and dignity of the legal
profession and to improve not only the law, but the the
administration of justice as well [Agpalo (2004)]
A lawyer should actively support the activities of the
IBP and not limit himself to paying dues [Agpalo
(2004)].
Rule 7.01. A lawyer shall be answerable for
knowingly making a false statement or suppressing
a material fact in connection with his application
for admission to the bar.
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. While a lawyer
has the solemn duty to defend his client’s rights and
is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of
his client’s cause, his conduct must never be at the
expense of truth [Young v. Batuegas, A.C. No. 5379
(2003)].
A student aspiring to be a lawyer must study and
observe the duties and responsibilities of a lawyer. He
cannot claim that the CPR does not apply to him
[Agpalo (2004)].
Penalties for knowing suppression or false
representation of a material fact in the application for
admission to the bar:
1.   Disqualification of the applicant from taking the
bar, if the concealment is discovered before he
takes the bar examinations;
2.   Prohibition from taking the lawyer’s oath, if the
concealment is discovered after the candidate has
taken the bar examinations;
3.   Revocation of license to practice, if the
concealment was discovered after he has taken
his lawyer’s oath [In re: Petition to Take the
Lawyer’s Oath, Caesar Z. Distrito, petitioner, B.M.
No. 1209 (2003)].
If what the applicant concealed is a crime which does
not involve moral turpitude, it is the fact of
concealment and not the commission of the crime
itself that makes him morally unfit to become a lawyer.
It should be noted that the application was made
under oath, which he lightly took when he made the
concealment [In re: Petition to Take the Lawyer’s Oath,
Caesar Z. Distrito, petitioner, supra].
Rule 7.02. A lawyer shall not support the
application for admission to the bar of any person
known by him to be unqualified in respect to
character, education, or other relevant attribute.
A lawyer should volunteer information or cooperate in
any investigation concerning alleged anomaly in the
bar examination so that those candidates who failed
therein can be ferreted out and those lawyers
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
responsible therefor can be disbarred [In re: Parazo,
G.R. No. 82027 (1948)].
A lawyer should not readily execute an affidavit of
good moral character in favor of an applicant who has
not live up to the standard set by law [Agpalo (2004)].
Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor shall he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of
the legal profession.
Public confidence in the law and in lawyers may be
eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a
member of the bar. Every lawyer should act and
comport himself in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the integrity of the legal profession
[Catu v. Rellosa, supra.].
There is no distinction as to whether the
transgression is committed in the lawyer’s
professional capacity or in his private life or in his
private transaction because a lawyer may not divide
his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and
a mere citizen at another. The moral turpitude for
which an attorney may be disbarred may consist of
misconduct in either his professional or non-
professional activities, in his professional and private
capacity. [Royong v. Oblena, A.C. No. No 376 (1963); In
Re: Pelaez, (1923)].
Respondent’s act of allowing the use of a forged
signature on a petition she prepared and notarized
demonstrates a lack of moral fiber on her part.
[Velasco-Tamaray v. Daquis, A.M. No. 10868, (2016)].
Keeping a mistress, entering into another marriage
while a prior one still subsists, as well as abandoning
and mistreating complainant and their children, show
his disregard of family obligations, morality and
decency, the law and the lawyers oath. Such gross
misbehavior over a long period of time clearly shows a
serious flaw in respondent’s character, his moral
indifference to scandal in the community, and his
outright defiance of established norms. All these
could not but put the legal profession in disrepute and
place the integrity of the administration of justice in
peril, hence the need for strict but appropriate
disciplinary action [Tapucar v. Tapucar, A.C. No. 4148,
(1998)].
Considering the length of time the affair lasted, it
cannot be a mere moment of indiscretion. Florendo
had an illicit relationship with a married woman who
was not his wife but that of his client. This shows his
disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and
his own marital vow for fidelity. He also violated the
trust and confidence Tiong reposed on him. [Tiong v.
Florendo A.C 4428, (2011)]
Page 20 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Whether a lawyer’s sexual congress with a woman not
his wife or without the benefit of marriage should be
characterized as grossly immoral conduct depends on
the surrounding circumstances. The case at bar
involves a relationship between a married lawyer and
a married woman who is not his wife. It is immaterial
whether the affair was carried out discreetly [Guevarra
v. Eala, A.C. No. 7136 (2007)].
See also Rule 1.01 above.
c.   Courtesy, Fairness and Candor
toward Professional
Colleagues
CANON 8. A lawyer shall conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel.
Lawyer don’ts:
1.   Take advantage of the excusable unpreparedness
or absence of counsel during the trial of a case;
2.   Make use, to his or to his client’s benefit, the
secrets of the adverse party acquired through
design or inadvertence;
3.   Criticize or impute ill motive to the lawyer who
accepts what in his opinion is a weak case;
4.   Proceed to negotiate with the client of another
lawyer to waive all kinds of claim when the latter
is still handling the civil case [Camacho v.
Pangulayan, A.C. No. 4807 (2000)].
5.   Steal another lawyer’s client;
6.   Induce a client to retain him by promise of better
service, good result or reduced fees for 
his
services;
7.   Disparage another lawyer, make comparisons or
publicize his talent as a means to further his law
practice;
8.   In the absence of the adverse party’s counsel,
interview the adverse party and question him as to
the facts of the case even if the adverse party was
willing;
9.   Sanction the attempt of his client to settle a
litigated matter with the adverse party without
the consent nor knowledge of the latter’s counsel.
Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and
other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and civility. Any
undue ill feeling between clients should not influence
counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward each
other. Mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations
and offensive behavior among lawyers not only detract
from the dignity of the legal profession, but also
constitute highly unprofessional conduct subject to
disciplinary action [Reyes v. Chiong, A.C. No. 5148
(2003)].
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language, which is abusive, offensive
or otherwise improper.
A lawyer’s language should be forceful but
dignified, emphatic but respectful, as befitting an
advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal
profession [Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v.
Cloribel, G.R.No. L-27072, (1970)].
The lawyer’s arguments, whether written or oral
should be gracious to both the court and opposing
counsel, and should be of such words as may be
properly addressed by one gentleman to another
[National Security Co. v. Jarvis, 278 US 610 (1928) as
cited in Agpalo (2004)].
A lawyer should treat the opposing counsel and his
brethren in the law profession with courtesy, dignity,
and civility. They may do as adversaries do in law:
strive mightily but eat and drink as friends [Valencia v.
Cabanting, A.M. No. 1302 (1991)].
The Court recognizes the adversarial nature of our
legal system which has necessitated lawyers to use
strong language in advancement of the interest of the
clients. However, as members of a noble profession,
lawyers are always impressed with the duty to
represent their client’s cause, or as in this case, to
represent a personal matter in court, with courage and
zeal but that should not be used as a license for the
use of offensive and abusive language. In maintaining
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, a
lawyer’s language – spoken or in his pleadings – must
be dignified. [Sanchez v. Aguilos, A.C. No. 10543
(2016)].
Examples of Improper Language
•   Behaving without due regard for the trial court
and the opposing counsel and threatening the
court that he would file a petition for certiorari
[Bugaring v. Espanol, G.R. No. 133090 (2001)]
•   Calling an adverse counsel as “bobo” or using the
word “ay que bobo” in reference to the manner of
offering evidence [Castillo v. Padilla, A.C. No. 2339
(1984)].
•   Stating that “justice is blind and also “deaf and
dumb”” [In Re: Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654
(1970)].
•   Stating that the demand from a former client’s
counsel should be treated “as a mere scrap of
paper or should have been addressed by her
counsel… to the urinal project of the MMDA
where it may service its rightful purpose” [Sanchez
v. Aguilos, supra].
•   Calling complainant a "quack doctor," "Reyna ng
Kaplastikan," "Reyna ng Payola," and "Reyna ng
Kapalpakan," and insinuating that she has been
Page 21 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
bribing people to destroy respondent smacks of
bad faith and reveals an intention to besmirch the
name and reputation of complainant, as well as
BMGI. Respondent also ascribed criminal
negligence upon complainant and BMGI by
posting that complainant disfigured ("binaboy")
his client Norcio, labeling BMGI a "Frankenstein
Factory," and calling out a boycott of BMGI's
services — all these despite the pendency of the
criminal cases that Norcio had already filed
against complainant. He even threatened
complainant with conviction for criminal
negligence and estafa — which is contrary to one's
obligation "to act with justice" [Ma. Victoria G.
Belo-Henares vs. Atty. Roberto “Argee” Guevarra,
A.C. No. 11394, (2016)].
Lack or want of intention is no excuse for the
disrespectful language employed. Counsel cannot
escape responsibility by claiming that his words did
not mean what any reader must have understood
them as meaning [Rheem of the Philippines v Ferrer,
G.R. No. L-22979 (1967)].
Exceptions
•   Utterances made out of impulse in the course of
an argument may be forgiven and should not be
penalized [Cruz v. Cabrera, AC. 5737, (2004)].
•   Statements made in the course of judicial
proceedings are absolutely privileged regardless
of defamatory tenor and malice provided it is
relevant, pertinent or material to the cause of the
subject or inquiry [Tolentino v Baylosis, G.R. No.
15742, (1961)].
Rule 8.02. A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
encroach upon the professional employment of
another lawyer; however, it is the right of any
lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice
and assistance to those seeking relief against
unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
A lawyer may:
1.   Accept employment to handle a matter previously
handled by another lawyer:
a.   Provided the other lawyer has been given
notice of termination of service, lest it
amounts to an improper encroachment upon
the professional employment of the original
counsel [Laput v. Remotigue, A.M. No. 219
(1962)]; or
b.   In the absence of a notice of termination from
the client, provided he has obtained the
conformity of the counsel whom he would
substitute; or
c.   In the absence of such conformity, a lawyer
must at least give sufficient notice to original
counsel so that original counsel has the
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
opportunity to protect his claim against the
client.
2.   Give advice or assistance to any person who seeks
relief against an unfaithful or neglectful lawyer;
3.   Associate as a colleague in a case, provided he
communicate with the original counsel before
making an appearance as co-counsel:
a.   Should the original lawyer object, he should
decline association but if the original lawyer
is relieved, he may come into the case; or
b.   Should it be impracticable for him, whose
judgment has been overruled by his co-
counsel to cooperate effectively, he should
ask client to relieve him.
A person without a retained lawyer is a legitimate
prospective client for any lawyer. But, as soon as he
had retained one and had not dismissed said counsel,
efforts on the part of another lawyer to take him as
client constitutes as encroachment of employment.
A lawyer is encroaching when:
•   Promises a better service
•   Lowers attorney’s fees
•   Downgrades the qualifications or services of the
first attorney
Although aware that the students were represented by
counsel, respondent attorney proceeded, nonetheless,
to negotiate with them and their parents without at
the very least communicating the matter to their
lawyer, herein complainant, who was counsel of
record in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. This failure of
respondent, whether by design or because of
oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the canons of
professional ethics and in utter disregard of a duty
owing to a colleague. Respondent fell short of the
demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member
of the Bar [Camacho v. Pagulayan, A.C. No. 4807].
d.   No Assistance in Unauthorized
Practice of Law
CANON 9. A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
In Cayetano v. Monsod, the Court held that practice of
law means any activity, in or out of court, which
requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. Generally, to
practice law is to render any kind of service which
requires the use of legal knowledge or skill [Aguirre v.
Rana, supra.].
The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the
client and the bar from the incompetence or
dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not
subject to the disciplinary control of the court [Phil.
Page 22 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Assoc. of Free Labor Union v. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar
Co., G.R. No. L-23959 (1971)].
Examples of Practice of Law
•   Legal advice and instructions to clients to inform
them of their rights and obligations
•   Preparation for clients of documents requiring
knowledge of legal principles not possessed by
ordinary laymen
•   Appearance for clients before public tribunals,
whether, administrative, quasi- judicial or
legislative agency.
Examples of Unauthorized Practice of Law
•   It is the signing of the Roll of Attorneys that finally
makes one a full-fledged lawyer. Appearing as
counsel even before taking lawyer’s oath [Aguirre
v. Rana, B.M. No. 1036 (2003)]
•   Using the title “Attorney” in his name even though
he is a Shari’a lawyer [Alawi v. Alauya, A.M. No.
SDC-97-2-P (1997)]
•   Using a letterhead which listed as senior partners,
those who are only paralegals due to their
investments in the law firm. [Cambaliza v. Cristal-
Tenorio, AC 6290, (2004)]
•   Holding oneself as a partner of a lawfirm when the
firm was actually a cooperative of non-lawyers
[Plus Builders v. Revilla, A.C. No. 7056, (2006)]
•   A lawyer who only signed the attendance record
at the PICC entrance and not the Roll of
Attorneys, after he realized his mistake of fact and
yet continued his operations. [In Re: Petition to
Sign the Roll of Attorneys Michael A. Medado, B.M.
No. 2540 (2013)]
•   A corporation cannot engage in the practice law
directly or indirectly. It may only hire in-house
lawyers to attend to its legal business. A
corporation cannot employ a lawyer to appear for
others for its benefit. A corporation cannot
perform the conditions required for membership
to the bar. In addition, the confidential and trust
relation between an attorney and his client cannot
arise if the attorney is employed by a corporation
[Agpalo (2004)].
See also Appearance of Non-Lawyers above
Rule 9.01. A lawyer shall not delegate to any
unqualified person the performance of any task
which by law may only be performed by a member
of the bar in good standing.
Purpose: The practice of law is limited only to
individuals who have the necessary educational
qualifications and good moral character. Moreover, an
attorney-client relationship is a strictly personal one.
Lawyers are selected on account of their special fitness
through their learning or probity for the work at hand.
U.P. LAW BOC
Unqualified person:
•   Non-lawyers
•   Lawyers who are not in good standing
•   Lawyers who are not qualified
Examples of acts that may only be done by a lawyer
•   The computation and determination of the period
within which to appeal an adverse judgment [Eco
v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-16731 (1960)]
•   The examination of witnesses or the presentation
of evidence [Robinson v. Villafuerte, G.R. No. L-
5346 (1911)].
Examples of acts that may be delegated to non-lawyers:
•   The examination of case law
•   Finding and interviewing witnesses
•   Examining court records
•   Delivering papers and similar matters [Agpalo,
2004].
Rule 9.02. A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to
divide a fee for legal services with persons not
licensed to practice law, except:
 good faith to the court.
a)   Where there is a pre-existing agreement with
a partner or associate that, upon the latter’s
death, money shall be paid over a reasonable
period of time to his estate or to persons
specified in the agreement; or
b)   Where a lawyer undertakes to complete
unfinished legal business of a deceased
lawyer; or
c)   Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-
lawyer employees in a retirement plan, even if
the plan is based in whole or in part, on a
profitable sharing arrangement.
Purpose: Allowing non-lawyers to get attorney’s fees
would confuse the public as to whom they should
consult. It would leave the bar in a chaotic condition
because non-lawyers are also not subject to
disciplinary action.
An agreement between a union lawyer and a layman
president of the union to divide equally the attorney’s
fees that may be awarded in a labor case violates this
rule, and is illegal and immoral [Amalgamated
Laborers Assn. v. CIR, G.R. No. L-23467 (1968)].
A donation by a lawyer to a labor union of part of his
attorney’s fees taken from the proceeds of a judgment
secured by him for the labor union is improper because
it amounts to a rebate or commission [Halili v. CIR,
G.R. No. L-24864 (1965)].
While non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or
any labor arbiter under Art. 222, Labor Code, they are
still not entitled to receive attorney’s fees. The
statutory rule that an attorney shall be entitled to have
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
and recover from his client a reasonable
compensation or remuneration for the services they
have rendered presupposes the existence of an
attorney-client relationship. Such a relationship
cannot exist when the client’s representative is a non-
lawyer [Five J Taxi v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111474 (1994)].
A contract between a lawyer and a layman granting
the latter a percentage of the fees collected from
clients secured by the layman and enjoining the lawyer
not to deal directly with said clients is null and void,
and the lawyer may be disciplined for unethical
conduct [Tan Tek Beng v. David, A.C. No. 1261 (1983)].
3.  To the Courts (Canons 10-
13)
a.   Candor, Fairness and Good
Faith to the Courts
CANON 10. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and
A lawyer is, first and foremost, an officer of the
court. Accordingly, should there be a conflict between
his duty to his client and that to the court, he should
resolve the conflict against the former and in favor of
the latter, his primary responsibility being to uphold
the cause of justice [Cobb Perez v. Lantin, G.R. No. L-
22320 (1968)].
Candor in all of the lawyer’s dealings is the very
essence of honorable membership in the legal
profession [Cuaresma v. Daquis, G.R. No. L-35113
(1975)].
Obligations to Uphold Candor
1.   Not to suppress material and vital facts which
bear on the merit or lack of in the complaint or
petition
2.   To volunteer to the court any development of the
case which renders issues moot and academic
3.   To disclose to the court any adverse decision to his
position of which opposing counsel is apparently
ignorant and which the court should consider in
deciding the case
4.   Not to represent himself as a lawyer for a client,
appear in court and present pleadings, only to
claim later that he was not authorized to do so.
[Agpalo, 2004]
Rule 10.01. A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any
artifice.
Page 23 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
A lawyer should not conceal the truth from the court,
nor mislead the court in any manner no matter how
demanding his duties to clients may be. His duties to
his client should yield to his duty to deal candidly with
the court. For no client is entitled to receive from the
lawyer any service involving dishonesty to the courts
[Comments of IBP Committee that drafted the Code,
hereinafter, IBP Committee].
Examples of Falsehood Committed by Lawyers
•   Falsely stating in a deed of sale that property is
free from all liens and encumbrances [Sevilla v.
Zoleta, 96 Phil 979 (1955)]
•   Falsifying a power of attorney to use in collecting
the money due to the principal and appropriating
the money for his own benefit [In Re: Rusiana, A.C.
No. 270 (1959)]
•   Denying having received the notice to file brief
which is belied by the return card [Ragasajo v. IAC,
G.R. No. L-69129 (1987)]
•   Presenting falsified documents in court which he
knows to be false [Bautista v. Gonzales, A.M. No.
1625 (1990)]
•   Filing false charges or groundless suits [Retia v.
Gorduiz, A.M. No. 1388 (1980)]
•   Knowingly alleging an untrue statement of fact in
a pleading [Young v. Batuegas, supra]
•   Allowing the use of a forged signature on a
petition filed before a court [Velasco-Tamaray v.
Daquis, A.C. No. 10868 (2016)].
•   Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be
denied by the court if it found that it had no
jurisdiction over the person of the accused,
respondents craftily concealed the truth by
alleging that accused had voluntarily surrendered
to a person in authority and was under detention.
[Young v. Batuegas, AC 5379, (2003)]
Canon 32, CPE provides that, “A lawyer should not
render any service or advice to any client – no matter
how powerful or important is the cause – which will
involve disloyalty to the laws of the country which he is
bound to uphold and obey.”
Rule 10.02. A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote
or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the
language or the argument of opposing counsel, or
the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite
as law a provision already rendered inoperative by
repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which
has not been proved.
In citing the Supreme Court’s decisions, and rulings, it
is the bounden duty of courts, judges and lawyers to
reproduce or copy the same word-for-word and
punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark. Ever present
is the danger that if not faithfully and exactly quoted,
the decisions and rulings may lose their proper and
correct meaning, to the detriment of other courts,
Page 24 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
lawyers and the public who may thereby be misled
[Insular Life Employees Co. v. Insular Life Association,
G.R. No. L-25291 (1971)].
The legal profession demands that lawyers thoroughly
go over pleadings, motions and other documents
dictated or prepared by them, typed or transcribed by
their secretaries or clerks, before filing them with the
court. If a client is bound by the acts of his counsel,
with more reason should counsel be bound by the acts
of his secretary who merely follows his orders [Adez
Realty, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 100643 (1992)].
A mere typographical error in the citation of an
authority is not contemptuous. But when
misquotation is intended, the lawyer is subject to
disciplinary action [COMELEC v. Nonay, GR. 144412,
(2003)].
Professional misconduct involving the misuse of
constitutional provisions for the purpose of insulting
Members of this Court is a serious breach of the rigid
standards that a member of good standing of the legal
profession must faithfully comply with [In Re:
Subpoena Duces Tecum dated January 11, 2010 of
Acting Director Aleu A. Amante, PIAB-C, Office of the
Ombudsman and Re: Order of the Office of the
Ombudsman Referring the complaint of Attys. Oliver O.
Lozano and Evangeline J. Lozano-Endriano Against
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno [ret.]. A.M. No. 10-1-13-
SC & 10-9-9-SC (2012)].
There is a difference in the academe and judicial
standards of writing. While the academic publishing
model is based on the originality of the writer’s thesis,
the judicial system is based on the doctrine of stare
decisis, which encourages courts to cite historical legal
data, precedents, and related studies in their
decisions. The judge is not expected to produce
original scholarship in every respect. The strength of a
decision lies in the soundness and general acceptance
of the precedents and long held legal opinions it draws
from. Justice, not originality, form, and style, is the
object of every decision of a court of law. The reason
for individual judges not to use original or unique
language when reinstating the laws involved in the
cases they decide is that it is their duty is to apply the
laws as these are written.
A judge writing to resolve a dispute, whether trial or
appellate, is exempted from a charge of plagiarism
even if ideas, words or phrases from a law review
article, novel thoughts published in a legal periodical
or language from a party’s brief are used without
giving attribution. Thus judges are free to use
whatever sources they deem appropriate to resolve
the matter before them, without fear of reprisal. The
same rule of exemption from the charge of plagiarism
should apply as well to practicing lawyers. They
should not be exposed to charges of plagiarism in
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
what they write so long as they do not depart, as
officers of the court, from the objective of assisting the
Court in the administration of justice. [In the Matter of
Charges of Plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo, AM.
10-7-17-SC, (2011)].
Judges need to answer only to two standards –
diligence and honesty. By honesty here is meant that
good faith attempt to attribute to the author his
original words and analysis. Even if a judge has to rely
in large part on the drafts of his legal researchers, the
work of a diligent and honest judge will never display
the severe plagiarism evident in the Vinuya Decision
published under the name of Justice del Castillo.
Analysis shows objective plagiarism viewed through
three lenses: 1) extent of unattributed copying belying
inadvertence, 2) deliberateness shown by systematic
commission of plagiarism, and 3) effect [Dissenting
Opinion of Justice Sereno in In the Matter of Charges of
Plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo, AM. 10-7-17-SC,
(2011)].
Rule 10.03. A lawyer shall observe the rules of
procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the
ends of justice.
Filing multiple actions constitutes an abuse of the
court’s processes. Those who file multiple or repetitive
actions subject themselves to disciplinary action for
incompetence or willful violation of their duties as
attorneys to act with good fidelity to the courts, and to
maintain only such actions that appear to be just and
consistent with truth and honor [Olivares v. Villalon,
A.C. No. 6323 (2007)].
A lawyer should not abuse his right of recourse to the
courts for the purpose of arguing a cause that had
been repeatedly rebuffed [Garcia v. Francisco, A.C. No.
3923 (1993)].
It is the duty of an attorney to employ, for the
purpose of maintain the causes confided to him,
such means only as are consistent with truth and
honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any
judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact
or law [Sec. 20 (d), Rule 138, RoC].
b.   Respect for Courts and Judicial
Officers
CANON 11. A lawyer shall observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and
should insist on similar conduct by others.
Observing respect due to the courts means that a
lawyer should conduct himself toward judges:
1.   With courtesy everyone is entitled to expect
[Paragas v Cruz, G.R. No. L-24438 (1965)]
Page 25 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
2.   With the propriety and dignity required by the
courts [Salcedo v Hernandez, G.R. No. L-42992
(1935)].
Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity and
authority of the Court, to which they owe their
fidelities, and to promote the administration of
justice. Respect to the courts guarantees the stability
of other institutions [In re: Sotto, 82 Phil 595 (1949)].
If a pleading containing derogatory, offensive and
malicious statements is submitted in the same court
or judge in which the proceedings are pending, it is
direct contempt, equivalent as it is to a misbehavior
committed in the presence of or so near a court or
judge as to interrupt the administration of justice.
Direct contempt is punishable summarily [In re: Letter
of Atty. Sorreda, A.M. No. 5-3-04 (2006)].
Liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and
questioning the impartiality, integrity, and authority of
the members of the Court result in the obstruction and
perversion of the dispensation of justice [Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560 (2000)].
Even as lawyers passionately and vigorously propound
their points of view, they are bound by certain rules of
conduct for the legal profession. This Court is certainly
not claiming that it should be shielded from criticism.
All the Court demands are the same respect and
courtesy that one lawyer owes to another under
established ethical standards. There is no exemption
from this sworn duty for law professors, regardless of
their status in the academic community or the law
school to which they belong [Re: Letter of the UP
Faculty, A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC (2011)].
In Bueno v. Raneses, A.M. No. 8383 (2012) the lawyer
was disbarred because “he maligned the judge and
the Judiciary by giving the impression that court cases
are won, not on the merits, but through deceitful
means – a decidedly black mark against the
Judiciary.”
Lawyers should not perform acts that would tend to
undermine and/or denigrate the integrity of the
courts, such as the subject checkbook entry which
contumaciously imputed corruption against the
Sandiganbayan. It is their sworn duty as lawyers and
officers of the court to uphold the dignity and authority
of the courts. Respect for the courts guarantees the
stability of the judicial institution; without this
guarantee, the institution would be resting on very
shaky foundations. [PHILCOMPSAT Holdings
Corporation v. Lokin, Jr. A.C. No. 11139 (2016)].
Rule 11.01. A lawyer shall appear in court properly
attired.
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Respect begins with the lawyer’s outward physical
appearance in court. Sloppy or informal attire
adversely reflects on the lawyer and demeans the
dignity and solemnity of court proceedings.
A lawyer who dresses improperly may be cited with
contempt [Agpalo (2004)].
Courts have ordered a male attorney to wear a necktie
and have prohibited a female attorney from wearing a
hat. However, the permission of a dress with a hemline
five inches above the knee was held to be acceptable
as such “had become an accepted mode of dress even
in places of worship” [“Reviewer on Legal and Judicial
Ethics” by Aguirre (2006)].
Rule 11.02. A lawyer shall punctually appear at
court hearings.
Inexcusable absence from, or repeated tardiness in,
attending a pre-trial or hearing may subject the lawyer
to disciplinary action as his actions show disrespect to
the court and are therefore considered contemptuous
behavior [Agpalo (2004)].
Non-appearance at hearings on the ground that the
issue to be heard has become moot and academic is a
lapse in judicial propriety [De Gracia v. Warden of
Makati, G.R. No. L-42032 (1976)].
Rule 11.03. A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language or behavior before
the courts.
Every citizen has the right to comment upon and
criticize the actuations of public officers. This right is
not diminished by the fact that the criticism is aimed
at a judicial authority, or that it is articulated by a
lawyer. Such right is especially recognized where the
criticism concerns a concluded litigation, because
then the court's actuations are thrown open to public
consumption. Well-recognized therefore is the right
of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a
citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and
through legitimate channels the acts of courts and
judges. But it is the cardinal condition of all such
criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill
over the walls of decency and propriety. Intemperate
and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of
respect to courts [In Re: Almacen, supra].
The court does not close itself to comments and
criticisms so long as they are fair and dignified. Going
beyond the limits of fair comments by using insulting,
disparaging and, intemperate language necessitates
and warrants a rebuke from the court. While it is
expected of lawyers to advocate their client’s cause,
they are not at liberty to resort to arrogance,
Page 26 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
intimidation and innuendo [Sangalang v. IAC, G.R. No.
71169 (1988)].
It is human nature that there be bitter feelings which
often reach to the judge as the source of the supposed
wrong. A judge, therefore, ought to be patient, and
tolerate everything which appears as but a momentary
outbreak of disappointment. Lawyers may not be held
to too strict an account for words said in the heat of the
moment, because of chagrin at losing cases, and that
the big way is for the court to condone even
contemptuous language. While judges must exercise
patience, lawyers must also observe temperate
language as well [Soriano v. CA, G.R. No. 100633 and
101550 (2001)].
Cf. Rule 8.01 above.
Rule 11.04. A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge
motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.
Post-litigation utterances or publications, made by
lawyers, critical of the courts and their judicial
actuations, whether amounting to a crime or not,
which transcend the permissible bounds of fair
comment and legitimate criticism and thereby tend to
bring them into disrepute or to subvert public
confidence in their integrity and in the orderly
administration of justice, constitute grave professional
misconduct which may be visited with disbarment or
other lesser appropriate disciplinary sanctions by the
Supreme Court in the exercise of the prerogatives
inherent in it as the duly constituted guardian of the
morals and ethics of the legal fraternity [In Re:
Almacen, supra.].
Counsels must be courageous enough to point out
errors, arbitrariness and injustices of courts and
judges. The rule allows criticism so long as it is
supported by the record or it is material to the case
[Agpalo (2004)].
Any serious accusation against a judicial officer that is
utterly baseless, unsubstantiated and unjustified shall
not be countenanced [Go v. Abrogar, G.R. No. 152672
(2007)].
Academic freedom cannot be invoked. The
constitutional right to freedom of expression of
members of the bar may be circumscribed by their
ethical duties as lawyers to give due respect to the
courts and to uphold the public’s faith in the legal
profession and the justice system [Re: Letter of UP Law
Faculty, supra.].
U.P. LAW BOC
Rule 11.05. A lawyer shall submit grievances
against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
The duty to respect does not preclude a lawyer from
filing administrative complaints against erring
judges.
The lawyer shall not file an administrative case until
he has exhausted judicial remedies which result in a
finding that the judge has gravely erred [Agpalo
(2004)].
The Supreme Court through the
Office of the Court Administrator
Pursuant to the Court’s
Purely
administrative power over all
Administrative
courts and personnel thereof.
Complaint
[Sec. 6, Art. VIII, Constitution;
Maceda v. Ombudsman, G.R. No.
102781 (1993)]
Criminal Office of the Ombudsman
House of Representatves and
Impeachable
the Senate
Offenses
[Sec 2-8. Article XI, Constitution]
c.   Assistance in the Speedy and
Efficient Administration of
Justice
Canon 12. A lawyer shall exert every effort and
consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice.
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition
of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies [Sec. 16, Art. III, 1987
Constitution].
It is the duty of an attorney not to encourage either the
commencement or the continuance of an action or
proceeding or delay any man’s cause from any corrupt
motive or interest. [Sec. 20(g), Rule 138, RoC].
The filing of another action containing the same
subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res
judicata, runs contrary to this canon [Siy Lim v.
Montano, A.C. No. 5653 (2006)].
Rule 12.01. A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless
he has adequately prepared himself on the law and
the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce
and the order of its preference. He should also be
ready with the original documents for comparison
with the copies.
This could be read in conjunction with Rule 18.02.
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Without adequate preparation, the lawyer may not be
able to effectively assist the court in the efficient
administration of justice.
Consequences of Non-Preparation
1.   The postponement of the pre-trial or hearing,
which would thus entail delay in the early
disposition of the case
2.   The judge may consider the client non-suited or in
default
3.   The judge may consider the case deemed
submitted for decision without client’s evidence,
to his prejudice [Agpalo (2004)].
Half of the work of the lawyer is done in the office. It is
spent in the study and research. Inadequate
preparation obstructs the administration of justice
[Martin’s Legal Ethics (1988)].
A newly hired counsel who appears in a case in the
midstream is presumed and obliged to acquaint
himself with all the antecedent processes and
proceedings that have transpired in the record prior to
his takeover [Villasis v. CA, G.R. No. L-34369 (1974)].
Examples of acts which amount to obstruction in the
administration of justice
•   Inadequate preparation;
•   Instructing complaining witness in a criminal
action not to appear at the schedule hearing so
that the case against the client would be
dismissed;
•   Asking a client to plead guilty to a crime which the
lawyer knows his client did not commit;
•   Advising a client who is detained for crime to
escape from prison;
•   Employing dilatory tactics to frustrate satisfaction
of clearly valid claims;
•   Prosecuting clearly frivolous cases or appeals to
drain the resources of the other party and compel
him to submit out of exhaustion;
•   Filing multiple petitions or complaints for a cause
that has been previously rejected in the false
expectation of getting favorable action;
•   Other acts of similar nature [“Legal and Judicial
Ethics” by Funa (2009)].
Rule 12.02. A lawyer shall not file multiple actions
arising from the same cause.
Purpose: There is an affirmative duty of a lawyer to
check against useless litigations. His signature in
every pleading constitutes a certificate by him that to
the best of his knowledge there is a good ground to
support it and that it is not to interpose for delay. The
willful violation of this rule may subject him to
appropriate disciplinary action or render him liable for
the costs of litigation [Agpalo (2004)].
Page 27 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
This Rule prohibits against forum shopping.
Forum Shopping
1.   When, as a result or in anticipation of an adverse
decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable
opinion in another forum through means other
than appeal or certiorari by raising identical
causes of action, subject matter, and issues.
2.   The institution of involving the same parties for
the same cause of action, either simultaneously or
successively, on the supposition that one or the
other court would come out with a favorable
disposition [Araneta v. Araneta, G.R. No. 190814
(2013)].
3.   An indicium of the presence of or the test for
determining whether a litigant violated the rule
against, forum shopping is where the elements of
litis pendentia are present or where a final
judgment in one case will amount to res judicata
in the other case.
Requisites of litis pendentia
1.   Identity of parties, or at least such parties as
represent the same interests in both actions;
2.   Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for,
the relief being founded on the same 
facts; and
3.   Identity of the two preceding particulars is such
that any judgment rendered in the pending case,
regardless of which party is successful, would
amount to res judicata in the other [HSBC v.
Catalan, G.R. No. 159590 (2004)].
Requisites of res judicata
1.   There be a decision on the merits;
2.   It be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction;
3.   The decision is final; and
4.   The two actions involved identical parties, subject
matter, and causes of action.
Sec. 5, Rule 7, RoC requires that a certificate against
forum shopping be executed that:
1.   Plaintiff or principal party has not theretofore
commenced any action or filed any claim involving
the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-
judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge,
no such other action or claim is pending therein; if
there is such other pending action or claim, a
complete statement of the present status thereof;
2.   If he should thereafter learn that the same or
similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he shall report that fact within five days
there from to the court wherein his aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements
shall not be curable by mere amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall cause
for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless
otherwise provided, upon motion after hearing.
Page 28 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Submission of a false certification or non-compliance
with any of the undertakings in a certification of non-
forum shopping shall constitute indirect contempt of
court, without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions.
If acts of the party or his counsel constitute willful and
deliberate forum shopping:
1.   Be a ground for summary dismissal with
prejudice;
2.   Constitute direct contempt;
3.   Be a cause for administrative sanctions.
The rule against forum shopping and the requirement
that a certification to that effect be complied with in
the filing of complaints, petitions or other initiatory
pleadings in all courts and agencies applies to quasi-
judicial bodies, such as the NLRC or Labor Arbiter
[Agpalo (2004)].
Rule 12.03. A lawyer shall not, after obtaining
extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or
briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his failure to do
so.
The court censures the practice of counsels who
secures repeated extensions of time to file their
pleadings and thereafter simply let the period lapse
without submitting the pleading on even an
explanation or manifestation of their failure to do
so. There exists a breach of duty not only to the court
but also to the client [Achacoso v. CA, G.R. No. L-
35867 (1973)].
An attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to
the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. A
failure to file brief for his client certainly constitutes
inexcusable negligence on his part [Ford v. Daitol, A.C.
No. 3736 (1995)].
Postponement is not a matter of right but of sound
judicial discretion. [Edrial v Quilat-Quilat, GR. 133625,
(2000)].
Rule 12.04. A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case,
impede the execution of a judgment or misuse
court processes.
It is one thing to exert to the utmost one’s ability to
protect the interest of one’s client. It is quite another
thing to delay if not defeat the recovery of what is justly
due and demandable due to the misleading acts of a
lawyer [Manila Pest Control v. WCC, G.R. No. L-27662
(1968)].
Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the
prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his
victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing part.
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Unjustified delay in the enforcement of a judgment
sets at naught the role of courts in disposing
justiciable controversies with finality [Aguilar v.
Manila Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 157911 (2006)].
If a lawyer is honestly convinced of the futility of an
appeal in a civil suit, he should not hesitate to inform
his client that mostly likely the verdict will not be
altered. A lawyer should temper his client’s desire to
seek appellate review [Agpalo (2004)].
Rule 12.05. A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his
witness during a break or recess in the trial, while
the witness is still under examination.
Purpose: To prevent the suspicion that he is coaching
the witness what to say during the resumption of the
examination; to uphold and maintain fair play with the
other party and to prevent the examining lawyer from
being tempted to coach his own witness to suit his
purpose [“Legal and Judicial Ethics Reviewer” by
Callanta].
Rule 12.06. A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a
witness to misrepresent himself or to impersonate
another.
While a lawyer may interview witnesses in advance of
trial or attend to their needs if needed, the lawyer
should avoid any action as may be misrepresented as
an attempt to influence the witness what to say in
court [Agpalo (2004)].
The lawyer who presented a witness knowing him to
be a false witness is criminally liable for offering false
testimony in evidence. The lawyer is both criminally
and administratively liable [Art. 184, Revised Penal
Code (hereinafter, RPC)].
Subornation of perjury is committed by a person who
knowingly and willfully procures another to swear
falsely and the witness suborned [or induced] does
testify under circumstances rendering him guilty of
perjury [US v. Ballena, G.R. No. L-6294 (1911)].
Rule 12.07. A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or
harass a witness nor needlessly inconvenience him.
It is the duty of a lawyer to abstain from all offensive
personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the
honor and reputation of a party or witness unless
required by the justice of the cause with which he is
charged [Sec. 20(f), Rule 138. RoC].
Rights of Witnesses [Sec. 3, Rule 132, RoC]
1.   To be protected from irrelevant, improper or
insulting questions and from a harsh or insulting
demeanor;
Page 29 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
2.   Not to be detained longer than the interests of
justice require
3.   Not to be examined except as to matters pertinent
to the issues before the court;
4.   Not to give an answer which will tend to subject
him to a penalty for an offense 
unless otherwise
provided by law;
5.   Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade
the witness’ reputation, but a witness must
answer the fact of any previous 
final conviction
for a criminal offense.
It was highly inconsiderate for the prosecutor and the
defense counsel to trade quips at the precise time the
victim was reliving her harrowing experience. Levity
has no place in the courtroom during the examination
of the victim of rape and at her expense. [People v.
Nuguid, GR. 148991, (2004)]
P.D. 1829 (Penalizing obstruction of apprehension
and prosecution of criminal offenders) penalizes the
following:
1.   Threatening directly or indirectly another with the
infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or
property or that of any immediate member or
members of his family in order to prevent such
person from appearing in the investigation of, or
official proceedings in, criminal cases, or
imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful,
in order to prevent a person from appearing in the
investigation of or in official proceedings in,
criminal cases;
2.   Giving of false or fabricated information to
mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies
from apprehending the offender or from
protecting the life or property of the victim; or
fabricating information from the data gathered in
confidence by investigating authorities for
purposes of background information and not for
publication and publishing or disseminating the
same to mislead the investigator or to the court.
Rule 12.08. A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf
of his client, except:
a)   On formal matters, such as the mailing,
authentication or custody of an instrument,
and the like; or
b)   On substantial matters, in cases where his
testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in
which event he must, during his testimony,
entrust the trial of the case to another counsel.
Purpose: The underlying reason for the impropriety of
a lawyer acting in such dual capacity lies in the
difference between the function of a witness and that
of an advocate. The function of a witness is to tell the
facts as he recalls then in answer to questions. The
function of an advocate is that of a partisan. It is
difficult to distinguish between the zeal of an advocate
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
and the fairness and impartiality of a disinterested
witness. The lawyer will find it hard to disassociate his
relation to his client as an attorney and his relation to
the party as a witness [Agpalo (2004)].
When a lawyer may not testify as witness:
1.   When such would adversely affect any lawful
interest of the client with respect to which
confidence has been reposed on him
2.   Having accepted a retainer, he cannot be a
witness AGAINST his client
3.   He cannot serve conflicting interests
4.   When he is to violate confidentiality
5.   When as an attorney, he is to testify on the theory
of the case.
When a lawyer may testify as witness:
1.   Formal matters – mailing, authentication,
custody of an instrument
2.   As an expert on his fee
3.   Acting as an Arbitrator
4.   Deposition
5.   On substantial matters where his testimony is
essential to the ends of justice, in which case he
must entrust the trial of the case to another
counsel [PNB v. Uy Teng Piao, G.R. No. L-35252
(1932)]
d.   Reliance on Merits of His/Her
Cause and Avoidance of Any
Impropriety Which Tends to
Influence or Gives the
Appearance of Influence upon
the Courts
CANON 13. A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of
his cause and refrain from any impropriety which
tends to influence, or gives the appearance of
influencing the court.
The judiciary, as the branch of government tasked to
administer justice, to settle justiciable controversies
or disputes involving enforceable and demandable
rights, and to afford redress of wrongs for the
violation of said rights must be allowed to decide
cases independently, free of outside influence or
pressure [In Re: Published Alleged Threats against
Members of the Court in the Plunder Law Case Hurled by
Atty. Leonard De Vera, A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC (2002)].
The Court will not hesitate in future similar situations
to apply the full force of the law and punish for
contempt those who attempt to pressure the Court
into acting one way or the other in any case pending
before it. Grievances, if any, must be ventilated
through the proper channels, i.e., through appropriate
petitions, motions or other pleadings in keeping with
Page 30 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
the respect due to the Courts as impartial
administrators of justice entitled to "proceed to the
disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free
from outside interference obstructive of its functions
and tending to embarrass the administration of
justice." The right of petition is conceded to be an
inherent right of the citizen under all free
governments. However, such right, natural and
inherent though it may be, has never been invoked to
shatter the standards of propriety entertained for the
conduct of courts … Moreover, "parties have a
constitutional right to have their causes tried fairly in
court by an impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by
publication or public clamor. Every citizen has a
profound personal interest in the enforcement of the
fundamental right to have justice administered by the
courts, under the protection and forms of law free from
outside coercion or interference" [Nestle Philippines,
Inc. v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 75209 (1987)].
Rule 13.01. A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary
attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for
cultivating familiarity with Judges.
Marked attention and unusual hospitality on the part
of a lawyer to a judge, uncalled for by the personal
relations of the parties, subject both the judge and the
lawyer to misconstructions of motive and should be
avoided [Canon 3, CPE].
In order to not subject both the judge and the lawyer
to suspicion, the common practice of some lawyers of
making judges and prosecutors godfathers of their
children to enhance their influence and their law
practice should be avoided by judges and lawyers alike
[IBP Committee].
It is improper for a litigant or counsel to see a judge in
chambers and talk to him about a matter related to
the case pending in the court of said judge [Austria v.
Masaquel, G.R. No. L-22536 (1967)].
It is highly improper for a judge to meet privately with
an accused who has a pending case before him,
without the presence of other party [Gallo v. Cordero,
A.M. No. MTJ095-1035, (1995)].
Rule 13.02. A lawyer shall not make public
statements in the media regarding a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
party.
Purpose: Newspaper publications regarding a pending
or anticipated litigation may interfere with a fair trial,
prejudice the administration of justice, or subject a
respondent or an accused to a trial by publicity and
create a public inference of guilt against him [Agpalo
(2004)].
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Making public statements in the media regarding a
pending case which tends to arouse public opinion for
or against a party may constitute indirect contempt
[Sec. 3, Rule 71, RoC].
In the original decision of the Supreme Court in Re:
Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the
Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases against Former
President Joseph Estrada, A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC (2001),
it was stated that the propriety of granting or denying
the petition involve the weighing out of the
constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and
the right to public information, on the one hand, and
the fundamental rights of the accused, on the other
hand, along with the constitutional power of a court to
control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial
trial. It was held that when these rights race against
one another, the right of the accused must be
preferred to win, considering the possibility of losing
not only the precious liberty but also the very life of an
accused.
In the resolution of the motion for reconsideration, the
Supreme Court allowed the video recording of
proceedings, but provided that the release of the tapes
for broadcast should be delayed. In so doing, concerns
that those taking part in the proceedings will be
playing to the cameras and will thus be distracted
from the proper performance of their roles – whether
as counsel, witnesses, court personnel, or judges – will
be allayed.
In order to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity,
there must be an allegation and proof that the judges
had been unduly influenced, not simply that they
might be [People v. Teehankee Jr., G.R. No. 111206-08,
(1995), Martelino v. Alejandro, G.R. No. L-30894
(1970)].
A lawyer is equally guilty as the client if he induces the
client to cause the publicity [Strebel v. Figueras, G.R.
No. L-4722 (1954)].
The right to criticize is recognized in concluded
litigations because then the court’s actuations are
thrown open for public consumption and discussion.
[Strebel v. Figueras, GR L-4722 (1954)] However, such
criticisms should still be respectful and done in good
faith [Funa].
In Foodsphere, Inc. v. Mauricio, the Supreme Court
found that the respondent lawyer violated Rule 13.02
“for despite the pendency of the civil case against him
and the issuance of a status quo order
restraining/enjoining further publishing, televising
and broadcasting of any matter relative to the
complaint of CDO, respondent continued with his
attacks against complainant and its products” [A.C.
No. 7199 (2009)].
Page 31 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Rule 13.03. A lawyer shall not brook or invite
interference by another branch or agency of the
government in the normal course of judicial
proceedings.
Purpose: The rule is based upon the principle of
separation of powers [Aguirre (2006)]. It also
endangers the independence of the judiciary [IBP
Committee].
The Supreme Court is supreme — the third great
department of government entrusted exclusively with
the judicial power to adjudicate with finality all
justiciable disputes, public and private. No other
department or agency may pass upon its judgments or
declare them 'unjust.' Consequently, and owing to the
foregoing, not even the President of the Philippines as
Chief Executive may pass judgment on any of the
Court's acts [Maglasang v. People, G.R. No. 90083
(1990)].
4.  T o the Clients (Canons 14-
22)
The attorney-client relationship is:
a.   Strictly personal;
b.   Highly confidential;
c.   Fiduciary.
A written contract, although the best evidence to show
the presence of an attorney-client relationship is not
essential for the employment of an attorney.
Documentary formalism is not an essential element in
the employment of an attorney; the contract may be
express or implied. To establish the relation, it is
sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney
is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his
profession [Pacana v. Pascual-Lopez, A.C. No. No.
8243 (2009)].
Retainer
1.   Either the act of a client by which he engages the
services of an attorney to render legal advice or to
defend and prosecute his cause in court (general
or special) OR the fee which a client pays to an
attorney when the latter is retained [Agpalo
(2004)].
2.   The relation of attorney to client begins from the
time an attorney is retained.
a.   Availability of Service Without
Discrimination
CANON 14. A lawyer shall not refuse his services to
the needy.
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
General Rule: A lawyer is not obliged to act as legal
counsel for any person who may wish to become his
client. He has the right to decline employment.
A lawyer should decline employment regardless of
how attractive the fee offered may be if its acceptance
will involve:
1.   A violation of any of the rules of the legal
profession
2.   Nullification of a contract which he prepared
3.   Advocacy in any matter which he had intervened
while in government service
4.   Employment which might easily be used as a
means of advertising his professional services or
skills
5.   Employment with a collection agency
6.   Any matter in which he knows or has reason to
believe that he or his partner will be an essential
witness for the prospective client. [Agpalo, 2004]
Exceptions:
1.   A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy
[Canon 14, CPR]
Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies
and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied
to any person by reason of poverty. [Sec. 11, Art.III,
Constitution]
2.   A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person
solely on account of the latter’s race, sex, creed or
status of life, or because of his own opinion
regarding the guilt of said person. [Rule 14.01,
CPR]
3.   A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation
of an indigent client unless:
•   He is in no position to carry out the work
effectively or competently;
•   He labors under a conflict of interest between
him and the prospective client or between a
present client and the prospective client.
[Rule 14.03, CPR]
Purpose: It is a declared policy of the State to value the
dignity of every human person and guarantee the
rights of every individual, particularly those who
cannot afford the services of counsel [R.A. No. 9999
(Free Legal Assistance Act of 2010)].
R.A. No. 9999 provides incentives for free legal
service. Thus, a lawyer or professional partnerships
rendering actual free legal services shall be entitled to
an allowable deduction from the gross income,
1.   The amount that could have been collected for the
actual free legal services rendered OR
2.   Up to 10% of the gross income derived from the
actual performance of legal profession,
whichever is lower.
Page 32 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
This is different from the 60-hour mandatory legal aid
services under Mandatory Legal Aid Service for
Practicing Lawyers, B.M. No. 2012 (2009).
Indigent
1.   A person who has no visible means of income or
whose income is insufficient for the subsistence of
his family, to be determined by the fiscal or judge,
taking into account the members of his family
dependent upon him for subsistence [Sec. 2, R.A.
6033 (An Act Requiring Courts to Give Preference
to Criminal Cases Where the Party or Parties
Involved are Indigents)]
2.   A person who has no visible means of support or
whose income does not exceed P300.00 per
month or whose income even in excess of
P300.00 per month is insufficient for the
subsistence of his family [Sec. 2, R.A. No. 6035
(An Act Requiring Stenographers to Give Free
Transcript of Notes to Indigent and Low Income
Litigants and Providing a Penalty for the Violation
Thereof)].
Laws on indigents or low income litigants:
1.   All courts shall give preference to the hearing
and/or disposition of criminal cases where an
indigent is involved either as the offended party or
accused [Sec. 1, R.A. No. 6033]
2.   Any indigent litigant may, upon motion, ask the
Court for adequate travel allowance to enable him
and his indigent witnesses to attendant the
hearing of a criminal case commenced by his
complaint or filed against him. The allowance
shall cover actual transportation expenses by the
cheapest means from his place of residence to the
court and back. When the hearing of the case
requires the presence of the indigent litigant
and/or his indigent witnesses in court the whole
day or for two or more consecutive days,
allowances may, in the discretion of the Court,
also cover reasonable expenses for meal and
lodging [Sec. 1, R.A. 6034 (An Act Providing
Transportation and Other Allowances for Indigent
Litigants)].
A stenographer who has attended a hearing before an
investigating fiscal or trial judge or hearing
commissioner of any quasi-judicial body or
administrative tribunal and has officially taken notes
of the proceeding thereof shall, upon written request
of an indigent or low income litigant, his counsel or
duly authorized representative in the case concerned,
give within a reasonable period to be determined by
the fiscal, judge, commissioner or tribunal hearing the
case, a free certified transcript of notes take by him on
the case [Sec. 1, R.A. 6035].
This Canon could be read in conjunction with Rule
2.01.
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
i.   Services Regardless of a Person’s
Status
Rule 14.01. A lawyer shall not decline to represent
a person solely on account of the latter’s race, sex,
creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion
regarding the guilt of said person.
It is the duty of an attorney, in the defense of a person
accused of a crime, by all fair and honorable means,
regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the
accused, to present every defense that the law
permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of
life or liberty, but by due process of law [Sec. 20(i),
Rule 138, RoC].
Regardless of personal feelings, a lawyer should not
decline representation because a client or a cause is
unpopular or community reaction is adverse [IBP
Committee].
ii.   Services as Counsel de Officio
Rule 14.02. A lawyer shall not decline, except for
serious and sufficient cause, an appointment as
counsel de officio or as amicus curiae, or a request
from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of
its chapters for rendition of free legal aid.
It is the duty of an attorney never to reject, for any
consideration personal to himself, the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed [Sec. 20(h), Rule 138].
A court may assign an attorney to render professional
aid free of charge to any party in a case, if upon
investigation it appears that the party is destitute and
unable to employ an attorney, and that the services of
counsel are necessary to secure the ends of justice and
to protect the rights of the party. It shall be the duty of
the attorney so assigned to render the required
service, unless he is excused therefrom by the court for
sufficient cause shown [Sec. 31, Rule 138].
Counsel de officio - One appointed or assigned by the
court.
Counsel de parte- One employed or retained by the
party himself.
Amicus Curiae – a friend of the court; a person with
strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an
action, but not a party to the action. They commonly
file briefs concerning matters of broad public interest.
Who may be appointed as counsel de officio in criminal
cases:
1.   A member of the bar in good standing who, by
reason of their experience and ability, can
Page 33 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
competently defend the accused [Sec. 7, Rule 116,
RoC]
2.   In localities without lawyers:
a.   Any person, resident of the province and of
good repute for probity and ability [Sec. 7,
Rule 116, RoC];
Note: In relation to Sec. 34, Rule 138, RoC this
is only allowed in the municipal trial court.
b.   A municipal judge or a lawyer employed in
any branch, subdivision or instrumentality of
the government within the province [Sec. 1,
PD 543 (Authorizing the Designation of
Municipal Judges and Lawyers in any Branch
of the Government Service to Act as Counsel
De Officio for the Accused Who are Indigent in
Places Where There are No Available
Practicing Attorneys)].
Considerations in the appointment of a counsel de
officio:
1.   Gravity of the offense;
2.   Difficulty of the questions that may arise;
3.   Experience and ability of the appointee.
When the court may appoint a counsel de officio (in
criminal actions):
1.   Before arraignment, the court shall inform the
accused of his right to counsel and ask him if he
desires to have one. Unless the accused is allowed
to defend himself in person or has employed
counsel of his choice, the court must assign a
counsel de officio to defend him, [Sec. 6, Rule 116,
RoC];
2.   It is the duty of the clerk of the trial court, upon
filing of a notice of appeal, to ascertain from the
appellant, if confined in prison, whether he
desires the Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals
or the Supreme Court to appoint a counsel de
officio [Sec. 13, Rule 122, RoC];
3.   The clerk of the CA shall designate a counsel de
oficio if it appears from the case record that:
a.   The accused is confined in prison,
b.   Is without counsel de parte on appeal, or
c.   Has signed the notice of appeal himself, the
clerk of Court of Appeals shall designate a
counsel de oficio.
d.   An appellant who is not confined in prison
may, upon request, be assigned a counsel de
officio within ten days from receipt of the
notice to file brief and he establishes his right
thereto [Sec. 2, Rule 124, RoC]
iii.   Valid Grounds for Refusal to Serve
Rule 14.03. A lawyer may not refuse to accept
representation of an indigent client unless:
a)   He is in no position to carry out the work
effectively or competently;
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

b)   He labors under a conflict of interest between THAN ARRESTO MAYOR AND/OR A FINE OF
him and the prospective client or between a TWO THOUSAND PESOS OR BOTH
present client and the prospective client
b.   Candor, Fairness, and Loyalty
Reason: One of the burdens of the privilege to practice
law is to render, when so required by the court, free
to Clients
legal services to an indigent litigant.
CANON 15. A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness
Even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with
refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned his clients.
if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter’s
rights. [Rule 2.02, Canon 2, CPR] i.   Confidentiality Rule

Rule 14.04. A lawyer who accepts the cause of a Purpose: To protect the client from possible breach of
person unable to pay his professional fees shall confidence as a result of a consultation with a lawyer
observe the same standard of conduct governing [Hadjula v. Madianda, A.C. No. No. 6711 (2007)]
his relations with paying clients.
It demands of an attorney an undivided allegiance, a
Neither the amount of attorney's fees nor the client's conspicuous and high degree of good faith,
financial ability to pay such fees should serve as the disinterestedness, candor, fairness, loyalty, fidelity
test to determine the extent of the lawyer's devotion to and absolute integrity in all his dealings and
his client’s cause [Agpalo (2004)]. transactions with his clients and an utter renunciation
of every personal advantage conflicting in any way,
If a lawyer volunteers his services to a client, and directly or indirectly, with the interest of his client
therefore not entitled to attorney’s fees, he is still [Oparel, Sr. v. Abraria, A.C. No. 959 (1971)].
bound to attend to a client’s case with all due
diligence and zeal [Blanza v. Arcangel, A.C. No. No. Confidential communication – Information
492 (1967)]. transmitted by voluntary act of disclosure between
attorney and client in confidence and by means which
Pursuant to A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC IRR (2009), clients of so far as the client is aware, discloses the information
the National Legal Aid Committee and the IBP local to no third person other than one reasonably
chapter’s legal aid offices are exempted from the necessary for the transmission of the information or
payment of legal fees. the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was
given [Mercado v. Vitriolo, A.C. No. No. 5108 (2005)].
Under Sec. 16-D, R.A. No. 9406 (An Act Reorganizing
and Strengthening the Public Attorney's Office (PAO)), Confidence of Clients Secrets of Clients
clients of the PAO are exempte from paying docket Refer to information
and other fees incidental to institution actions in court gained in the
and other quasi-judicial bodies. professional
Refer to information relationship that the
See also: protected by attorney- client has requested to
1.   R.A. No. 6033: AN ACT REQUIRING COURTS TO client privilege under be held inviolate or the
GIVE PREFERENCE TO CRIMINAL CASES the Rules of Court (i.e., disclosure of which
WHERE THE PARTY OR PARTIES INVOLVED ARE information pertinent to would be embarrassing
INDIGENTS the case being or would likely be
2.   R.A. No. 6034: AN ACT PROVIDING handled). detrimental to the
TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER ALLOWANCES client (i.e., information
FOR INDIGENT LITIGANTS not exactly pertinent to
3.   R.A. No. 6035: AN ACT REQUIRING the case).
STENOGRAPHERS TO GIVE FREE TRANSCRIPT
OF NOTES TO INDIGENT AND LOW INCOME Communication may be transmitted by any form of
LITIGANTS AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR agency, such as a messenger, an interpreter or any
THE VIOLATION THEREOF other form of transmission. It is immaterial whether
4.   R.A. No. 6036: AN ACT PROVIDING THAT BAIL the agent is the agent of the attorney, the client or
SHALL NOT, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, BE both.
REQUIRED IN CASES OF VIOLATIONS OF
MUNICIPAL OR CITY ORDINANCES AND IN Question of privilege is determined by the court. The
CRIMINAL OFFENSES WHEN THE PRESCRIBED burden of proof is on the party who asserts the
PENALTY FOR SUCH OFFENSES IS NOT HIGHER privilege.

Page 34 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC
ii.   Privileged Communications
Rule 15.02. A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on
privileged communication in respect of matters
disclosed to him by a prospective client.
Purpose: To make the prospective client free to discuss
whatever he wishes with the lawyer without fear that
what he tells the lawyer will not be divulged nor used
against him, and for the lawyer to be equally free to
obtain information from the prospective client [IBP
Committee].
Requisites:
1.   The person to whom information is given is a
lawyer.
•   However, if a person is pretending to be a
lawyer and client discloses confidential
communications, the attorney-client
privilege applies;
•   This includes persons appointed as counsel de
officio
2.   There is a legal relationship existing, except in
cases of prospective clients;
3.   Legal advice must be sought from the attorney in
his professional capacity with respect to
communications relating to that purpose.
4.   The client must intend that the communication
be confidential.
Persons entitled to privilege
1.   The lawyer, client, and third persons who by
reason of their work have acquired information
about the case being handled, including:
a.   Attorney’s secretary, stenographer and clerk
b.   Interpreter, messengers, or agents
transmitting communication
c.   Accountant, scientist, physician, engineer
who has been hired for effective consultation
2.   Assignee of the client’s interest as far as the
communication affects the realization of the
assigned interest.
Scope
1.   Period to be considered is the date when the
privileged communication was made by the client
to the attorney in relation to either a crime
committed in the past or with respect to a crime
intended to be committed in the future. If the
crime was committed in the past, the privilege
applies. If it is still to be committed, the privilege
does not apply, because the communication
between a lawyer and his client must be for a
lawful purpose or in furtherance of a lawful end to
be privileged [People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
115439 (1996)].
2.   Limited only to communications which are
legitimately and properly within the scope of a
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not extend
to those made in contemplation of a crime or
perpetration of a fraud. It is not within the
profession of a lawyer to advise a client as to how
he may commit a crime. [Genato v. Silapan, A.C.
No. 4078 (2003)].
3.   Embraces not only oral or written statements but
also actions, signs or other means of
communications.
4.   An attorney cannot, without the consent of his
client, be examined as to any communication
made by the client to him or his advice given
thereon in the course of professional
employment; nor can an attorney’s secretary,
stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the
consent of the client and his employer, concerning
any fact the knowledge of which has been
acquired in such capacity [Sec. 24(b), Rule 130].
General rule: As a matter of public policy, a client’s
identity should not be shrouded in mystery. Thus, a
lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to
divulge the name or identity of this client.
Exceptions: Client identity is privileged in the following
instances:
1.   Where a strong probability exists that revealing
the client's name would implicate that client in
the very activity for which he sought the lawyer's
advice
2.   Where disclosure would open the client to civil
liability
3.   Where the government's lawyers have no case
against an attorney's client unless, by revealing
the client’s name, the said name would furnish the
only link that would form the chain of testimony
necessary to convict an individual of a crime
[Regala v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938
(1996)].
Purposes:
1.   The court has a right to know that the client whose
privileged information is sought to be protected is
flesh and blood.
2.   The privilege begins to exist only after the
attorney-client relationship has been established.
The attorney-client privilege does not attach
unless there is a client.
3.   The privilege generally pertains to the subject
matter of the relationship.
4.   Due process considerations require that the
opposing party should, as a general rule, know his
adversary [Regala v. Sandiganbayan, supra.].
Information relating to the identity of the client may
fall within the ambit of the privilege when the client’s
name itself has an independent significance, such that
disclosure would then reveal client confidences
[Regala v. Sandiganbayan, supra]
Page 35 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
General rule: The protection given to the client is
perpetual and does not cease with the termination of
the litigation, nor is it affected by the client’s ceasing
to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by
any other change of relation between them. It even
survives the death of the client [Bun Siong Yao v.
Aurelio, A.C. No. No. 7023 (2006)]
Canon 21 enjoins a lawyer to preserve the confidence
and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client
relation is terminated. The privilege continues even
after the termination of the attorney-client
relationship. It outlasts the lawyer’s engagement. It
ceases only when waived by the client himself or after
his death, by his heir or representative. [Baldwin v. CIR,
(1942)]
Exception: Some privileged communications lose their
privileged character by some supervening act done
pursuant to the purpose of the communication (e.g., a
communication intended by the client to be sent to a
third person through his attorney loses confidential
character once it reached the third party).
Examples of privileged matters:
•   Work product of lawyer (his effort, research and
thought contained in his file);
•   Report of a physician, an accountant, an engineer
or a technician, whose services have been secured
by a client as part of his communication to his
attorney or by the attorney to assist him render
effective legal assistance to his client;
•   Records concerning an accident in which a party
is involved;
•   Consultation which has to do with the preparation
of a client to take the witness stand.
Betrayal of trust: Revelation of secrets
Any attorney-at-law who, by any malicious breach of
professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or
ignorance shall prejudice his client or reveal any of the
secrets learned by him in his professional capacity
shall be criminally liable [Art. 209, RPC].
iii.   Conflict of Interest
Rule 15.01. A lawyer, in conferring with a
prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as
practicable whether the matter would involve a
conflict with another client or his own interest, and
if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.
Rule 15.03. A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts.
The rule prohibiting conflict of interest was fashioned
to prevent situations wherein a lawyer would be
representing a client whose interest is directly adverse
Page 36 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
to any of his present or former clients [Tulio v.
Buhangin, A.C. No. No. 7110, (2016)].
It is explicit that a lawyer is prohibited from
representing new clients whose interests oppose
those of a former client in any manner, whether or not
they are parties in the same action or on totally
unrelated cases [Orola v. Ramos, A.C. No. 9860
(2013)].
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents
inconsistent interests of two or more opposing
parties [Hornilla v. Salunat, A.C. No. 5804 (2003)].
It is only upon strict compliance with the condition of
full disclosure of facts that a lawyer may appear
against his client; otherwise, his representation of
conflicting interests is reprehensible. Such prohibition
is founded on principles of public policy and good
taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one
of trust and confidence of the highest degree [Nuigue
v. Sedillo, A.C. No. 9906 (2013)].
Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the
client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance
of treachery and double-dealing for only then can
litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their
lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice [Gonzales v. Cabucana, A.C.
No. 6836 (2006)].
Where a lawyer is disqualified from appearing as
counsel in a case because of conflict of interest with
the law firm of which he is a member, any member,
associate, or assistant therein is similarly disqualified
or prohibited from so acting. [Hilado v. David, G.R. No.
L-961, (1949)].
Requisites
1.   There are conflicting duties;
2.   The acceptance of the new relations invites or
actually leads to unfaithfulness or double-dealing
to another client; or
3.   The attorney will be called upon to use against his
first client any knowledge acquired in the previous
employment.
Tests of conflict of interest
1.   Whether the acceptance of a new relation will
prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his
duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client
or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-
dealing in its performance.
2.   If the acceptance of the new retainer will require
the attorney to perform an act which will
injuriously affect his first client in any matter in
which he represented him and also whether he
will be called upon in his new relation to use
against the first client any knowledge acquired
through their connection.
U.P. LAW BOC
3.   Whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the
lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is
his duty to oppose it for the other client [Hornilla
v. Salunat, supra].
4.   Whether the lawyer will be asked to use against
his former client any confidential information
acquired through their connection or previous
employment [Palm v. Iledan, Jr., A.C. No. 8242
(2009)]
The test to determine whether there is a conflict of
interest in the representation is probability, not
certainty, of conflict.
General rule: Representing adverse interest may result
in:
1.   Disqualification as counsel in the new case;
2.   If prejudicial to interests of latter client, setting
aside of a judgment;
3.   Administrative and criminal (for betrayal of trust)
liability;
4.   Forfeiture of attorney’s fees.
Exception: Representation of conflicting interests is
allowed where clients knowingly consent to the dual
representation.
Exception to the exception: A lawyer cannot continue
representing a client in an action even with the client’s
consent after the lawyer brings suit in his own behalf,
against the defendant if it is uncertain whether the
defendant will be able to satisfy both judgments. A
lawyer is not authorized to have financial stakes in the
subject matter of the suit brought in behalf of his
client. [Gamilla v. Marino Jr, AC 4763, (2003)]
Rule 15.04. A lawyer may, with the written consent
of all concerned, act as mediator, conciliator or
arbitrator in settling disputes.
An attorney’s knowledge of the law and his reputation
for fidelity may make it easy for the disputants to settle
their differences amicably. However, he shall not act
as counsel for any of them. [Agpalo (2004)]
General rule: A lawyer may not represent two opposing
parties at any point in time. A lawyer need not be the
counsel-of-record of either party. It is enough that the
counsel had a hand in the preparation of the pleading
of one party.
Exception: When the parties agree AND when such is
for amicable settlement [Agpalo (2004)].
iv.   Candid and Honest Advice to Clients
Rule 15.05. A lawyer when advising his client shall
give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and
probable results of the client’s case, neither
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
overstating nor understating the prospects of the
case.
A lawyer is bound to give candid and honest opinion
on the merit or lack of merit of client’s case, neither
overstating nor understating the prospect of the case.
He should also give an honest opinion as to the
probable results of the case [Agpalo (2004)].
The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by
him that he has read the pleading; that to the best of
his knowledge, information, and belief there is good
ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for
delay [Sec. 3, Rule 7, RoC].
Lawyers are not merely hired employees who must
unquestionably do the bidding of the client, however
unreasonable this may be, when tested by their own
expert appreciation of the facts, applicable law and
jurisprudence. Counsel must counsel [Periquet v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 91298, (1990)].
v.   Compliance with Laws
Rule 15.07. A lawyer shall impress upon his client
compliance with the laws and principles of fairness.
It is the duty of an attorney to counsel or maintain such
actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be
just, and such defenses only as he believes to be
honestly debatable under the law [Sec. 20(c), Rule
138, RoC].
A lawyer is required to represent his client within the
bounds of law. He is enjoined to employ only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his
client and not to allow his client to dictate the
procedure in handling the case.
A lawyer appears in court in representation of his
client not only as an advocate but also as an officer of
the court. To permit lawyers to resort to unscrupulous
practices for the protection of the supposed rights of
their clients is to defeat the administration of justice
[Agpalo (2004)].
A lawyer is not a gun for hire [Millare v. Montero, A.C.
No. 3283, (1995)].
vi.   Concurrent Practice of Another
Profession
Rule 15.08. A lawyer who is engaged in another
profession or occupation concurrently with the
practice of law shall make clear to his client
whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another
capacity.
Page 37 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC
Exercise of dual profession is not prohibited but a
lawyer must make it clear when he is acting as a lawyer
or when he is acting in another capacity, especially in
occupations related to the practice of law [In re:
Rothman, 12 N.J. 528 (1953)].
Purpose: Certain ethical considerations may be
operative in one profession and not in the other
[Agpalo (2004)].
Impropriety rises only when the business is conducted
in a manner inconsistent with his duties as a member
of the bar [IBP Committee].
A lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client
but the business transaction must be characterized
with utmost honesty and good faith. Business
transactions between an attorney and his client are
disfavored and discouraged by policy of law because
by virtue of a lawyer’s office, he is an easy position to
take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his
client. Thus, there is no presumption of innocence or
improbability of wrongdoing in favor of lawyers [Nakpil
v. Valdez, A.C. No. No. 2040 (1998)].
c.   Client’s Moneys and
Properties
CANON 16. A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys
and properties of his client that may come into his
possession.
Lawyers cannot acquire or purchase, even at a public
or judicial auction, either in person or through the
mediation of another, the property and rights which
may be the object of any litigation in which they take
part by virtue of their profession [Art. 1491(5), Civil
Code].
Purpose: The prohibition is based on the existing
relation of trust or the lawyer’s peculiar control over
the property.
The duty of a lawyer is derived from the law on agency
which requires separation, accounting, notification
and delivery by agents possessing the principal’s
property [Funa].
Requisites
1.   There is an attorney-client relationship;
2.   The property or interest of the client is in
litigation;
3.   The attorney takes part as counsel in the case;
4.   The attorney purchases or acquires the property
or right, by himself or through another, during the
pendency of litigation [Laig v. CA, G.R. No. L-
26882 (1978)]
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Any scheme which has the effect of circumventing the
law comes within the prohibition [Agpalo (2004)].
Instances when prohibition in Art. 1491, Civil Code
applies:
•   Even if the purchase or lease of the property in
litigation is in favor of a partnership, of which
counsel is a partner [Mananquil v. Villegas, A.C.
No. No. 2430 (1990)]
•   If the purchase is made by the wife of the attorney
[In re: Calderon, G.R. No. L-2409 (1907)]
•   Mortgage of property in litigation to the lawyer. In
this case, acquisition is merely postponed until
foreclosure but effect is the same. It also includes
assignment of property [Ordonio v. Eduarte, A.M.
No. 3216, (1992)].
•   The purchase by a lawyer of the property in
litigation from his client is void and could produce
no legal effect [Art. 1409(7), Civil Code]
Instances when prohibition in Art. 1491 does not apply:
•   When the attorney is not a counsel in the case
involving the same property at the time of
acquisition;
•   When purchaser is a corporation, even if the
attorney was an officer [Tuason v. Tuason, G.R.
No. L-3404 (1951)]
•   When sale takes place after termination of
litigation, except if there was fraud or use/abuse
of confidential information or where lawyer
exercised undue influence;
•   Where property in question is stipulated as part of
attorney’s fees, provided that, the same is
contingent upon the favorable outcome of
litigation and, provided further, that the fee must
be reasonable.
i.   Fiduciary Relationship
Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected or received for or from the client.
Purpose: The lawyer merely holds said money or
property in trust.
When a lawyer collects or receives money from his
client for a particular purpose (such as for filing fees,
registration fees, transportation and office expenses),
he should promptly account to the client how the
money was spent. If he does not use the money for its
intended purpose, he must immediately return it to
the client [Belleza v. Macasa, A.C. No. No. 7815
(2009)].
The fact that a lawyer has a lien for fees on money in
his hands would not relieve him from the duty of
promptly accounting for the funds received [Daroy v.
Legaspi, A.C. No. No. 936 (1975)].
Page 38 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC
Ethical and practical considerations make it both
natural and imperative for a lawyer to issue receipts,
even if not demanded, and to keep copes of the
receipts for his own records [Tarog v. Ricafort, A.C. No.
8243 (2011)].
A lawyer's failure, to return upon demand, the funds
held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the
presumption that he has appropriated the same for his
own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his
client [Sison v. Camacho, A.C. No. No. 10910, (2016)].
A perusal of the Special Power of Attorney issued by
Camino and her husband to Atty. Pasagui clearly
shows that the loan application was in their behalf and
that the property mortgaged was likewise their
property. If it were true that it was a personal loan to
him, Atty. Pasagui failed to explain why he used
Camino's property as collateral. Thus, by his failure to
make good of their agreement to use the loan
proceeds for the transfer of the title in Camino's name,
Atty. Pasagui not only betrayed the trust and
confidence reposed upon him but he is also guilty of
engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct. Atty.
Pasagui’s failure to inform Camino of the status of the
transfer of title despite the release of the loan to
finance the transfer of the title, is a clear indicium that
he converted the money for his own use [Camino v.
Pasagui, A.C. No. 11095, (2016)].
The [CPR] exacts from lawyers not only a firm
respect for law, legal processes and the courts but
also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and
good faith in dealing with clients and the moneys
entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary
relationship. Instead of promoting respect for law and
the legal processes, respondent callously demeaned
the legal profession by taking money from a client
under the pretext of having connections with a
Member of this Court [Berbano v. Barcelona, A.C. No.
6084 (2003)].
The actuations of respondent in retaining for his
personal benefit over a one-year period, the amount of
P5,220.00 received by him on behalf of his client, the
complainant herein, depriving her of its use, and
withholding information on the same despite inquiries
made by her, is glaringly a breach of the Lawyer's Oath
to which he swore observance, and an evident
transgression of the [CPE] … substantially reiterated
in Rules 16.01. 16.02 and 16.03 of the [CPR] [Licuanan
v. Melo, A.M. No. 2361 (1989)].
ii.   Commingling of Funds
Rule 16.02. A lawyer shall keep the funds of each
client separate and apart from his own and those of
others kept by him.
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
A lawyer should not commingle a client’s money
with that of other clients and with his private funds,
nor use the client’s money for his personal purposes
without the client’s consent [Daroy v. Legaspi, A.C.
No. No. 936 (1975)].
Respondent breached [Canon 16]. His acts of
acquiring for himself complainant’s lots entrusted to
him are, by any standard, acts constituting gross
misconduct, a grievous wrong, a forbidden act, a
dereliction in duty, willful in character, and implies a
wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. Such
conduct on the part of respondent degrades not only
himself but also the name and honor of the legal
profession. He violated this Courts mandate that
lawyers must at all times conduct themselves,
especially in their dealing with their clients and the
public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner
beyond reproach. [Hernandez v. Go, A.C. No. 1526
(2005)].
iii.   Delivery of Funds
Rule 16.03. A lawyer shall deliver the funds and
property of his client when due or upon demand.
However, he shall have a lien over the funds and
may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to
satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving
notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall
also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments
and executions he has secured for his client as
provided for in the Rules of Court.
When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money
of his client after it has been demanded, he may be
punished for contempt as an officer of the Court who
has misbehaved in his official transactions; but
proceedings under Sec. 25, Rule 138 shall not be a bar
to criminal prosecution.
Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a
judgment in favor of his clients is held in trust and
must be immediately turned over to them [Busiños v.
Ricafort, A.C. No. No. 4349 (1997)]
An attorney has a lien upon the funds documents and
papers of his client which have lawfully come into his
possession and may retain the same until his lawful
fees and disbursements have been paid and may apply
such funds to the satisfaction thereof [Sec. 37, Rule
138, RoC]
But, a lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally
appropriate his client’s money for himself by the
mere fact alone that the client owes him attorney’s
fees. The fact alone that a lawyer has a lien for fees on
moneys in his hands collected for his client does not
relieve him of his duty to promptly account for the
Page 39 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
moneys received; his failure to do so constitutes
professional misconduct [Rayos v. Hernandez, G. R.
169079 (2007)].
iv.   Borrowing or Lending
Rule 16.04. A lawyer shall not borrow money from
his client unless the client’s interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend
money to a client except when, in the interest of
justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a
legal matter he is handling for the client.
A lawyer is prohibited from borrowing money from
his client
Purpose: This rule is intended to prevent the lawyer
from taking advantage of his influence over his client
[Junio v. Grupo, A.C. No. 5020 (2001)].
The canon presumes that the client is disadvantaged
by the lawyer’s ability to use all the legal
maneuverings to renege on her obligation [Frias v.
Lozada, A.C. No. No. 6656 (2005)].
The profession demands of an attorney an absolute
abdication of every personal advantage conflicting in
any way, directly or indirectly, with the interest of his
client [Barnachea v. Quiocho, A.C. No. No. 5925
(2003)].
A lawyer who borrows jewelry from his client in order
to obtain and appropriate for himself the proceeds
from a pledge is liable under this canon [Yu v. Dela
Cruz, A.C. No. No. 10912, (2016)].
A lawyer is prohibited from lending money to his
client
Purpose: The canon intends to assure the lawyer’s
independent professional judgment, for if the lawyer
acquires a financial interest in the outcome of the
case, the free exercise of his judgment may be
adversely affected [Agpalo (2004)].
Exception: When, in the interest of justice, he has to
advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is
handling.
Prohibition against purchase of “property in
litigation”
The following persons cannot acquire by purchase,
even in a public action, either in person or through the
mediation of another, property and rights in litigation,
before the court within whose jurisdiction, they
exercise their respective functions: [Art. 1491, Civil
Code]:
1.   Justices, Judges, Prosecuting Attorneys
Page 40 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
2.   Clerks, officers and employees connected with the
administration of justice
3.   Lawyers with respect to property rights which may
be the object of litigation, in which they may take
part by virtue of their profession.
The prohibition is absolute and permanent and rests
on consideration of public policy.
The prohibition applies in the following:
•   Redemption, compromise and renunciation of the
subject in litigation
•   Lease
•   Assignment of rights over a property in
consideration of legal service while the case is
pending [Ordonio v. Eduarte, AC 3216, (1992)]
The prohibition does not apply in the following:
•   Where the property purchased by the lawyer was
not involved in litigation
•   Where the sale took place before it became
involved in the suit
•   Where the attorney at the time of the purchase
was not the counsel in the case
•   Where the purchaser of the property in litigation
was a corporation, despite the attorney being an
officer thereof
•   Where the sale took place after the termination of
the litigation, the lawyer may accept an
assignment from his client of a money judgment
rendered in the client’s favor in a case in which he
was not the counsel, as payment for professional
services performed in another case
d.   Fidelity to Client’s Cause
CANON 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.
The failure to exercise due diligence and the
abandonment of a client’s cause make such a lawyer
unworthy of the trust which the client has reposed on
him [Cantilller v. Potenciano, A.C. No. No. 3195 (1989)].
Once he agrees to take up the cause of the client, no
fear or judicial disfavor or public unpopularity should
restrain him from the full discharge of his duty
[Santiago v. Fojas, A.M. No. 4103 (1995)].
In the discharge of his duty of entire devotion to the
client's cause, a lawyer should present every remedy
or defense authorized by law in support of his
client’s cause, regardless of his personal views. He
should not be afraid of the possibility that he may
displease the judge or the general public [Agpalo
(2004)].
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
e.   Competence and Diligence
CANON 18. A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.
A lawyer must exercise ordinary diligence or that
reasonable degree of care and skill having reference to
the character of the business he undertakes to do, as
any other member of the bar similarly situated
commonly possesses and exercises [Pajarillo v. WCC,
G.R. No. L-42927 (1980)].
In the absence of evidence on the contrary, however, a
lawyer is presumed to be prompt and diligent in the
performance of his obligations and to have employed
his best efforts, learning, and ability in the protection
of his client’s interests and in the discharge of his
duties as an officer of the court [Agpalo (2004)].
i.   Adequate Preparation
Rule 18.02. A lawyer shall not handle any legal
matter without adequate preparation.
A lawyer should safeguard his client’s rights and
interests by thorough study and preparation,
mastering applicable law and facts involved in a case,
and keeping constantly abreast of the latest
jurisprudence and developments in all branches of the
law [Agpalo (2004)].
A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and
time to his cases. This is the reason why a practicing
lawyer should accept only so many cases he can
handle. [Legarda v. CA, G.R. No. 94457 (1991)]
The lawyer’s diligence and dedication to his work and
profession not only promote the interest of his client,
it likewise help attain the ends of justice by
contributing to the proper and speedy administration
of cases, bring prestige of the bar and maintain
respect to the legal profession [Endaya v. Oca, A.C. No.
3967 (2003)].
ii.   Negligence
Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
If by reason of the lawyer’s negligence, actual loss has
been caused to his client, the latter has a cause of
action against him for damages [Callanta].
General rule: A client is bound by the attorney’s
conduct, negligence and mistake in handling the case
or in management of litigation and in procedural
technique, and he cannot be heard to complain that
Page 41 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
result might have been different had his lawyer
proceeded differently.
•   Doctrine of Imputed Knowledge: Notice to
counsel is notice to client
Exceptions: The client is not so bound where the
ignorance, incompetence or inexperience of lawyer is
so great and error so serious that the client, who has
good cause, is prejudiced and denied a day in court
[People v. Manzanilla, G.R. No. L-17436 (1922); Alarcon
v. CA, G.R. No. 126802 (2000)]
Examples of lawyer’s negligence:
•   Failure of counsel to ask for additional time to
answer a complaint resulting in a default
judgment against his client (Mapua v. Mendoza,
G.R. No. L-19295 (1923)]
•   Failure to ascertain date of receipt from post office
of notice of decision resulting in the non-
perfection of the appellant’s appeal [Joven-De
Jesus v. PNB, G.R. No. L-19299 (1964)]
•   Failure to file briefs within the reglementary
period [People v. Cawili, G.R. No. L-30543, (1970)]
•   Failure to attend a trial without filing a motion for
postponement or without requesting either of his
two partners in the law office to take his place and
appear for the defendants [Gaerlan v. Bernal, G.R.
No. L-4039 (1952)]
•   Failure to appear at pre-trial [Agravante v.
Patriarca, G.R. No. L-48324 (1990)]
•   Failure of counsel to notify clients of the
scheduled trial which prevented the latter to look
for another lawyer to represent them while
counsel was in the hospital [Ventura v. Santos, 59
Phil. 123 (1993)]
•   Failure to appear simply because the client did
not go to counsel’s office on the date of the trial as
was agreed upon (Alcoriza v. Lumakang, A.M. No.
249 (1978)]
•   Failure to pay the appellate docket fee after
receiving the amount for the purpose [Capulong v.
Alino, A.M. No. 381 (1968)]
•   Failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration and to
update clients of the adverse result of a case
[Orazme v. Oro, A.C. No. No. 10945, (2016)]
•   Withdrawing from a case without the proper
motion and without informing the client [Chang v.
Hidalgo, A.C. No. No. 6934 (2016)]
iii.   Collaborating Counsel
Rule 18.01. A lawyer shall not undertake a legal
service which he knows or should know that he is
not qualified to tender. However, he may render
such service if, with the consent of his client, he can
obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is
competent on the matter
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
When a lawyer accepts a case, whether for a fee or not,
his acceptance is an implied representation:
1.   That he possesses the requisite degree of
academic learning, skill and ability necessary in
the practice of his profession;
2.   That he will exert his best judgment in the
prosecution or defense of the litigation entrusted
to him;
3.   That he will exercise ordinary diligence or that
reasonable degree of care and skill demanded of
the business he undertakes to do, to protect the
client’s interests and take all steps or do all acts
necessary thereof [Uy v. Tansinsin, A.C. No. 8252
(2009)]; and
4.   That he will take steps as will adequately
safeguard his client’s interests [Islas v. Platon,
G.R. No. L-23183 (1924)]
A collaborating counsel is a lawyer who is
subsequently engaged to assist another lawyer
already handling a particular case for a client. He
cannot just enter his appearance as collaborating
counsel without the conformity of the first counsel.
The same diligence of the first counsel is required of
the collaborating counsel [Sublay v. NLRC, G.R. No.
130104, (2000)].
iv.   Duty to Apprise Client
Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client informed
of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable period of time to client’s request for
information.
Duty to Keep the Client Fully Informed
1.   The client must receive from the lawyer, full and
periodic updates on the developments affecting
the case;
2.   The lawyer should apprise the client of the mode
and the manner which the he is utilizing to defend
the client’s interests;
3.   The lawyer must advise the client of the risks,
alternatives and their consequences;
4.   The client must be informed within the period to
appeal to enable him to decide whether or not he
will still seek appellate review of an adverse
decision.
The relationship of lawyer-client being one of
confidence, there is ever-present the need for the
lawyer to inform timely and adequately the client of
important developments affecting the client’s case
[Carandang v. Obmina, A.C. No. 7813 (2009)].
Even if the lawyer was honestly and sincerely
protecting the interests of his client, he still does not
have the right to waive the appeal without the
Page 42 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
knowledge and consent of his client [Abay v.
Montesino, A.C. No. 5718 (2003)].
The client should not, however, sit idly by. It is also his
duty to make proper inquiries from his counsel
concerning his case, in keeping with that standard of
care which an ordinarily prudent man bestows upon
his important business [Agpalo (2004)].
f.   Representation with Zeal
within Legal Bounds
CANON 19. A lawyer shall represent his client with
zeal within the bounds of the law.
A lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice; To that end, his client’s
success is wholly subordinate and his conduct ought
to and must always be unscrupulously observant of
law and ethics [Magsalang v. People, GR. 90083,
(1990)].
i.   Use of Fair and Honest Means
Rule 19.01. A lawyer shall employ only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his
client and shall not present, participate in
presenting or threaten to present unfounded
criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage
in any case or proceeding.
It is the duty of an attorney to employ, for the purpose
of maintaining the causes confided to him, such
means only as are consistent with truth and honor,
and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial
officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law
[Sec. 20(d), Rule 138, RoC].
A lawyer should not file or threaten to file any
unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against
the adversaries of his client designed to secure a
leverage to compel adversaries to yield or withdraw
their own cases against the lawyer’s client [Pena v.
Aparicio, A.C. No. No. 7298 (2007)].
ii.   Client’s Fraud
Rule 19.02. A lawyer who has received information
that his client has, in the course of the
representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person
or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to
rectify the same, and failing which he shall
terminate the relationship with such client in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
This rule merely requires the lawyer to terminate his
relationship with the client in the event the latter fails
or refuses to rectify the fraud. The lawyer may not
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

volunteer the information concerning the client’s the expenditure of time and energy, he is entitled to
commission of fraud to anyone, as it will violate his the protection of any judicial tribunal against any
obligation to maintain the client’s secrets undisclosed attempt of the part of the client to escape payment of
[Agpalo (2004)]. his fees [Albano v. Caloma, A.C. No. 528 (1967)].

iii.   Procedure in Handling a Case An attorney is entitled to have and recover from his
client no more than a reasonable compensation for his
Rule 19.03. A lawyer shall not allow his client to services with a view to:
dictate the procedure on handling the case. 1.   The importance of the subject matter of the
controversy;
Within counsel’s 2.   The extent of the services rendered; and
Within client’s control 3.   The professional standing of the attorney.
control
Substantial Aspect Procedural Aspect
No court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys as
All the proceedings in
expert witnesses as to the proper compensation but
court to enforce the
may disregard such testimony and base its conclusion
remedy, to bring the
on its own professional knowledge.
claim, demand, cause of
The cause of action, the
action, or subject matter A written contract for services shall control the
claim or demand sued
of the suit to hearing, amount to be paid therefore unless found by the court
upon, and the subject
trial, determination, to be unconscionable or unreasonable [Sec. 24, Rule
matter of the litigation
judgment, and 138, RoC].
are all within the
execution, are within the
exclusive control of a
exclusive control of the Subject to the availability of funds, the court may, in
client.
attorney [Belandres v. its discretion, order an attorney employed as counsel
Lopez Sugar Central de officio to be compensated in such a sum as the court
Mill, G.R. No. L-6869 may fix in accordance with Sec. 24, Rule 138, RoC [Sec.
(1955)]. 32, Rule 138, RoC].
An attorney may not impair, compromise, settle,
The mere fact that an agreement had been reached
surrender, or destroy rights without his client's
between attorney and client fixing the amount of the
consent. A lawyer has no implied authority to waive his
attorney’s fees, does not insulate such agreement
client’s right to appeal or to withdraw a pending
from review and modification by the Court where the
appeal.
fees clearly appear to be excessive or unreasonable
[Tanhueco v. De Dumo, A.M. No. 1437 (1989)].
If a lawyer believes that the appeal of his client is
frivolous, he cannot move to dismiss the appeal,
When a lawyer cannot recover the full amount
without the consent of his client. His remedy is to
stipulated in the contract
withdraw from the case People v Pagarao, GR.
1.   When the services were not performed, and if the
930026-27, (1991)].
lawyer withdrew before the case was finished, he
will be allowed only reasonable fees;
Presumption of Authority
2.   When there is justified dismissal of an attorney,
An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to
the contract will be nullified and payment will be
represent any cause in which he appears in all stages
on quantum meruit basis;
of the litigation and no written authority is required to
3.   When the stipulated fees are unconscionable or
authorize him to appear. A mere denial by a party that
unreasonable;
he has authorized an attorney to appear, in the
4.   When the stipulated fees are in excess of what is
absence of compelling reason, is insufficient to
expressly provided by law;
overcome the presumption especially when the denial
5.   When the lawyer is guilty of fraud or bad faith in
comes after an adverse judgment. [Agpalo (2004)].
the manner of his employment;
6.   When the counsel’s services are worthless
g.   Attorney’s fees because of negligence;
7.   When the contract is contrary to laws, morals, and
CANON 20. A lawyer shall charge only fair and good policies.
reasonable fees.
When there is no express contract
Any counsel worthy of his hire is entitled to be fully The absence of a formal contract will not negate the
recompensed for his services. With his capital payment of attorney’s fees because the contract may
consisting solely of his brains and with his skill, be express or implied. In the absence of an express
acquired at tremendous cost not only in money but in contract, payment of attorney’s fees may be justified

Page 43 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

by virtue of the innominate contract of facio ut des (I do Purpose: The rule is designed to secure the lawyer’s
and you give) which is based on the principle that “no fidelity to the client’s cause and to prevent that
one shall enrich himself at the expense of another” situation in which receipt by him of a rebate or
[Corpus v. CA, G.R. No. L-40424 (1980)]. commission from another in connection with the
client’s cause may interfere with the full discharge of
Rule 20.01. A lawyer shall be guided by the his duty to his client [Agpalo (2004)].
following factors in determining his fees:
a)   The time spent and the extent of the services It is the duty of an attorney to accept no compensation
rendered or required; in connection with his client’s business except from
b)   The novelty and difficulty of the questions him or with his knowledge and approval [Sec. 20(e),
involved; Rule 138, RoC].
c)   The importance of the subject matter;
d)   The skill demanded; A corollary of the foregoing rule is the principle that
e)   The probability of losing other employment as whatever a lawyer receives from the opposite party in
a result of acceptance of the proffered case; the service of his client belongs to the client. A lawyer
f)   The customary charges for similar services and may not claim the fees in the concept of damages
the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which awarded by the court in favor the client, the latter and
he belongs; not the former being entitled thereto, except when he
g)   The amount involved in the controversy and the and his client have agreed that whatever amount the
benefits resulting to the client from the service; court may award as attorney's fees would form part of
h)   The contingency or certainty of compensation; the lawyer's compensation [Agpalo (2004)].
i)   The character of the employment, whether
occasional or established; and i.   Acceptance Fees
j)   The professional standing of the lawyer.
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an
Manners by which attorneys may be paid attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the
•   A fixed or absolute fee which is payable regardless duty of fidelity to the client’s cause [Emiliano Court
of the result of the case; Townhouses Homeowners Association v. Dioneda, A.C.
•   A contingent fee that is conditioned upon the No. No. 5162 (2003)].
securing of a favorable judgment and recovery of
money or property and the amount of which may Failure to render the legal services agreed upon,
be on a percentage basis; despite receipt of an acceptance fee, is a clear
violation of the CPR [Macarulay v. Seriña, A.C. No. No.
•   A fixed fee payable per appearance;
6591 (2005)].
•   A fixed fee computed by the number of hours
spent;
ii.   Contingency Fee Arrangements
•   A fixed fee based on a piece of work;
•   A combination of any of the above stipulated fees. Champertous Contract Contingent Contract
A contingent contract
Rule 20.02. A lawyer shall, in cases of referral, with is an agreement in
the consent of the client, be entitled to a division of A champertous contract which the lawyer’s fee,
fees in proportion to work performed and is one where the lawyer usually a fixed
responsibility assumed. stipulates with his client percentage of what
that he will bear all the may be recovered in
The referral of a client by a lawyer to another lawyer expenses for the the action, is made to
does not entitle the former to a commission or to a prosecution of the case, depend upon the
portion of the attorney’s fees. It is only when, in the recovery of things or success in the effort to
addition to the referral, he performs legal service or property being claimed, enforce or defend the
assumes responsibility in the case that he will be and the latter pays only client’s right. The
entitled to a fee [Agpalo (2004)]. upon successful lawyer does not
litigation. undertake to shoulder
Rule 20.03. A lawyer shall not, without the full the expenses of
knowledge and consent of the client, accept any litigation.
fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or This contract is void for
forwarding allowance or other compensation being against public It is a valid agreement.
whatsoever related to his professional employment policy
from anyone other than the client.
Contingent fee contracts are subject to the supervision
and close scrutiny of the court in order that clients may

Page 44 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

be protected from unjust charges. A much higher Basis

compensation is allowed as contingent fees because
of the risk that the lawyer may get nothing if the suit Lawful possession of Securing of a favorable
fails [Masmud v. NLRC, G.R. No. 183385 (2009)]. funds, papers, money judgment for
documents, property client
iii.   Attorney’s Liens belonging to client
Coverage
RETAINING LIEN Covers only funds, Covers all judgments
An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds, papers, documents, for the payment of
documents and papers of his client which have and property in the money and executions
lawfully come into his possession. Thus: lawful possession of the issued in pursuance of
1.   He may retain the same until his lawful fees and attorney by reason of such judgment
disbursements have been paid; his professional
2.   May apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof. employment
[Sec. 37, Rule 138, RoC]
Effectivity
Requisites: As soon as the lawyer As soon as the claim for
1.   Attorney-client relationship; gets possession of the attorney’s fees had
2.   Lawful possession by lawyer of the client’s funds, funds, papers, been entered into the
documents and papers in his professional documents, property records of the case
capacity; and
3.   Unsatisfied claim for attorney’s fees or Applicability
disbursements. May be exercised before Generally, it is
judgment or execution, exercisable only when
CHARGING LIEN or regardless thereof the attorney had
He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon all already secured a
judgments for the payment of money, and executions favorable judgment for
issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has his client
secured in a litigation of his client. This lien exists from
and after the time when he shall have caused: Notice
1.   A statement of his claim of such lien to be entered Client need not be Client and adverse
upon the records of the court rendering such notified to make it party need to notified to
judgment, or issuing such execution; and effective make it effective
2.   Written notice thereof to be delivered to his client
and to the adverse party.
iv.   Fees and Controversies with Clients
From then on, he shall have the same right and power
over such judgments and executions as his client (Quantum Meruit)
would have to enforce his lien and secure the payment
of his just fees and disbursements [Sec. 37, Rule 138, Rule 20.04. A lawyer shall avoid controversies with
RoC]. clients concerning his compensation and shall
resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition,
Requisites: injustice or fraud.
1.   Attorney-client relationship;
2.   The attorney has rendered services; A lawyer should avoid controversies with clients
3.   A money judgment favorable to the client has concerning compensation so far as shall be
been secured in the action; and compatible with self-respect and with his right to
4.   The attorney has a claim for attorney’s fees or receive a reasonable recompense for his services, and
advances statement of his claim has been he should resort to law suits with clients only to
recorded in the case with notice served upon the prevent injustice, imposition or fraud. Lawyers thus
client and adverse party. seldom, if ever, file judicial actions for the recovery of
their fees unless righteous and well founded and
unless forced by the client's intolerable attitude
Retaining lien Charging lien because such lawsuits cannot fail to create the
impression, however, wrong it may be, that those
Nature instituting them are mercenaries [Agpalo (2004)].
Passive lien. It cannot Active lien. It can be
be actively enforced. It enforced by execution.
is a general lien. It is a special lien.

Page 45 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Judicial actions to recover attorney’s fees:

1.   An appropriate motion or petition as an incident A determination of all these factors would
in the main action where he rendered legal indispensably require nothing less than a full-blown
services; trial where private respondent can adduce evidence to
2.   A separate civil action for collection of attorney’s establish its right to lawful attorney's fees and for
fees. petitioner to oppose or refute the same [Metrobank v.
CA, G.R. No. 86100 (1990)].
QUANTUM MERUIT: “as much as a lawyer deserves.”
Essential requisite: Acceptance of the benefits by one The above rules apply in the case of a counsel de parte.
sought to be charged for services rendered under A counsel de officio may not demand from the accused
circumstances as reasonably to notify him that lawyer attorney’s fees even if he wins the case. However,
expects compensation. subject to availability of funds, the court may, in its
discretion, order an attorney employed as counsel de
When authorized: officio to be compensated in such sum as the court
1.   The agreement as to counsel fees is invalid for may fix.
some reason other than the illegality of the object
of performance; v.   Concepts of Attorney’s Fees
2.   There is no express contract for attorney’s fees
agreed upon between the lawyer and the client; Ordinary concept Extraordinary concept
3.   When although there is a formal contract of An attorney’s fee is an
attorney’s fees, the stipulated fees are found indemnity for damages
unconscionable or unreasonable by the court; ordered by the court to
4.   When the contract for attorney’s fees is void due be paid by the losing
to purely formal matters or defects of execution; party to the prevailing
5.   When the counsel, for justifiable cause, was not An attorney’s fee is the
party in litigation. The
able to finish the case to its conclusion; reasonable
basis of this is any of
6.   When lawyer and client disregard the contract of compensation paid to a
the cases authorized by
attorney’s fees; lawyer for the legal
law and is payable not
7.   When there is a contract, but no stipulation as to services he has
to the lawyer but to the
attorney’s fees. rendered to a client. Its
client – unless they
basis of this
have agreed that the
Quantum Meruit Guidelines compensation is the
award shall pertain to
1.   Time spent and extent of the services rendered. A fact of employment by
the lawyer as additional
lawyer is justified in fixing higher fees when the the client.
compensation or as
case is so complicated and requires more time part thereof [Traders
and efforts to finish it. Royal Bank Employees
2.   Nature and importance of subject matter. The Union-Independent v.
more important the subject matter or the bigger NLRC, G.R. No. 120592
value of the interest or property in litigation, the (1997)].
higher is the attorney’s fee.
3.   Novelty and difficulty of questions involved. When
the questions in a case are novel and difficult, h.   Preservation of Client’s
greater efforts, deeper study, and research are Confidences
bound to burn the lawyer’s time and stamina
considering that there are no local precedents to CANON 21. A lawyer shall preserve the confidence
rely upon. and secrets of his client even after the attorney-
4.   Skill demanded of the lawyer. The totality of the client relation is terminated.
lawyer’s experience provides him the skill and
competence admired in lawyers.
Purposes
5.   Loss of opportunity for other employment on the
part of the lawyer who accepts the retainer. It is •   Unless the client knows that his attorney cannot
only but fair that a client should compensate his be compelled to reveal what is told to him, he will
lawyer for being deprived of the chance to earn suppress what he thinks to be unfavorable and
legal fees from others by reason of his the advice which follows will be useless if not
employment as his counsel. misleading
6.   Results secured. The importance to a client of his •   To encourage a client to make full disclosure to
lawyer’s services depends upon the successful his attorney and to place unrestricted confidence
outcome of his litigation. in him in matters affecting his rights or
7.   Whether the fee is contingent. obligations [Agpalo (2004)].
8.   Capacity of client to pay.

Page 46 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
It is the duty of an attorney to maintain inviolate the
confidence, and at every peril to himself to preserve,
the secrets of his client and to accept no compensation
in connection with his client’s business except from
him or with his knowledge and approval [Sec. 20(e),
Rule 138, RoC].
Imposition of Criminal Liability
1.   Upon any lawyer who, by any malicious breach of
professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or
ignorance, reveals any of the secrets of the latter
learned by him in his professional capacity.
2.   Upon a lawyer who, having undertaken the
defense of a client or having received confidential
information from said client in a case, undertakes
the defense of the opposing party in the same
case, without the consent of his first client. [Art.
209, RPC]
The protection given to the client is perpetual and
does not cease with the termination of the litigation,
nor is it affected by the party’s ceasing to employ the
attorney and retaining another, or by any other change
of relation between them. It even survives the death of
the client [Genato v. Silapan, supra.].
i.   Prohibited Disclosures and Use
Rule 21.02. A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage
of his client, use information acquired in the course
of employment, nor shall he use the same to his
own advantage or that of a third person, unless the
client with full knowledge of the circumstances
consents thereto.
Rule 21.03. A lawyer shall not, without the written
consent of his client, give information from his files
to an outside agency seeking such information for
auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data
processing, or any similar purpose.
The work and product of a lawyer, such as his effort,
research, and thought, and the records of his client,
contained in his files are privileged matters. Neither
the lawyer nor, after his death, his heir or legal
representative may properly disclose the contents of
such file cabinet without client’s consent [Agpalo
(2004)].
Rule 21.05. A lawyer shall adopt such measures as
may be required to prevent those whose services
are utilized by him from disclosing or using
confidences or secrets of the client.
The client’s secrets which clerical aids of lawyers learn
of, in the performance of their services are covered by
privileged communication. It is the duty of lawyer to
ensure that this is being followed (e.g., execution of
confidentiality agreements) [Agpalo (2004)].
Page 47 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Rule 21.06. A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet
conversation about a client’s affairs even with
members of his family.
A lawyer must also preserve the confidences and
secrets of his clients outside the law office, including
his home. He should avoid committing calculated
indiscretion, that is, accidental revelation of secrets
obtained in his professional employment [Agpalo
(2004)].
Rule 21.07. A lawyer shall not reveal that he has
been consulted about a particular case except to
avoid possible conflict of interest.
See also Rules 15.01 and 14.03
The privileged communication rule applies even to
prospective clients
The disclosure and the lawyer’s opinion thereon create
an attorney-client relationship, even though the
lawyer does not eventually accept the employment or
the prospective client did not thereafter actually
engage the lawyer. By the consultation, the lawyer
already learned of the secrets of prospective client.
This rule, of course, is subject to exception of
representation of conflicting interests [Agpalo
(2004)].
ii.   Disclosure, When Allowed
Rule 21.01. A lawyer shall not reveal the
confidences or secrets of his client except:
a)   When authorized by the client after
acquainting him of the consequences of the
disclosure;
b)   When required by law;
c)   When necessary to collect his fees or to defend
himself, his employees or associates or by
judicial action.
Rule 21.01(a) refers to a waiver by the client. Since the
attorney-client privilege against disclosure of the
client's confidence is intended primarily for the client's
protection, only the client as a rule can waive the
privilege.
Rule 21.01 (b) and (c) are for the protection of the
attorney’s rights. The privileged relation cannot be
used as a shield against wrongdoing nor can it be
employed as an excuse to deny a lawyer the right to
protect himself against abuse by the client or false
charges by third persons [Agpalo (2004)].
Rule 21.04. A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a
client of the firm to partners or associates thereof
unless prohibited by the client.
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
The professional employment of a law firm is
equivalent to the retainer of the members thereof even
though only one of them is consulted; conversely, the
employment of one member of a law firm is generally
considered as employment of the law firm [Agpalo
(2004)].
i.   Withdrawal of services
CANON 22. A lawyer shall withdraw his services
only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in
the circumstances.
An attorney-client relationship may be terminated by
the client, the lawyer, or by the court for reasons
beyond the parties’ control. The termination entails
certain duties on the part of the client and his lawyer.
[Agpalo (2004)].
Causes of termination of attorney-client
relationship
1.   Withdrawal of the lawyer
2.   Death of the lawyer
3.   Disbarment or suspension of the lawyer from the
practice of law;
4.   Declaration of presumptive death of the lawyer;
5.   Conviction of a crime and imprisonment of the
lawyer;
6.   Discharge or dismissal of the lawyer by the client;
7.   Appointment or election of a lawyer to a
government position which prohibits private
practice of law;
8.   Death of the client;
9.   Intervening incapacity or incompetence of the
client during pendency of case;
10.   Full termination of the case.
General rule: The client has the right to discharge his
attorney at any time with or without just cause or even
against his consent.
Exceptions:
1.   The client cannot deprive his counsel of right to be
paid services if the dismissal is without cause.
2.   The client cannot discharge his counsel as an
excuse to secure repeated extensions of time.
3.   Notice of discharge is required for both the court
and the adverse party [Agpalo (2004)].
A client may at any time dismiss his attorney or
substitute another in his place, but if the contract
between the client and the attorney has been reduced
to writing and the dismissal was without justifiable
cause, he shall be entitled to recover from the client
the full compensation stipulated in the contract [Sec.
26, Rule 138, RoC].
Page 48 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Rule 22.01. A lawyer may withdraw his services in
any of the following cases:
a)   When the client pursues an illegal or immoral
course of conduct in connection with the
matter he is handling;
b)   When the client insists that the lawyer pursue
conduct violative of these canons and rules;
c)   When his inability to work with co-counsel will
not promote the best interest of the client;
d)   When the mental or physical condition of the
lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out
the employment effectively;
e)   When the client deliberately fails to pay the
fees for the services or fails to comply with the
retainer agreement;
f)   When the lawyer is elected or appointed to
public office; and
g)   Other similar cases.
A lawyer may retire at any time from any action or
special proceeding:
•   With the written consent of his client filed in court
and copy thereof served upon the adverse party;
or
•   Without the consent of his client, should the court,
on notice to the client and attorney, and on
hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to
retire [Sec. 26, Rule 138, RoC].
General rule: The withdrawal in writing, with the
client’s conformity, does not require the approval of
the court to be effective.
Exception: If no new counsel has entered his
appearance, the court may, in order to prevent a denial
of a party’s right to the assistance of counsel require
that the lawyer’s withdrawal be held in abeyance until
another lawyer shall have appeared for the party [Villasis
v. CA, G.R. No. L-34369 (1974)].
Although a lawyer may withdraw his services when the
client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services,
withdrawal is unjustified if client did not deliberately
fail to pay [Montano v. IBP, A.C. No. No. 4215 (2001)].
Rule 22.02. A lawyer who withdraws or is
discharged shall, subject to a retaining lien,
immediately turn over all papers and property to
which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate
with his successor in the orderly transfer of the
matter, including all information necessary for the
proper handling of the matter.
Requirements of a valid substitution of counsel
1.   The filing of a written application for substitution
2.   The client’s written consent
3.   The written consent of the attorney to be
substituted.
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

If the above written consent cannot be secured, a proof

of service of notice of such motion on the attorney to  Suspension, Disbarment,
be substituted [Agpalo (2004)].
Discipline of Lawyers
At the discretion of the court, a lawyer, who has been
dismissed by a client, is allowed to intervene in a case Rule 139-B as amended by B.M. No. 1645
in order to protect the client’s rights [Obando v.
Figueras, G.R. No. 134854 (2000)]. 1.   Nature and Characteristics
The offensive attitude of a client is not an excuse to of Disciplinary Actions
just disappear and withdraw from a case without against Lawyers
notice to the court and to the client, especially when
attorney’s fees have already been paid [Chang v.
Hidalgo, A.C. No. 6934 (2016)]. a.   Sui Generis
Disciplinary proceedings are sui generis, i.e. they
belong to a class of their own.

They are neither purely civil nor purely criminal; they

do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather
an investigation by the Court into the conduct of its
officers.

It is not meant to grant relief to a complainant but is

intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession
of its undesirable members in order to protect the
public and the courts [Tiong v Florendo, AC 4428,
(2011)].

They may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. The

Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to
account for his actuations as an officer of the Court
with the end in view of preserving the purity of the
legal profession and the proper and honest
administration of justice in the exercise of its
disciplinary powers.

Public interest is the primary objective, and the real

question for determination is whether or not the
attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges
as such [In Re: Almacen supra.; Itong v. Florendo, A.C.
No. 4428 (2011)].

Any interested person or the court motu proprio may

initiate disciplinary proceedings. The right to institute
disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor
is it necessary that the person complaining suffered
injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment
proceedings are matters of public interest and the only
basis for the judgment is the proof or failure of proof
of the charges [Figueras v. Jimenezsupra.].

b.   Prescription
In Frias v. Bautista-Lozada, A.C. No. 6656 (2006), the
Supreme Court, citing Calo v. Degamo, A.C. No. 516
(1967) and Heck v. Santos, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657
(2004), declared that the defense of prescription does
not lie in administrative proceedings against lawyers

Page 49 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
for an administrative complaint against a member of
the bar does not prescribe.
Thus, Sec. 1, Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of the
Commission on Bar Discipline, which provided for a
prescription period of 2 years from the date of the
professional misconduct, was struck down for being
ultra vires.
However, in Isenhardt v. Real, A.C. No. 8254 (2012),
the Supreme Court ruled that “the rule [Sec. 1, Rule
VIII, Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar
Discipline] should be construed to mean two years
from the date of discovery of the professional
misconduct.”
OTHER CHARACTERISTICS
1.   Investigation is not interrupted or terminated by
reason of the desistance, settlement,
compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the
charges, or failure of the complainant to
prosecute the same [par. 2, Sec. 5, Rule 139-B,
RoC].
The fact that the complainant manifested that he
is no longer interested to pursue, after settling
with the respondent-lawyer would not render the
case moot. The withdrawal of the complaints
cannot divest the Court of its jurisdiction to
determine the veracity of the charges and to
discipline an erring respondent [Chan v. Olegario,
AM P-09-2714, (2010)]
2.   Proceedings against attorneys shall be private
and confidential. However, the final order of the
Supreme Court shall be published like its
decisions in other cases. [Sec. 18, Rule 139-B, RoC]
•   Purposes:
o   To enable the Court to make its
investigations free from any extraneous
influence or interference;
o   To protect the personal and professional
reputation of attorneys and judges from
the baseless charges of disgruntled,
vindictive, and irresponsible clients and
litigants;
o   To deter the press from publishing
administrative cases or portions thereof
without authority [Saludo, Jr. v. CA, G.R.
No. 121404 (2006)].
•   Malicious and unauthorized publication or
verbatim reproduction of administrative
complaints and their premature publication
constitutes contempt of court. [Saludo, Jr. v.
CA, supra].
•   This is a privilege/right which may be waived
by the very lawyer in whom and for the
protection of whose personal and
professional reputation it is vested, pursuant
Page 50 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
to the general principle that rights may be
waived unless the waiver is contrary to public
policy, among others” [Villalon v. IAC, G.R.
No. 73751 (1986)].
3.   Laws dealing with double jeopardy, in pari delicto,
prescription or with procedure such as verification
of pleadings and prejudicial questions have no
application to disbarment proceedings [Pimentel,
Jr. v. Llorente, A.C. No. 4680 (2000)].
4.   Because the proceedings are distinct from and
proceed independently of civil or criminal cases,
whatever has been decided in the disbarment
case cannot be a source of right that may be
enforced in another action. At best, such
judgment may only be given weight when
introduced as evidence, but in no case does it bind
the court in the civil action [Esquivias v. CA, G.R.
No. 119714 (1997)].
5.   The disbarment proceeding does not violate the
due process clause. The proceeding itself, when
instituted in proper cases, is due process of law [In
Re: Montagne, G.R. No. 1107 (1904)].
6.   The rule in criminal cases that the penalty cannot
be imposed in the alternative applies in
administrative disciplinary cases, which also
involve punitive sanctions [Navarro v. Meneses III,
CBD A.C. No. 313 (1998)].
7.   Monetary claims cannot be granted except
restitution and return of monies and properties of
the client given in the course of the lawyer-client
relationship
2.  G rounds
Sec. 27, Rule 138. Attorneys removed or suspended
by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member
of the bar may be removed or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason
of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he
is required to take before the admission to practice,
or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing
as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at
law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.
Broadly speaking, the grounds for discipline of a
lawyer consist of those acts of misconduct committed
before and after his admission to the practice [Agpalo
(2004)].
Grounds for disbarment or suspension
a.   Deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in
office
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
•   Deceit is false representation of a matter of
fact whether by words or conduct, by false or
misleading allegations, or by concealment of
that which should have been disclosed which
deceives or is intended to deceive another so
that he shall act upon it to his legal injury
[Alcantara v. CA, G.R. No. 147259 (2003)].
•   Malpractice ordinarily refers to any
malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed
by a lawyer. It consists of a failure of an
attorney to use such skill, prudence and
diligence as lawyers of ordinary skill and
capacity commonly possess and exercise in
the performance of tasks which they
undertake, and when such failure
proximately causes damage, it gives rise to an
action in tort [Tan Tek Beng v. David, A.C. No.
1261 (1983)].
b.   Grossly immoral conduct
c.   Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
•   There must be a conviction. The mere
existence of criminal charges cannot be a
ground for suspension or disbarment
[Agpalo, 2004]
d.   Any violation of the lawyer’s oath
e.   Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court
f.   Corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney
without authority so to do
Other statutory grounds
a.   Purchase by a lawyer of his client’s property in
litigation [Art. 1491, NCC; Bautista v. Gonzales,
A.M. No. 1625 (1990)].
b.   Administrative and criminal sanctions may be
imposed upon any attorney-at-law or solicitor
who:
1.   By malicious breach of professional duty or of
inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall
prejudice his client, or reveal any of the
secrets of the latter learned by him in his
professional capacity [Art. 208, RPC];
2.   Having undertaken the defense of a client or
having received confidential information
from said client in a case, shall undertake the
defense of the opposing party in the same
case, without the consent of his first client
[Art. 209, RPC]
The grounds are not exclusive. The enumeration is
not to be taken as a limitation to the general power of
courts to suspend or disbar a lawyer. The inherent
powers of the court over its officers cannot be
restricted [Quingwa v. Puno, A.C. No. 389 (1967)]. A
lawyer may be removed from office or suspended from
the practice of law by the Court on grounds not found
in the statute as when their acts are contrary to
honesty or good morals, or do not approximate the
highest degree of morality and integrity expected of
Page 51 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
members of the bar [Sta. Maria v. Tuazon, AC 396,
(1964)].
Misconduct in private capacity
General rule: The Court will not assume jurisdiction to
discipline one of its members for misconduct alleged
to be committed in his private capacity
Exception: An attorney will be removed not only for
malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also
for gross misconduct not connected with his
professional duties, which show him to be unfit for the
office and unworthy of the privileges which his license
and the law confer upon him [Piatt v Abordo, supra.].
Misconduct before admission to the bar
A lawyer may be disbarred from misrepresentation or
false pretense relative to the requirements for
admission to practice. The fact that he lacked any of
the qualifications for membership at the time he took
his oath, is a ground for his disbarment [In Re: Diao,
A.C. No. 244, (1963)].
3.  Proceedings
Institution by any of the following:
1.   The Supreme Court, motu propio
2.   The IBP Board of Governors, motu propio, or
upon referral by a) the Supreme Court, b)
Chapter Board of Officers, or c) at the instance
of any person
3.   Upon verified complaint by any person
¯
6 copies of the verified complaint shall be filed with
the Secretary of the IBP or Secretary of any of its
chapter and shall be forwarded to the IBP Board of
Governors.
The complaint must allege specific acts which
constitute particular breaches of the law, the CPR,
or ethics. Otherwise, the complaint must fail.
¯
Investigation by the National Grievance
Investigators within 3 months.
The respondent has the opportunity to defend
himself, but if he fails to appears, the investigation
will proceed ex parte.
¯
Submission of investigative report to the IBP Board
of Governors.
¯
The IBP Board of Governors reviews and decides
within 30 days.
The Board then transmits its decision to the
Supreme Court within 10 days from resolution.
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
¯
The Supreme Court reviews the decision of the IBP
Board of Governors and renders the final decision
for disbarment/suspension/dismissal.
All charges against the following shall be filed with
the Supreme Court:
a.   Justices of the Court of Appeals;
b.   Justices of the Sandiganbayan;
c.   Judges of the Court of Tax Appeals; and
d.   Judges of lower courts [Sec. 1 (2), Rule 139-B,
RoC].
Charges filed against justices and judges before the
IBP shall immediately be forwarded to the Supreme
Court for disposition and adjudication, including those
filed prior to their appointment in the Judiciary [Sec. 1
(2), Rule 139-B].
The inherent power to discipline members of the bar
belong to the Supreme Court, not the IBP. The
power to disbar a lawyer is exclusive to it. Thus, no
decision of the IBP is final. Such decisions are
automatically elevated to the Court for review
[Maronilla v.Jorda, AC 6973, (2007)].
The oral instruction to return the P80,000 given to
respondent in the IBP’s August 18, 2004 hearing was
not a juridically binding order. The competence of the
IBP is only recommendatory. Under Article VIll,
Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution, only this Court
has the power to actually rule on disciplinary cases of
lawyers, and to impose appropriate penalties. Rule
139-B merely delegates investigatory functions to the
IBP. With the exercise of its delegated investigatory
power, the IBP refers proposed actions to this Court.
Recognizing its limited competence in disciplinary
cases impels a concomitant recognition that, pending
favorable action by this Court on its recommendations,
its determinations and conclusions are only
provisional. Therefore, rulings on disciplinary cases
attain finality and are enforceable only upon this
Court's own determination that they must be imposed
[Anita Santos Murray v. Atty. Felicito J. Cervantes, A.C.
No. 5408 (2017)]
Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur
Where the facts of record sufficiently provide basis for
the determination of administrative liability, he may
be disciplined by the Supreme Court without further
investigation. A trial-type hearing is not necessary, the
respondent having been fully heard in his pleadings
[Agpalo, 2004].
In BAR MATTER N0. 1645 (RE: AMENDMENT OF
RULE 139-B, dated October 13, 2015, the Supreme
Court issued new rules governing administrative
disciplinary cases against lawyers:
Page 52 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
•   Investigation by the Solicitor General is no longer
required.
•   Only the Supreme Court can dismiss cases
against lawyers; it cannot be delegated to the IBP.
Thus, the provision in Rule 139-B that the Board
of Governors can dismiss cases has been
repealed.
•   The motive of the complainant and his/her
in/action after the filing of the verified complaint
is not essential to the proceedings.
4.  D iscipline of Filipino
Lawyers Practicing Abroad
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the
Philippine Bar by a competent court or other
disciplinary agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he
has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for
his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such
action includes any of the acts enumerated as grounds
in Rule 138 [In re: Maquera, B.M. No. 793 (2004)].
A foreign court’s judgment ordering the suspension of
a Filipino lawyer in that foreign country does not
automatically result in his suspension or disbarment
in the Philippines. The judgment, resolution or order
of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be
prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or
suspension. Due process demands that he be given
the opportunity to defend himself and present
testimonial or documentary evidence on the matter, in
an investigation conducted in accordance with Rule
139-B. [In re: Maquera, supra)].
5.  D iscipline of Lawyers in
Government
Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus
General rule: 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.
Exception: If that misconduct as a government official
is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a
lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be
disciplined as a member of the bar on such ground.
Considering that both respondents are public officers
being charged for actions, which are allegedly unfair
and discriminatory, involving their official functions
during their tenure, the present case should be
resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman as the
appropriate government agency. Indeed, the IBP has
no jurisdiction over government lawyers who are
charged with administrative offenses involving their
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
official duties. For such acts, government lawyers fall
under the disciplinary authority of either their superior
or the Ombudsman. Moreover, an anomalous
situation will arise if the IBP asserts jurisdiction and
decides against a government lawyer, while the
disciplinary authority finds in favor of the government
lawyer [Spouses Buffe vs. Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez,
et al., A.C. No. 8168, 2016)].
6.  P resumption of Innocence,
Burden of Proof, Quantum
of Proof
Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus
The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension
proceedings always rests on the shoulders of the
complainant. The Court exercises its disciplinary
power only if the complainant establishes that
imposition of the harsh penalty is warranted. As a rule,
an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is
innocent of the charges made against him until the
contrary is proved. An attorney is further presumed as
an officer of the Court to have performed his duties in
accordance with his oath [Joven and Reynaldo C.
Rasing v. Cruz and Magsalin, A.C. No. 7686 (2013)].
The proof required is Substantial Evidence.
The evidentiary threshold of substantial evidence as
opposed to preponderance of evidence is more in
keeping with the primordial purpose of and essential
considerations attending this type of cases. As case
law elucidates, disciplinary proceedings against
lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely
criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a
suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the
conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to
inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal
prosecution [Reyes v. Nieva, A.C. No. 8560 (2016)]
7.  Disciplinary Measures
Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus
a.   Warning, an act or fact of putting one on his guard
against an impending danger, evil consequences
or penalties.
b.   Admonition, a gentle or friendly reproof, mild
rebuke, warning or reminder, counseling, on a
fault, error or oversight; an expression of
authoritative advice.
c.   Reprimand, a public and formal censure or severe
reproof, administered to a person in fault by his
superior officer or a body to which he be-longs. It
is imposed on a minor infraction of the lawyer’s
duty to the court or client
Page 53 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
d.   Suspension, a temporary withholding of a
lawyer’s right to practice his profession as a
lawyer for:
1.   A definite period; or
2.   An indefinite period, which amounts to
qualified disbarment, in which case, lawyer
determines for himself for how long or how
short his suspension shall last by proving to
court that he is once again fit to resume
practice of law.
e.   Censure, an official reprimand.
f.   Disbarment, the act of the Philippine Supreme
Court in withdrawing from an attorney the
privilege to practice law and striking out the name
of the lawyer from the roll of attorneys.
g.   Interim suspension, the temporary suspension of
a lawyer from the practice of law pending
imposition of final discipline. It includes:
1.   Suspension upon conviction of a serious
crime.
2.   Suspension when the lawyer’s continuing
conduct is likely to cause immediate and
serious injury to a client or public.
h.   Probation, a sanction that allows a lawyer to
practice law under specified conditions.
Other sanctions and remedies
a.   Restitution
b.   Assessment of costs
c.   Limitation upon practice
d.   Appointment of a receiver
e.   Requirement that a lawyer take the bar
examination or professional responsibility
examination
f.   Requirement that a lawyer attend continuing
education courses
g.   Other requirements that the Supreme Court or
disciplinary board deems consistent with the
purposes of sanctions.
8.  M itigating and
Aggravating
Circumstances
Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus
Mitigating Circumstances
a.   Absence of a prior disciplinary record
b.   Absence of a dishonest or selfish motive
c.   Personal or emotional problems
d.   Timely good faith effort to make restitution or to
rectify consequences of misconduct
e.   Full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or
cooperative attitude toward proceedings
f.   Inexperience in the practice of law
g.   Character or reputation
h.   Physical or mental disability or impairment;
i.   Delay in disciplinary proceedings
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

j.   Interim rehabilitation Conditional pardon: disbarment case will not be

k.   Imposition of other penalties or sanctions dismissed on such basis
l.   Remorse
m.   Remoteness of prior offenses Absolute pardon granted before conviction:
n.   Others: disbarment case will be dismissed
1.   Good Faith
2.   Want of intention to commit a wrong Absolute pardon granted before conviction: No
3.   Lack of material damage to the complaining automatic reinstatement to the bar. It must be shown
witness by evidence aside from absolute pardon that he is now
4.   Desistance of complainant a person of good moral character and fit and proper
5.   Error in judgment person to practice law.
6.   Honest and efficient service in various
government positions
7.   Ready admission of the infraction coupled
10.   Effect of Compromise
with explanation and plea for forgiveness Agreements
8.   Clean record of professional service in the
past Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus
9.   Rendered professional services out of pure
generosity General rule: The compromise agreement between the
10.   Punished in another capacity for a complainant and the lawyer, or the fact that the
misconduct for which he now faces a complainant already forgave the latter, does not
disbarment proceeding necessarily warrant the dismissal of the administrative
11.   Old Age & long membership (BUT this may case [Tiama v. Ocampo, A.C. No. 2285, (1991)].
also be an aggravation depending on the
circumstance) Exception: When as a consequence of the withdrawal
or desistance, no evidence is adduced to prove the
Aggravating Circumstances charges [Banaag v. Salindong, A.C. No. 1563 (1984)].
a.   Prior disciplinary offenses
b.   Dishonest or selfish motive
c.   A pattern of misconduct
d.   Multiple offenses;
e.   Bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary
proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with
rules or orders of the disciplinary agency;
f.   Submission of false evidence, false statements, or
other deceptive practices during the disciplinary
process;
g.   Refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of
conduct;
h.   Vulnerability of victim;
i.   Substantial experience in the practice of law
j.   Indifference to making restitution
k.   Others:
1.   Abuse of authority or of attorney-client
relationship
2.   Sexual intercourse with a relative
3.   Making the institution of marriage a mockery
4.   Charge of gross immorality
5.   Previous punishment as member of the bar
6.   Defraud upon the government
7.   Use of knowledge or information, acquired in
the course of a previous professional
employment, against a former client

9.  E ffect of Executive Pardon

Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus

Page 54 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
 Readmission to the Bar
The Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to
reinstate a disbarred or indefinitely suspended lawyer,
stemming from its constitutional prerogative to issue
rules and regulations concerning admission to the
practice of law [Agpalo, 2004].
1.   Lawyers Who Have Been
Suspended
Guidelines in the lifting an order of suspension
a.   Upon expiration of the period of suspension,
respondent shall file a sworn statement with the
court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant,
stating therein that he or she has desisted from
the practice of law and has not appeared in any
court during the period of his or her suspension;
b.   Copies of the sworn statement furnished to the
local chapter of the IBP and to the executive judge
of the courts where the respondent has pending
cases handled by him or her, and/or where he or
she has appeared as counsel;
c.   The sworn statement shall be considered as proof
of respondent’s compliance with the order of
suspension
d.   Any finding or report contrary to the statements
made by the lawyer under oath shall be a ground
for the imposition of a more severe punishment or
disbarment, as may be warranted [Maniago v. De
Dios, A.C. No. 7472 (2010)].
2.  L awyers Who Have Been
Disbarred
Considerations for Reinstatement
•   The applicant’s character and standing prior to
disbarment
•   The nature or character of the misconduct for
which he is disbarred
•   His conduct subsequent to disbarment [Cui v. Cui,
G.R. No. L-18727 (1964)]
•   His efficient government service [In re: Adriatico,
G.R. No. L-2532 (1910)];
•   The time that has elapsed between disbarment
and the application for reinstatement and the
circumstances that he has been sufficiently
punished and disciplined [Prudential Bank v.
Benjamin Grecia, A.C. No. 2756 (1986)]
•   Applicant’s appreciation of significance of his
dereliction and his assurance that he now
possesses the requisite probity and integrity
•   Favorable endorsement of the IBP and local
government officials and citizens of his
community, pleas of his loved ones [Yap Tan v.
Sabandal, B.M. No. 44 (1989)]
Page 55 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
The sole objective is to determine whether or not the
applicant has satisfied and convinced the court by
positive evidence that the effort he has made toward
the rehabilitation of his character has been successful
[In re: Rusuina, A.C. No. 270 (1974)].
The quantum of evidence necessary for reinstatement
is the same as that for admission to the bar, except
that the court, when circumstances so warrant, may
require an applicant to present additional proof of his
qualifications [Cui v. Cui, supra.].
The Supreme Court may also require special
conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant, in addition
to the required rehabilitation, including enrolling in
and passing the required fourth year review classes in
a recognized law school [Agpalo, 2004].
Prior to actual reinstatement, the applicant will be
required to take anew the lawyer’s oath and sign once
again the roll of attorneys after paying the requisite
fees [Funa].
Guidelines in resolving requests for judicial
clemency of disbarred lawyers
a.   There must be proof of remorse and reformation.
These include testimonials of credible institutions
and personalities;
b.   Sufficient time must have lapsed from the
imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of
reformation;
c.   The age of the person asking for clemency must
show that he still has productive years ahead of
him that can be put to good use by giving him a
chance to redeem himself;
d.   There must be a showing of promise (e.g.,
intellectual aptitude, contribution to legal
scholarship), and potential for public service;
e.   Other relevant factors to justify clemency [Re:
Letter of Judge Diaz, A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC (2007)].
Effect of Reinstatement
a.   Lawyer must comply with the conditions imposed
upon readmission
b.   The lawyer’s moral rehabilitation and mental
fitness to practice law is recognized
c.   The lawyer shall be subject to the same law, rules
and regulations as those applicable to any other
lawyer
3.  Lawyers who have been
Repatriated
Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus
Lawyers who reacquire their Philippine citizenship
should apply to the Supreme Court for license or
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

permit to practice their profession [Sec. 5(4), R.A. No.

9225].  Mandatory Continuing
See also Reacquisition of the Privilege to Practice
Legal Education (MCLE)
Law in the Philippines under R.A. No. 9225 or the
Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003 1.   Purpose
above.
Continuing legal education is required of members of
the IBP to:
a.   Ensure that throughout their career, they keep
abreast with law and jurisprudence;
b.   Maintain the ethics of the profession; and
c.   Enhance the standards of the practice of law [Sec.
1, Rule 1, B.M. No. 850].

2.  R equirements
Members of the IBP shall complete, every three years,
at least 36 hours of continuing legal education
activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36
hours:

# of
Subject
Hours
Legal Ethics 6 hours
Trial and Pre-trial Skills 4 hours
Alternative Dispute Resolution 5 hours
Updates on substantive and procedural 9 hours
laws and Jurisprudence
International law and International 2 hours
Conventions
Legal Writing and Oral Advocacy 4 hours
Other MCLE prescribed subjects 6 hours
[Sec. 2, Rule 2, B.M. No. 850]

Participatory Legal Education [Sec. 2, Rule 5, B.M.

No. 850]
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.

Non-Participatory Legal Education [Sec. 3, Rule 5,

B.M. No. 850]
a.   Preparing, as an author or co-author, written
materials published or accepted for publication,
e.g., in the form of an article, chapter, book, or
book review which contribute to the legal
education of the author member, which were not
prepared in the ordinary course of the member’s
practice or employment;
b.   Editing a law book, law journal or legal
newsletter.

Page 56 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
c.   Other activities, such as rendering mandatory
legal aid services pursuant to Sec. 8, B.M. No.
2012, may be credited as MCLE activities.
3.  Compliance
Lawyers, not otherwise exempted, are required to
complete their MCLE requirements every three (3)
years and within the compliance periods set by the
Rules.
The IBP members covered by the requirement are
divided into three compliance groups:
a.   Compliance Group 1 consists of members in the
National Capital Region (NCR) or Metro Manila;
b.   Compliance Group 2 consists members in Luzon
outside NCR; and
c.   Compliance Group 3 consists of members in
Visayas and Mindanao [Sec. 2, Rule 3, B.M. No.
850].
The initial compliance period shall begin not later
than 3 months from the constitution of the MCLE
Committee. The compliance period shall be for 36
months and shall begin the day after the end of the
previous compliance period [Sec. 1, Rule 3, B.M. No.
850].
For those admitted or readmitted after the
establishment of the program, they will be
permanently 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.
However:
•   Where 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;
•   Where more than 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 [Sec. 3, Rule 3, BM 850].
Page 57 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Forms of non-compliance
a.   Failure to complete the educational requirement
within the compliance period
b.   Failure to provide attestation of compliance or
exemption
c.   Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of
compliance
d.   Failure to satisfy the education requirement and
furnish evidence of non-compliance within 60
days from receipt of non-compliance notice
e.   Failure to pay the 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 requirement [Sec. 1,
Rule 12, B.M. No. 850].
The non-compliant member shall receive a Notice of
Non-Compliance and shall be given 60 days from
receipt of notification to file a response clarifying the
deficiency or showing compliance.
4.  E xemptions
Exempted members from the MCLE
a.   The President and the Vice President of the
Philippines, and the Secretaries and
Undersecretaries of Executives 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 Solicitor
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 Ombudsmen 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
years accredited law schools;
k.   The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of
the Corps of Professors and Professorial Lectures
of the Philippine Judicial Academy;
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
l.   Governors and Mayors.
m.   Those who are not in law practice, private or
public; and
n.   Those who have retired from law practice with the
approval of the IBP Board of Governors
o.   Those granted exemption for good cause in
accordance with Sec 3, Rule 7 of the MCLE Rules
[Sec. 1 and 2, Rule 7, B.M. No. 850]
A member may file a verified request setting forth
good cause for exemption (e.g., physical disability,
illness, post graduate study abroad, proven expertise
in law) 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. 3, Rule 7,
B.M. No. 850].
Applications for exemption from or modification of the
MCLE requirement shall be under oath and supported
by documents [Sec. 5, Rule 7, B.M. No. 850].
When a member ceases to be exempt, the compliance
period begins on the first day of the month in which he
ceases to be exempt and shall end on the same day as
that of all other members in the same Compliance
Group [Sec. 4, Rule 7, B.M. No. 850].
5.  S anctions
a.   A member who, for whatever reason, is in non-
compliance at the end of the compliance period
shall pay a non-compliance fee.
b.   Any member who fails to satisfactorily comply
shall be listed as a delinquent member by the IBP
Board of Governors upon the recommendation of
the MCLE Committee, in which case, Rule 139-A,
Rules of Court, governing the IBP, shall apply
[Sec. 1 and 2, Rule 13, B.M. No. 850]
Membership fee shall continue to accrue at the
active rate against a member during the period
he/she is listed as a delinquent member [Sec. 3,
Rule 13, B.M. No. 850].
The delinquent member shall not be permitted to
practice law until such time as adequate proof of
compliance is received by the MCLE Committee. [Sec
7, Rule 13, B.M. No. 850].
When the member provides proof of compliance with
the MCLE requirement, including the payment of the
non-compliance fee, the involuntary listing as a
delinquent member shall be terminated and the
member shall be reinstated [Rule 14, B.M. No. 850].
Under B.M. No. 1922 (2008), practicing members of
the bar are required to indicate in all pleadings filed
before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number
Page 58 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of
Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be
applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance
period. BUT this has been amended, pursuant to B.M.
No. 850, as amended (Dated Feb. 15, 2015. Effective
Mar. 1, 2015):
“xxx The Court Resolved to REQUIRE all members of
the IBP to file a written entry of appearance
indicating their MCLE exemption or compliance
number for the current or immediately preceding
compliance period and date of issuance thereof before
appearing as counsel or engaging in oral argument
in open court or before a quasi-judicial body.
However, counsels who affixed their signatures in their
pleadings and indicated their MCLE exemption or
compliance number in their pleadings need not file a
separate entry of appearance. Henceforth, all
counsels, including partners of law firms whose names
appear in the said pleadings, shall also indicate their
MCLE exemption or compliance number.”
Pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution dated January
14, 2014, the phrase “failure to disclose the required
information would cause the dismissal of the case and
the expunction of the pleadings from the records” in
B.M. No. 1922 (2008) is repealed and amended to
read, “failure to disclose the required information
would subject the counsel to appropriate penalty
and disciplinary action.”
Penalties for non-disclosure of compliance or
exemption number in the pleadings:
1.   The lawyer shall be imposed a fine of P2,000,
P3,000 and 4,000 for the first to third offense
successively.
2.   In addition to the fine, counsel may be listed as a
delinquent member of the Bar
3.   The non-compliant lawyer shall be discharged
from the case and the client shall be allowed to
secure the services of a new counsel with the right
to demand the return of fees already paid to the
lawyer. [B.M. No. 1922]
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

 Notarial Practice authenticity and due execution [Sicat v. Ariola, A.C. No.
5864 (2005)].

A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC is referred to as the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice [hereinafter, Notarial Rules]. In
2008, it was amended by the Court en banc via 2
resolutions: Resolution dated February 12, 2008 and
Resolution dated February 19, 2008.
Lawyers commissioned as notaries are mandated to
subscribe to the sacred duties appertaining to their
office, such duties being dictated by public policy
impressed with public interest [Mondejar v. Rubia, A.C.
No. 5907 and 5942 (2006)].

A Notary Public is one appointed by the Court whose

duty is to attest to the genuineness of any deed or
a.   Powers
writing in order to render them available as evidence
of the facts stated therein and who is authorized by A notary public can perform the following notarial
statute to administer various oaths [E.O. 292]. acts:
1.   Acknowledgments;
2.   Oaths and affirmations;
1.   Qualifications of a Notary 3.   Jurats;
Public 4.   Signature witnessings
5.   Copy certifications; and
6.   Any other act authorized by the Notarial Rules
a.   Must be a Filipino citizen;
[Sec. 1(a), Rule IV].
b.   Must be over 21 years old;
a.   Certifying the affixing of signature by thumb
c.   Must be a resident of the Philippines for at least 1
or other mark on an instrument or document
year;
presented for notarization [Sec. 1(b), Rule IV]
d.   Must maintain a regular place of work or business
b.   Signing on behalf of a person who is
in the city or province where com-mission is to be
physically unable to sign or make a mark on
issued;
an instrument or document [Sec. 1(c), Rule
e.   Must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good
IV].
standing, with clearances from: The Office of the
Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court, and the IBP;
Common
and Basic Definition
requirements
f.   Must not have been convicted in the first instance
Represents to 1. Appears in
of any crime involving moral turpitude [Sec. 1, the notary public person before
Rule III]. that the the notary
signature was public and
2.  T erm of Office of a Notary voluntarily presents an
affixed for the integrally
Public Acknowledgment
purposes stated complete
in the instrument or
Sec. 11, Rule III. A person commissioned as notary instrument AND document
public may perform notarial acts in any place within declares the
the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning instrument was 2. Is attested
court for a period of 2 years commencing the first executed as a to be
free and personally
day of January of the year in which the
voluntary act known to the
commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or
Avows under notary public
the notary public has resigned under these Rules Oath or
penalty of law to or identified
and the Rules of Court. Affirmation
the whole truth by the notary
Signs the public
Sec. 13, Rule III. A notary public may file a written instrument and through
application with the Executive Judge for the takes an oath or competent
renewal of his commission within 45 days before affirmation evidence of
Jurat identity as
the expiration thereof. before the
notary public as defined by
to such the Notarial
3.  Powers and Limitations instrument Rules
Signs the
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and Signature instrument in
routinary act. It converts a private document into a Witnessing the presence of
public instrument, making it admissible as evidence the notary public
without the necessity of preliminary proof of its

Page 59 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Copy Certification
A notarial act in which a notary public:
1.   Is presented with an instrument or document that
is neither a vital record, a public record, nor
publicly recordable;
2.   Copies or supervises the copying of the
instrument or document;
3.   Compares the instrument or document with the
copy; and
4.   Determines that the copy is accurate and
complete [Sec. 4, Rule II]
Certifying the Affixing of Signature by Thumb/ Other
Mark
A notary public is authorized if:
1.   The thumb or other mark is affixed in the presence
of the notary public and of two (2) disinterested
and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or
document;
2.   Both witnesses sign their own names in addition
to the thumb or other mark;
3.   The notary public writes below the thumb or other
mark: “Thumb or Other Mark affixed by (name of
signatory by mark) in the presence of (names and
addresses of witnesses) and undersigned notary
public;” and
4.   The notary public notarizes the signature by
thumb or other mark through an
acknowledgment, jurat, or signature witnessing.
[Sec. 1(b), Rule IV,]
Signing on Behalf of a Person Who is Physically
Unable to Sign or Make a Mark
A notary public is authorized if:
1.   The notary public is directed by the person unable
to sign or make a mark to sign on his behalf;
2.   The signature of the notary public is affixed in the
presence of two disinterested and unaffected
witnesses to the instrument or document;
3.   Both witnesses sign their own names;
4.   The notary public writes below his signature:
“Signature affixed by notary in presence of
(names and addresses of person and two
witnesses);” and
5.   The notary public notarizes his signature by
acknowledgment or jurat [Sec. 1(c), Rule IV].
“Physically unable to sign” does not include the
situation where a person is physically unable to sign
because he is in another place.
b.   Limitations
i.   Relating to Notarial Acts
A notary public is bereft of power to perform any
notarial act outside his regular place of work or
business; provided, however, that on certain
Page 60 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
exceptional occasions or situations, a notarial act may
be performed at the request of the parties in the
following sites located within his territorial
jurisdiction:
1.   Public offices, convention halls, and similar places
where oaths of office may be administered;
2.   Public function areas in hotels and similar places
for the signing of instruments or documents
requiring notarization;
3.   Hospitals and other medical institutions where a
party to an instrument or document is confined for
treatment; and
4.   Any place where a party to an instrument or
document requiring notarization is under
detention [Sec. 2(a), Rule IV]
A notary public is disqualified from performing a
notarial act if he:
1.   Is a party to the instrument or document that is to
be notarized;
2.   Will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any
commission, fee, advantage, right, title, interest,
cash, property, or other consideration, except as
provided by the Notarial Rules and by law; or
3.   Is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor,
descendant, or relative by affinity or
consanguinity of the principal within the fourth
civil degree [Sec. 3, Rule IV]
•   Violation of this may disqualify a person from
being a notary public but is insufficient
ground for disbarment [Jandoquile v. Revilla,
A.C. No. 9514, (2013)].
A person shall not perform a notarial act:
1.   If the person involved as signatory to the
instrument or document:
1.   Is not in the notary's presence personally at
the time of the notarization; and
2.   Is not personally known to the notary public
or otherwise identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity as
defined by the Notarial Rules [Sec. 2(b), Rule
IV].
2.   If the notary knows or has good reason to believe
that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or
immoral;
3.   If the signatory shows a demeanor which
engenders in the mind of the notary public
reasonable doubt as to the former's knowledge of
the consequences of the transaction requiring a
notarial act; and
4.   If in the notary's judgment, the signatory is not
acting of his or her own free will [Sec. 4, Rule IV]
A notary public shall not:
1.   Execute a certificate containing information
known or believed by the notary to be false;
2.   Affix an official signature or seal on a notarial
certificate that is incomplete [Sec. 5, Rule IV]
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
3.   Notarize a blank or incomplete instrument or
document; or
4.   Notarize an instrument or document without
appropriate notarial certification [Sec. 6, Rule IV]
ii.   Relating to Notarial Register
In the notary's presence, any person may inspect an
entry in the notarial register, during regular business
hours, provided;
1.   The person's identity is personally known to the
notary public or proven through competent
evidence of identity as defined in the Notarial
Rules;
2.   The person affixes a signature and thumb or other
mark or other recognized identifier, in the notarial
register in a separate, dated entry;
3.   The person specifies the month, year, type of
instrument or document, and name of the
principal in the notarial act or acts sought; and
4.   The person is shown only the entry or entries
specified by him
The notarial register may be examined by a law
enforcement officer in the course of an official
investigation or by virtue of a court order.
If the notary public has a reasonable ground to believe
that a person has a criminal intent or wrongful motive
in requesting information from the notarial register,
the notary shall deny access to any entry or entries
therein [Sec. 4, Rule VI]
4.  N otarial Register
A notarial register refers to a permanently bound
book with numbered pages containing a chronological
record of notarial acts performed by a notary public
[Sec. 5, Rule II]
Rule VI, Secs. I and 2 of the Notarial Rules require a
notary public to keep and maintain a Notarial Register
wherein he will record his every notarial act. His failure
to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial
register concerning his notarial acts is a ground for
revocation of his notarial commission [Agadan, et al. v.
Kilaan, A.C. No. No. 9385 (2013)].
a.   Entries
By notary public
The following information must be recorded in the
register at the time of notarization:
1.   The entry number and page number;
2.   The date and time of day of the notarial act;
3.   The type of notarial act;
4.   The title or description of the instrument,
document or proceeding;
5.   The name and address of each principal;
Page 61 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
6.   The competent evidence of identity as defined by
the Notarial Rules if the signatory is not
personally known to the notary;
7.   The name and address of each credible witness
swearing to or affirming the person's identity;
8.   The fee charged for the notarial act;
9.   The address where the notarization was
performed if not in the notary's regular place of
work or business;
10.   Any other circumstance the notary public may
deem of significance or relevance;
11.   Reasons and circumstances for not completing a
notarial act;
12.   Circumstances of any request to inspect or copy
an entry in the notarial register, including the:
a.   Requester’s name;
b.   Requester’s address;
c.   Requester’s signature;
d.   Requester’s thumbmark or other recognized
identifier;
e.   Evidence of requester’s identity; and
f.   Reasons for refusal to allow inspection or
copying of a journal entry;
13.   Brief description of the substance of a contract
presented for notarization;
14.   In case of a protest of any draft, bill of exchange
or promissory note, a full and true record of all
proceedings in relation thereto and shall note
therein:
a.   Whether the demand for the sum of money
was made, by whom, when and where;
b.   Whether he presented such draft, bill or note;
c.   Whether notices were given, to whom and in
what manner; where the same was made,
when and to whom and where directed; and
d.   Of every other fact touching the same [Sec. 2,
Rule VI]
By Other Persons
At the time of notarization, the notary's notarial
register shall be signed or a thumb or other mark
affixed by each:
1.   Principal;
2.   Credible witness swearing or affirming to the
identity of a principal; and
3.   Witness to a signature by thumb or other mark, or
to a signing by the notary public on behalf of a
person physically unable to sign [Sec. 3, Rule VI].
b.   Closing
At the end of each week, the notary public shall certify
in his notarial register the number of instruments or
documents executed, sworn to, acknowledged, or
protested before him; or if none, this certificate shall
show this fact. [Sec. 2(g), Rule VI]
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
c.   Submission
A certified copy of each month’s entries and a
duplicate original copy of any instrument
acknowledged before the notary public shall, within
the first ten days of the month following, be forwarded
to the Clerk of Court and shall be under the
responsibility of such officer. If there is no entry to
certify for the month, the notary shall forward a
statement to this effect in lieu of certified copies herein
required. [Sec. 2(h), Rule VI]
5.  J urisdiction of Notary
Public and Place of
Notarization
A person commissioned as notary public may perform
notarial acts in any place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning court [Sec. 11, Rule
III].
The jurisdiction of a notary public in a province shall
be co-extensive with the province. The jursidiction of a
notary public in the City of Manila shall be co-
extensive with said city. No notary shall possess
authority to do any act beyond the limits of his
jurisdiction [Sec 274, Art II, Revised Administrative
Code].
General rule: A notary public shall not perform a
notarial act outside his regular place of work or
business
Exception: On certain exceptional occasions or
situations, a notarial act may be performed at the
request of the parties on the following sites located
within his territorial jurisdiction
See also Limitations relating to Notarial Acts above.
6.  R evocation of Commission
a.   The Executive Judge shall revoke a notarial
commission for any ground on which an
application for a commission may be denied;
b.   In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the
commission of, or impose appropriate
administrative sanctions upon, any notary public
who:
1.   Fails to keep a notarial register;
2.   Fails to make the proper entry or entries in his
notarial register concerning his notarial acts;
3.   Fails to send the copy of the entries to the
Executive Judge within the first ten days of
the month following;
4.   Fails to affix to acknowledgments the date of
expiration of his commission;
Page 62 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
5.   Fails to submit his notarial register, when
filled, to the Executive Judge;
6.   Fails to make his report, within a reasonable
time, to the Executive Judge concerning the
performance of his duties, as may be required
by the judge;
7.   Fails to require the presence of a principal at
the time of the notarial act;
8.   Fails to identify a principal on the basis of
personal knowledge or competent evidence;
9.   Executes a false or incomplete certificate
under Sec. 5, Rule IV;
10.   Knowingly performs or fails to perform any
other act prohibited or mandated by these
Rules; and
11.   Commits any other dereliction or act which in
the judgment of the Executive Judge
constitutes good cause for revocation of com-
mission or imposition of administrative
sanction [Sec. 1(a) and (b), Rule XI].
If the notarial certificate is incomplete or deficient, it is
as if there is no acknowledgment and the document
remains a private document, as if it had not been
notarized [Spouses Bautista v. Silva, G.R 157434,
(2006)].
A Deed of Donation, notarized without determining
the presence or qualification of affiants, demonstrates
grows negligence and ignorance of the Rules on
Notarial Practice [Laquindanum v. Quintana,
A.C.7036, (2009)].
A notary public should not notarize a document unless
the person who signed the same is the very same
person who executed and personally appeared before
him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are
stated therein. Without the personal appearance of
the person who actually executed the document, the
notary public would be unable to verify the
genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging
party and to ascertain that the document is the party’s
free act or deed.
When a lawyer commissioned as a notary public fails
to discharge his duties as such, he is meted the
penalties of revocation of his notarial commission,
disqualification from being commissioned as a notary
public for a period of 2 years, and suspension from the
practice of law for 1 year [Agbulos v. Viray , G.R. No.
7350 (2013)].
While Atty. Ching denied having notarized the Deed by
showing the discrepancy between his purported and
actual signature, he miserably failed to explain how
the Deed ended up in his notarial books. Atty. Ching
still failed in ensuring that only documents which he
had personally signed and sealed with his notarial
seal, after satisfying himself with the completeness of
the same and the identities of the parties who affixed
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

their signatures therein, would be included in his
notarial register. This also means that Atty. Ching
failed to properly store and secure his notarial
equipment in order to prevent other people from
notarizing documents by forging his signature and
affixing his notarial seal, and recording such
documents in his notarial books, without his
knowledge and consent. This is gross negligence.
Such had also unduly put the Castelo heirs in jeopardy
of losing their property. Thus, his existing commission
is revoked, and he is perpetually disqualified from
being a notary public and is suspended from the
practice of law for 6 months. [Castelo v. Ching, A.C. No.
11165, (2017)].
7.  Competent Evidence of
Identity
A notary public can identify an individual based on
either of the following sources:
a.   At least one current identification document
issued by an official agency bearing the
photograph and signature of the individual such
as but not limited to: Passport, Driver's License,
Professional Regulation Commission ID, NBI
clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter’s ID,
Barangay certification, GSIS e-card, SSS card,
PhilHealth card, senior citizen card, OWWA ID,
OFW ID, seaman’s book, alien’s certificate of
registration/immigrant certificate of registration,
government office ID, certification from the
NCWDO, DSWD certification; etc.
on the grounds for revocation of commission
mentioned [Sec. 1(d), Rule XI]
An order imposing disciplinary sanctions shall be
immediately executory pending appeal, unless
otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.
The names of notaries who have been administratively
sanctioned will be posted in a conspicuous place in the
offices of the Executive Judge and the Clerk of Court
[Sec. 3, Rule XI]
b.   Criminal sanctions
The Executive Judge shall cause the prosecution of any
person who:
1.   Knowingly acts or otherwise impersonates a
notary public;
2.   Knowingly obtains, conceals, defaces, or destroys
the seal, notarial register, or official records of a
notary public; and
3.   Knowingly solicits, coerces, or in any way
influences a notary public to commit official
misconduct. [Sec. 1, Rule XI

Note: A Community Tax Certificate has been

deleted as among the accepted proof of identity
because of its inherent unreliability [Advance
Paper Corporation v. Arma Traders Corporation,
G.R. No. 176897 (2013)].
b.   The oath or affirmation of:
1.   One credible witness not privy to the
instrument, document or transaction who is
personally known to the notary public and
who personally knows the individual; or
2.   Two credible witnesses neither of whom is
privy to the instrument, document or trans-
action who each personally knows the
individual and shows to the notary public
documentary identification [Sec. 12, Rule II,
as amended by Resolution dated Feb. 19,
2008].

8.  S anctions
a.   Administrative Sanctions
The Executive Judge may motu proprio initiate
administrative proceedings against a notary public
and impose the appropriate administrative sanctions

Page 63 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JUDICIAL ETHICS
Legal and Judicial Ethics

Page 64 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
 Sources
1.   New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary (Bangalore Draft)
In November 2002, at a Roundtable Meeting of Chief
Justices held at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the
Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity
amended and approved the Bangalore Draft of the
Code of Judicial Conduct, which is intended to be the
Universal Declaration of Judicial Standards. It is
founded on the following principles:
a.   A universal recognition that a competent,
independent and impartial judiciary is essential if
the courts are to fulfill their role in upholding
constitutionalism and the rule of law;
b.   Public confidence in the judicial system and in the
moral authority and integrity of the judiciary is of
utmost importance in a modern democratic
society;
c.   It is essential that judges, individually and
collectively, respect and honor judicial office as a
public trust and strive to enhance and maintain
confidence in the judicial system.
On April 27, 2004, the draft code was promulgated as
the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary through A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC and given
effect on June 1, 2004.
Purpose: The New Code seeks to not only update and
correlate the Code of Judicial Conduct and he Canons
of Judicial Ethics adopted for the Philippines, but also
to stress the Philippine’s solidarity with the universal
clamor for a universal code of judicial ethics.
2.  C ode of Judicial Conduct
The New Code of Judicial Conduct supersedes the
Canons of Judicial Ethics (1946) and the Code of
Judicial Conduct (1989). However, in case of deficiency
or absence of specific provisions, the Canons of Judicial
Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct shall be
applicable in a suppletory character.
Page 65 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
 Administrative Jurisdiction
over Judges and Justices
1.   Supreme Court
Under Sec. 2, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution, Justices of the
Supreme Court may be removed from office, through
impeachment upon conviction of culpable violation of
the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption,
other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust;
All other Justices and judges from the Court of Appeals
to the lowest level may be removed from office as
provided by law, but not by impeachment.
According to J. Carpio’s dissenting opinion in In re:
Charges of Plagiarism, etc. against Associate Justice del
Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC (2011), pursuant to Sec. 3
(1) and (6), Art. XI, 1987 Constitution, the sole
disciplining authority (i.e. exclusive authority to
discipline) of all impeachable officers, including
Justices of the Supreme Court, is Congress. While
impeachment is often described as a political process,
it also functions as the equivalent of administrative
disciplinary proceedings against impeachable officers
since impeachable officers are not subject to
administrative disciplinary proceedings either by the
Executive or Judicial branch.
2.   All Other Courts
Pursuant to Sec. 6, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution, only the
Supreme Court can oversee compliance with the law
and the Rules of Court on the part of the Presiding
Justice of the CA down to the lowest municipal trial
court judge and take the proper administrative action
against them if they commit any violation thereof,
requiring supervisory or administrative sanction
[Agpalo, (2004)].
Pursuant to Sec. 11, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution, the
Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to
discipline judges of lower courts, or order their
dismissal by a vote of majority of the Members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in
the case and voted thereon.
Thus, the Ombudsman has no power to entertain and
investigate administrative complaints against judges
and court personnel. Complaints against judges and
court personnel should accordingly be filed with the
Supreme Court [Maceda v. Vasquez, supra.; Dolalas v.
Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 118808 (1996)].
Administrative jurisdiction over a court employee
belongs to the Supreme Court, regardless of whether
the offense was committed before or after employment
in the judiciary. Indeed, the standard procedure is for
U.P. LAW BOC
the CSC to bring its complaint against a judicial
employee before the Office of the Court Administrator
[Ampong v. CSC, G.R. No. 167916 (2008)].
In order for the Court to acquire jurisdiction over an
administrative case, the complaint must be filed
during the incumbency of the respondent. Once
jurisdiction is acquired, it is not lost by reason of
respondent’s cessation from office [Re: Missing
Exhibits and Court Properties in Regional Trial Court,
Branch 4, Panabo City, Davao Del Norte, AM. 10-2-41-
RTC (2013)].
JUDICIAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
 Disqualifications of Justices
and Judges [Rule 137, ROC]
Note: Asked 3 times in the Bar: 1994, 1991, 2008 [Lex
Pareto (2014)]
1.   Compulsory
No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case, without
the written consent of all parties in interest and
entered upon the record, in which:
a.   He, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as
heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise; or
b.   He is related to either party within the 6th degree
of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within
the 4th degree, computed according to the rules
of civil law;
c.   He has been executor, administrator, guardian,
trustee or counsel; or
d.   He has presided in any inferior court when his
ruling or decision is the subject of review [par. 1,
Sec. 1].
The rule on compulsory disqualification of a judge to
hear a case rests on the salutary principle that no judge
should preside in a case in which he is not wholly free,
disinterested, impartial and independent. A judge has
both the duty of rendering a just decision and the duty
of doing it in a manner completely free from suspicion
as to its fairness and as to his integrity.
The law conclusively presumes that a judge cannot
objectively or impartially sit in such a case and, for that
reason, prohibits him and strikes at his authority to
hear and decide it, in the absence of written consent of
all parties concerned. The purpose is to preserve the
people's faith and confidence in the courts' justice
[Garcia v. De La Peña, A.M. No. MTJ-92-687 (1994)].
The relationship of the judge with one of the parties
may color the facts and distort the law to the prejudice
of a just decision. Where this is probable or even only
possible, due process demands that the judge inhibit
himself, if only out of a sense of delicadeza [Javier v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. L-68379-81 (1996)].
GROUNDS FOR COMPULSORY INHIBITION OF A
JUDGE
Note: asked in 2004 and 2010 Bar examinations [Lex
Pareto (2014)].
Actual Bias or Prejudice
In Umale v. Villaluz (1973), a judge inhibited himself
from trying a robbery case due to his personal
knowledge of the case. The Supreme Court stated that
it is possible that the respondent Judge might be
Page 66 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
influenced by his personal knowledge of the case when
he tries and decides the same on the merits, which
would certainly constitute a denial of due process to
the party adversely affected by his judgment or
decision. Thus, it is best that, after some reflection, the
judge, on his own initiative disqualified himself from
hearing the robbery case and thereby rendering
himself available as witness to any of the parties
subject to cross-examination.
In People v. Gomez (1967), the judge dismissed criminal
informations on the suspicion, arising from a dinner
invitation from a stranger and a subsequent personal
investigation, that the court was being used as a forum
for extortion and exploitation of the persons charged.
The Supreme Court found this unstated extraneous
matter makes the dismissal as one affected with
partiality and bias. The prayer of the judge to be
disqualified in hearing the case because he has lost all
respect in the manner in which the prosecutor has been
prosecuting the case was granted.
Economic Interest of Judge or his Family
In Oktubre v. Velasco (2004), a municipal judge, as
private complainant, caused three criminal complaints
to be filed before his own court. He also issued a
warrant of arrest and subpoenas before finally
inhibiting himself from hearing the cases. The
Supreme Court found him guilty of grave misconduct,
gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of
authority, and dismissed him from service. It stated
that the idea that a judge can preside over his own case
is anathema to the notion of impartiality and that his
subsequent inhibition from the three cases does not
detract from his culpability for he should not have
taken cognizance of the cases in the first place.
Reviewing Own Cases
In Sandoval v. CA (1996), the Supreme Court that an
Associate Justice who only partly presided over a case
in the trial court and who did not render the final
decision cannot be said to have been placed in a
position where he had to review his own decision and,
as such, was not legally bound, on this ground, to
inhibit himself as ponente of the case. Nevertheless, it
was held that he should have voluntarily inhibited
himself for his earlier involvement in the case
constitutes just or valid reason under Sec. 1, Rule 137. A
judge should not handle a case in which he might be
perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be susceptible to bias
and partiality.
Previously Served as Counsel
A judge may validly disqualify himself due to his bias
and prejudice. [However,] bias and prejudice cannot be
presumed [Soriano v. Angeles (2000)]. The mere
imputation of bias or partiality is not sufficient for a
Page 67 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
judge to inhibit, especially when the charge is without
basis. It must be proven with clear and convincing
evidence. [Gochan v. Gochan (2003)] Moreover, it has
been held that bias and prejudice must be shown to
have stemmed from an extra-judicial source and result
in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than
the evidence presented [Aleria v. Velez (1998)].
Disqualification was also allowed when the judge has
been previously associated with a party as counsel,
[Austria v. Masaquel (1978)] notarized the affidavit of a
person to be presented as witness [Mateo v. Villaluz
(1973)], if he is a material witness to a case [AmJur;
Lewis v. State (2002)]
2.   Voluntary
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion,
disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid
reasons other than those mentioned [par. 2, Sec. 1].
Sec. 5, Canon 3, New Code of Judicial Conduct of
the Philippine Judiciary.
Judges shall disqualify themselves from
participating in any proceedings in which they are
unable to decide the matter impartially or in which
it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are
unable to decide the matter impartially. Such
proceedings include, but are not limited to,
instances where:
a)   The judge has actual bias or prejudice
concerning a party or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceedings;
b)   The judge previously served as a lawyer or was
a material witness in the matter in controversy;
c)   The judge, or a member of his or her family,
has an economic interest in the outcome of the
matter in controversy;
d)   The judge served as executor, administrator,
guardian, trustee, or lawyer in the case or
matter in controversy, or a former associate of
the judge served as counsel during their
association, or the judge or lawyer was a
material witness therein;
e)   The judge's ruling in a lower court is the
subject of review;
f)   The judge is related by consanguinity or
affinity to a party litigant within the 6th civil
degree or to counsel within the fourth civil
degree; or
g)   The judge knows that his or her spouse or child
has a financial interest, as heir, legatee,
creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject
matter in controversy or in a party to the
proceeding, or any other interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the
proceedings.
U.P. LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

A judge must maintain and preserve the trust and faith either: 1) proceed with the trial or 2) withdraw
of the parties-litigants. He must hold himself above therefrom.
reproach and suspicion. At the very first sign of lack of
faith and trust to his actions, whether well-grounded The decision of the said official shall be in writing and
or not, the judge has no other alternative but inhibit filed with the other papers in the case, but no appeal
himself from the case. or stay shall be allowed from, or by reason of, his
decision in favor his own competency, until final
A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a judgment in the case [Sec. 2].
litigation, but when circumstances appear that will
induce doubt to his honest actuations and probity in
favor of either party, or incite such state of mind, he
should conduct a careful self-examination. He should
exercise his discretion in a way that the people's faith
in the courts of justice is not impaired. The better
course for the judge under such circumstances is to
disqualify himself. That way, he avoids being
misunderstood, his reputation for probity and
objectivity is preserved [Bautista v. Rebueno, G.R. No. L-
46117 (1978)].

A judge should not be disqualified because he was a

classmate (or a co-member in a fraternity) of one of the
counsels if there is no proof that such relationship
results in actual bias or prejudice. To allow
disqualification would unnecessarily burden other trial
judges to whom the case will be assigned. Confusion
would result, because a judge would then be barred
from sitting in a case whenever one of his former
classmates (and he could have many) appeared
[Masadao and Elizaga, cited in Lex Pareto (2014)].

The mere fact that a counsel who is appearing before

a judge was one of those who recommended him to the
Bench is not a valid ground from voluntary inhibition.
“Utang na loob” per se should not be a hindrance to the
administration of justice. Nor should recognition of
such value prevent the performance of judicial duties.
However, where the judge admits that he may be
suspected of surrendering to the persuasions of utang
na loob, and he may succumb to it considering that he
and members of the family, no less shall ever remain
obliged in eternal gratitude to the recommending
counsel, the judge should inhibit himself [Query of
Executive Judge Estrella Estrada, etc, A.M. No. 87-9-
3918-RTC (1987) cited in Lex Pareto (2014)].

The mere imputation of bias or partiality is not enough

ground for inhibition, especially when the charge is
without basis. Extrinsic evidence must further be
presented to establish bias, bad faith, malice, or
corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable error which
may be inferred from the decision or order itself
[Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Dy Hong
Pi, G.R. No. 171137 (2009)].

The objecting party to his competency may, in writing,

file with the subject official his objection and its
grounds. The said official may, in accordance with his
determination of the question of his disqualification,

Page 68 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
 Initiation of Complaint
against Judges and Justices
Proceedings for the discipline of judges of regular and
special courts and justices of the Court of Appeals and
the Sandiganbayan may be instituted:
1.   Motu propio by the Supreme Court;
2.   Upon the verified complaint, supported by
affidavits of persons who have personal
knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by
documents which may substantiate said
allegations; or
3.   Upon an anonymous complaint, supported by
public records of indubitable integrity.
The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly
and concisely the acts and omissions constituting
violations of standards of conduct prescribed for
judges, the RoC, or the Code of Judicial Conduct [Sec.
1].
The right to institute disbarment proceedings is not
confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person
complaining suffered injury from the alleged
wrongdoing. The procedural requirement observed in
ordinary civil proceedings that only the real party-in-
interest must initiate the suit does not apply in
disbarment cases. Disbarment proceedings are
matters of public interest and the only basis for the
judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the
charges [Figueros v Jimenez, A.C. No. 9116 (2014)].
Page 69 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
 Discipline of Members of
the Judiciary
The members of the Supreme Court and judges of
lower courts shall hold office during a good behavior
until they reach the age of seventy years or become
incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office [Sec.
11, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution].
1.   Supreme Court
Members of the Supreme Court may be removed
from office on impeachment for, and conviction of,
culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery,
graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of
public trust [Sec. 2, Article XI, 1987 Constitution].
The impeachment of public officials has been
established for removing otherwise constitutionally
tenured and independent public officials.
The power to initiate impeachment cases rests with the
House of the Representatives while the power to try the
same rests with the Senate.
Based on Sec. 3, Article VI, 1987 Constitution, the steps
leading to impeachment are as follows:
a.   A verified complaint for impeachment is filed by a
member of the House or endorsed by him;
b.   The complaint is included in the order of business
of the House;
c.   The House refers the complaint to the proper
committee;
d.   The committee holds a hearing, approves the
resolution calling for impeachment, and submits
the same to the House;
e.   The House considers the resolution and votes to
approve it by at least one-third of all its members,
which resolution becomes the article of
impeachment to be filed with the Senate when
approved; and
f.   The Senate tries the public official under the
article [J. Abad, Separate Concurring Opinion,
Gutierrez v. HOR Committee on Justice, G.R. No.
193459 (2011)].
2.  L ower Courts and Justices
of Court of Appeals, and
Sandiganbayan, and Court
of Tax Appeals (Rule 140)
a.   Initiation of Proceedings
See Initiation of Complaint against Judges and
Justices above.
U.P. LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
b.   Investigation
Upon the filing of the comment of the respondent
or upon the expiration of the period for such filing,
which is ten days from the date of service to him of
the copy of the complaint [Sec. 2], the Supreme
Court shall:
1.   Refer the matter to the Office of the Court
Administrator for evaluation, report, and
recommendation; or
2.   Assign the case for investigation, report, and
recommendation to:
i.   A retired member of the Supreme
Court, if the respondent is a justice of
the Court of Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan;
ii.   A justice of the Court of Appeals, if the
respondent is a judge of a Regional
Trial Court or of a special court of
equivalent rank; or
iii.   A judge of the Regional Trial Court, if
the respondent is a judge of an inferior
court [Sec. 3, Rule 140].
c.   Hearing and Termination
The investigating justice of judge shall set a day for
the hearing and send notice to the parties. If the
respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall
proceed ex parte.
The investigating justice or judge shall terminate
the proceedings:
1.   Within 90 days from the date of its
commencement; or
2.   Within such extension as the Supreme Court
may grant [Sec. 4].
d.   Report and Action
Within 30 days from termination, the investigating
justice or judge shall submit to the Supreme Court
a report containing his findings of fact and
recommendation, accompanied by the evidence
and pleadings filed by the parties. Such report
shall be confidential and shall be for the exclusive
use of the Supreme Court.
A copy of the decision or resolution of the court
shall be attached to the record of the respondent
in the OCA [Secs. 5 and 12].
The Supreme Court shall take action on the report
as the facts and the law may warrant [Sec. 6].
Proceedings shall be private and confidential but a
copy of the decision shall be attached to the record of
the judge in the OCA [Sec. 12]
Page 70 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Automatic Conversion of Administrative Cases to
Disciplinary Proceedings
Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, administrative
cases against justices of the Court of Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan, judges of regular and special courts,
and court officials who are lawyers, shall also be
considered a disciplinary action against them, if they
are based on grounds which are likewise grounds for
the disciplinary action of members of the bar for:
a.   Violation of the Lawyer's Oath;
b.   Violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility;
c.   Violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics; or
d.   Such other forms of breaches of conduct that have
been traditionally recognized as grounds for the
discipline of lawyers.
The respondent is required to comment on the
complaint and show cause why he should not also be
suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinarily
sanctioned as a member of the bar. Judgment in both
respects may be incorporated in one decision or
resolution.
Members of the judiciary are not a class of their own. In
its recent rulings, the Court has also applied
substantial evidence as the quantum of proof
necessary in resolving administrative complaints
against judges [Macias v. Macias, AM RTJ-01-1650
(2009)].
Effect of Withdrawal or Desistance
The actuations of a judge seriously affect the public
interest inasmuch as they involve the administration of
justice. It is for this reason that a motion to withdraw a
complaint will not justify the dismissal of the
administrative case against the judge.
To condition administrative actions upon the will of
every complainant, who may, for one reason or
another, condone a detestable act, is to strip the
Supreme Court of its supervisory power to discipline
erring members of the judiciary [Anguluan v. Taguba
(1979)].
Complainant's desistance is not an obstacle to the
taking of disciplinary action against a judge if the
record reveals that he had not performed his duties
properly [Espayos v. Lee (1979)].
3.  Grounds
Administrative charges are classified as serious, less
serious, or light [Sec. 7]
U.P. LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
a.   Misconduct
“Misconduct” implies a wrongful intention and not a
mere error or judgment. For serious [or gross]
misconduct to exist, there must be reliable evidence
showing that the judicial acts complained of were
corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or
were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules
[In re: Impeachment of Horrilleno (1922)].
The commission of two or administrative offenses
alleged in the same administrative complaint may
aggravate the offense and render the same serious,
which will warrant dismissal of the judge from the
service [Agpalo (2004)].
The judge was found guilty of gross misconduct,
abandonment of office, and was dismissed due to his
frequent leave of absence totaling 3 years which were
not approved for his explanations were inexcusable.
He has caused great disservice to many litigants and
has denied them speedy justice [In Re: Leaves of
Absence without Approval of Judge Eric Calderon, AM
98-8-105 MTC, (1999)].
When Judge Samson accepted the application for a
judicial post of a probationer before his discharge from
probation and even recommending him for such post,
she committed impropriety and gross misconduct [The
Anonymous Letter Complaint vs. Judge Samson, et al.
A.M. No. MTJ 16-1870 (2017)].
Judge Barcillano committed conduct unbecoming a
judge when he embarrassed a lady police officer and
repeatedly asked her to stand and sit beside him,
insulted the lady police when he repeatedly asked her
name and said “PO1 ka lang”; and held her gun and
cocked it in public. [PO1 Myra Marcelo vs. Judge Ignacio
Barcillano, A.M. No. RTJ 16-2450 (2017)]
By carrying an affair with a married woman, Judge
Laron's immorality and serious misconduct have
repercussions not only on the judiciary but also on the
millions OFWs. While Wilfredo was working hard
abroad to earn for his family, Judge Laron was sleeping
with his wife in his bed in his house and spending his
hard-earned dollars. What was even worse was the
flaunting of the illicit relationship before his young
boys who related it to him upon his return from abroad.
A judge is the visible representation of the law and of
justice. He must comport himself in a manner that his
conduct must be free of a whiff of impropriety, not only
with respect to the performance of his official duties
but also as to his behavior outside his sala and as a
private individual. His character must be able to
withstand the most searching public scrutiny because
the ethical principles and sense of propriety of a judge
are essential to the preservation of the people's faith in
the judicial system. [Wilfredo F. Tuvillo vs. Judge Henry
Laron, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1755; Melissa J. Tuvillo vs.
Judge Henry Laron, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1756, (2016)].
Page 71 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Respondent's act of not wearing the judicial robe
during court sessions violates Administrative Circular
25 of 9 June 1989, which is mandatory. Violation of
Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars is
considered a less serious charge [Jocelyn Mclaren, et al.
vs. Hon. Jacinto C. Gonzales, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1876,
(2017)].
b.   Gross Ignorance of the Law
Judge Mislang manifested serious lack of knowledge
and understanding of the basic legal principles on
prejudicial question and on jurisdiction in petitions for
suspension of criminal action based on prejudicial
questions. Where the law is straightforward and the
facts so evident, failure to know it or to act as if one
does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the
law. A blatant disregard of the clear and unmistakable
provisions of a statute, as well as Supreme Court
circulars enjoining their strict compliance, upends this
presumption and subjects the magistrate to
corresponding administrative sanctions. Judges are
expected to exhibit more than just cursory
acquaintance with statutes and procedural laws, they
must know the laws and apply them properly in all
good faith. Judicial competence requires no less. Thus,
unfamiliarity with the rules is a sign of incompetence.
[Department of Justice vs. Hon. Rolando Mislang, A.M.
No. RTJ-14-2369 (2016)]
c.   Gross Inefficiency
Like misconduct, inefficiency as a ground for
disciplinary action must be serious or one which is
weighty or momentous and not trifling. Negligence in
the performance of duty, if reckless in character, could
amount to serious or inexcusable inefficiency [Agpalo
(2004)].
Examples:
•   Failure to deposit funds with the municipal
treasurer or produce them despite promise to do
so [Montemayor v. Collado (1981)];
•   Misappropriation of fiduciary funds (i.e., proceeds
of cash bail bond) by depositing the check in a
personal account, thus converting the trust fund to
personal use [Barja v. Beracio (1976)];
•   Extorting money from a party-litigant who has a
pending case [Haw Tay v. Singayao (1988)]:
•   Solicitation of donation for office equipment
[Lecaroz v. Garcia (1981)];
•   Frequent unauthorized absences in office
[Municipal Council of Casiguruhan, Quezon v.
Morales (1974)];
•   Delay in the disposition of cases in violation of the
canon that a judge must promptly dispose of all
matters submitted to him [Balagot v. Opinion
(1991)];
•   Unduly granting repeated motions for
postponement [Araza v. Reyes (1975)];
U.P. LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
•   Unawareness of or unfamiliarity with the
application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law
and duration and graduation of penalties [In re:
Paulin (1980)];
•   Reducing to a ridiculous amount (P6,000.00) the
bail bond of the accused murderer, enabling him
to escape the toils of the law [Soriano v. Mabbayad
(1975)].
•   Imposing the penalty of subsidiary imprisonment
on a party for failure to pay civil indemnity in
violation of R.A. No. 5465 [Monsanto v. Palarca
(1983)]
•   Directing a subordinate to alter the TSN by
incorporating statements pertaining to
substantial matters not actually made during the
hearing [Balanay v. White, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2443,
(2016)]
Judge Perez’s being inexperienced as a newly
appointed judge and his explanation that the delay
was not intended to prejudice the plaintiffs are not
persuasive because it is his duty to resolve the cases
within the reglementary period as mandated by law
and the rules. A judge is expected to keep his own
listing of cases and to note therein the status of each
case so that they may be acted upon accordingly and
without delay. He must adopt a system of record
management and organize his docket in order to
monitor the flow of cases for a prompt and effective
dispatch of business. He is guilty of undue delay in
rendering a decision which is a less serious charge.
[Gamboa-Roces vs. Perez, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1887,
(2017)].
Judicial Immunity
General rule: A judge cannot be subjected to liability –
civil, criminal, or administrative – when he acts within
his legal powers and jurisdiction, even though such
acts are erroneous. [Agpalo (2004)].
Purpose: A judicial officer, in exercising the authority
vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own
convictions, without apprehension of personal
consequences to himself.
This concept of judicial immunity rests upon
consideration of public policy, its purpose being to
preserve the integrity and independence of the
judiciary [Equatorial Realty Development v. Anunciacion
Jr. AM MTJ-91-562 (1997)].
In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the
acts of judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to
disciplinary actions, even though these may be
erroneous, provided he acted in good faith and without
malice. In such case, the proper remedy is not an
administrative charge against the judge, but an appeal
or a petition for review of his decision [Equatorial Realty
Development v. Anunciacion Jr. supra].
Page 72 of 91
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Exceptions: A judge may be held criminally, civilly or
administratively liable
1.   For malfeasance or misfeasance in office [Valdez v.
Valera, A.M. No. 1628-CAR (1978)].
2.   Where an error is so gross or patent or when acts
were committed with fraud, dishonesty,
corruption, malice, ill-will, bad faith or deliberate
intent to do injustice [Lorenzana v. Austria, AM
RTJ-09-2200, (2014)].
3.   When the law or procedure is so elementary, such
as the provisions of the ROC, not to know or to act
as if one does not know constitutes gross
ignorance of the law, even without proving malice
or bad faith [Pancho v. Aguirre, AM RTJ-09-2196,
(2010)].
Civil Liability
Refusal or neglect without just cause by a public
servant to perform his official duty [Art 27, Civil Code].
Directly or indirectly obstructing, defeating, violating
or in any manner impeding or impairing civil liberties
guaranteed by the Constitution [Art 32, Civil Code].
The responsibility for damages is not demandable of
judges except when his act or omission constitutes a
violation of the RPC or other penal statute [Agpalo,
2004].
Criminal Liability
a.   Under the RPC
1.   Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment [Art.
204]
2.   Judgment rendered through negligence [Art.
205]
3.   Knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory
order [Art. 206]
4.   Malicious delay in the administration of
justice [Art. 207]
5.   Direct bribery [Art. 210]
6.   Indirect bribery [Art. 211]
7.   Infidelity in the custody of documents [Art.
226]
8.   Open disobedience [Art. 231]
9.   Prolonging performance of duties [Art. 237]
10.   Abandonment of office [Art. 238]
11.   Disobeying requisites for disqualification [Art.
242]
12.   Abuses against chastity [Art. 245]
13.   Falsification by a public officer [Art. 171]
b.   Under Special Laws
1.   Plunder [R.A. No. 7080]
2.   Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act [R.A. No.
3019]
3.   Violation of the Code of Conduct of Public
Officials [R.A. No. 6713]
4.   Violation of Omnibus Election Code
5.   Violation of the right to counsel [E.O. 155]
6.   Transfer of unlawfully acquired property [R.A.
No. 1379]
U.P. LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Administrative Liability [A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC (2001)]

Serious Charges Less Serious Charges Light Charges

Grounds 1.   Undue delay in
1.   Bribery, direct or indirect;
rendering a decision or
2.   Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-
order, or in
Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A.
transmitting the
No. 3019);
records of a case;
3.   Gross misconduct constituting 1.   Vulgar and
2.   Frequently and
violations of the Code of Judicial unbecoming
unjustified absences
Conduct; conduct;
without leave or
4.   Knowingly rendering an unjust 2.   Gambling in
habitual tardiness;
judgment or order as determined by a public;
3.   Unauthorized practice
competent court in an appropriate 3.   Fraternizing with
of law;
proceeding; lawyers and
4.   Violation of Supreme
5.   Conviction of a crime involving moral litigants with
Court rules, directives,
turpitude; pending
and circulars;
6.   Willful failure to pay a just debt; case/cases in his
5.   Receiving additional
7.   Borrowing money or property from court; and
or double
lawyers and litigants in a case pending 4.   Undue delay in the
compensation unless
before the court; submission of
specifically authorized
8.   Immorality; monthly reports.
by law;
9.   Gross ignorance of the law or
6.   Untruthful statements
procedure;
in the certificate of
10.   Partisan political activities; and
service; and
11.   Alcoholism and/or vicious habits [Sec.
7.   Simple misconduct
8].
[Sec. 9]
Sanctions 1.   Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of
[Sec. 11] all or part of the benefits as the Court
1.   Suspension from office 1.   A fine of not less
may determine, and disqualification
without salary and than P1,000.00
from reinstatement or appointment to
other benefits for not but not exceeding
any public office, including government-
less than one nor more P10,000.00;
owned or controlled corporations.
than three months; or and/or
Forfeiture of benefits does not include
2.   A fine of more than 2.   Censure;
accrued leave credits;
P10,000.00 but not 3.   Reprimand;
2.   Suspension from office without salary
exceeding 4.   Admonition with
and other benefits for more than three
P20,000.00 warning.
but not exceeding six months; or
3.   A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not
exceeding P40,000.00

Page 73 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

FORMS
Practical Exercises

Page 74 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

 Parts Common to Forms

SCILICET
•   Refers to the venue of execution of the instrument or document, and is read as “to wit” or “that is to say”.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

City/Municipality of ____________ ) S.S

DETAILS OF NOTARY PUBLIC

[NAME OF NOTARY]
Notary Public
[PLACE OF COMMISSION]
Until [DATE OF EXPIRY OF COMMISSION]
Roll No.__________
IBP O.R. No. ___/Date of Issue
PTR No. ______, Date/ Place of Issue
MCLE Compliance No.

Note: The details of the notary public are similar to what is written on the Counsel’s Information in a pleading.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT (TWO-PARTY INSTRUMENT)

Republic of the Philippines )
City of ____________ ) S.S.

BEFORE ME, this ___ day of [MONTH, YEAR] in the [CITY/ MUNICIPALITY OF __________], personally
appeared:
NAME TYPE OF I.D AND I.D NO. DATE/PLACE ISSUED
__________________________________ _____________________________ ___________________________________
__________________________________ _____________________________ ___________________________________

Known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument, and who
acknowledged to me that the same is their free act and deed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed my Notarial seal on the day, year and place written.

(Sgd.)
NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of [Year]

Note: If the instrument consists of 2 or more pages, include the following after the 1st paragraph:

This instrument, consisting of ___ pages, including the page on which this acknowledgment is written, has
been signed on the left margin of each and every page thereof by ___________ and his witnesses (if any), and sealed
with my Notarial seal.

Page 75 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

ACKNOWLEDGMENT (AFFIANT REPRESENTING A CORPORATION)

Republic of the Philippines )
City of ____________ ) S.S.

BEFORE ME, this ___ day of [MONTH, YEAR] in the [CITY/ MUNICIPALITY OF __________], personally
appeared [NAME OF AFFIANT], representing to be [POSITION IN THE CORPORATION] of [NAME OF
CORPORATION] with [VALID IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENT] (No.________________) issued by the [OFFICIAL
AGENCY] on [DATE OF ISSUANCE], known to me to be the same person who executed the foregoing instrument,
and who acknowledged to me that the same is his free act and deed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed my Notarial seal on the day, year and place written.

(Sgd.)
NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of [Year]

JURAT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME in the [CITY/MUNICIPALITY of _______________] on this ___

day of [MONTH, YEAR], affiant exhibiting before me his Government Issued ID no. _______________ issued on [DATE
OF ISSUANCE] at [PLACE OF ISSUANCE] and valid until [DATE OF EXPIRY].

(Sgd.)
NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of [Year]

Note: Acknowledgment v. Jurat

A jurat is that part of an affidavit in which the officer certifies that the instrument was sworn to before him. It is not a
part of a pleading but merely evidences the fact that the affidavit was properly made. The jurat in the petition in the
case also begins with the words "subscribed and sworn to me." To subscribe literally means to write underneath, as
one's name; to sign at the end of a document. To swear means to put on oath; to declare on oath the truth of a pleading,
etc. Accordingly, in a jurat, the affiant must sign the document in the presence of and take his oath before a notary
public or any other person authorized to administer oaths. (Gamido v. New Bilibid Prison Officials, G.R. No. 114829,
March 1, 1995). An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer
or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. (Tigno v. Spouses Aquino, G.R. No. 129416, November 25, 2004)

Note that if the document is subscribed before a public officer duly authorized to take oaths under the Revised
Administrative Code, then there is no need for the affiant to produce a Community Tax Certificate (CTC), any competent
evidence of identity by at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph
and signature of an individual, nor for the entry into a Notarial Register; the italicized portion of the JURAT is dispensed
with, but not the oath itself.

Page 76 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

DETAILS OF COUNSEL
[NAME OF COUNSEL]
Counsel for the [DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFF]
Roll No.
IBP O.R. No. ___/Date of Issue
PTR No. ______, Date/ Place of Issue
MCLE Compliance No.
[ADDRESS]
[CONTACT NO.]

Notes:
1.   Rule 7, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court reiterates the importance of the signature of counsel, and an unsigned pleading
produces no legal effect.
2.   The En Banc Resolution on Bar Matter No. 1132 (2003) requires counsels to indicate the ff. in all papers and
pleadings submitted to the various judicial or quasi-judicial bodies:
a.   Roll of Attorney’s No.
b.   IBP Official Receipt No. OR Lifetime Membership No.
c.   Current Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) No.
3.   A.M. NO. 07-6-5-SC (2007) requires counsels to indicate in their pleadings or other legal documents their contact
details aside from address such as telephone number, fax number, cellular phone number, or email address.
4.   Bar Matter No. 1922 (2008) requires practicing members of the bar to indicate in all pleadings filed before the
courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate
of Exemption, as may be applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance period.

Page 77 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

 Quitclaims in Labor Cases

 
QUITCLAIM AND RELEASE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

I, [NAME OF EMPLOYEE] of legal age residing at [ADDRESS] for and in consideration of the amount of
[AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS] (PhP xxx, xxx.xx) given to me by [NAME OF EMPLOYER] do hereby release and
discharge aforesaid company/corporation and its officers, person/s from any money claims by way of unpaid wages,
separation pay, overtime pay or otherwise, as may be due to me for my service with the aforesaid company.

I received the above consideration as full and final settlement of any and all such claims; and I further
manifest that the payment of the above-mentioned amount shall not be taken by me, my heirs and successors and
assigns as a confession and/or admission of liability on the part of said COMPANY, its officers and employees for
any matter, cause demand, or damages I may have against them.

I hereby declare that I have read this document before signing it and the release and quitclaim hereby given
is made willingly and voluntarily and with full knowledge of my rights under the law.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this instrument this ____ day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE
OF SIGNING].

(sgd).
[NAME OF EMPLOYEE]

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

_________________ _________________

[PLUS: JURAT]

Note: In EDI-Staffbuilders v. NLRC [G.R. No. 145587 (2007)] the Court set forth the following guidelines for quitclaims
and releases. The quitclaim and release must contain:

1.   A fixed amount as full and final compromise settlement;

2.   The benefits of the employees if possible with the corresponding amounts, which the employees are giving up in
consideration of the fixed compromise amount;
3.   A statement that the employer has clearly explained to the employee in English, Filipino, or in the dialect
(language) known to the employees that by signing the waiver or quitclaim, they are forfeiting or relinquishing
their right to receive the benefits which are due them under the law; and
4.   A statement that the employees signed and executed the document voluntarily, and had fully understood the
contents of the document and that their consent was freely given without any threat, violence, duress, intimidation,
or undue influence exerted on their person.

It is advisable that the stipulations be made in English and Tagalog or in the dialect (language) known to the employee.
There should be two (2) witnesses to the execution of the quitclaim who must also sign the quitclaim. The document
should be subscribed and sworn to under oath preferably before any administering official of the Department of Labor
and Employment or its regional office, the Bureau of Labor Relations, the NLRC or a labor attaché in a foreign country.

Page 78 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

 Contract of Lease
CONTRACT OF LEASE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

This Agreement made and entered into at [PLACE] this ____ day of [MONTH, YEAR] by and between
[NAME OF LESSOR], of legal age, single/married to [SPOUSE, IF APPLICABLE], (LESSOR) and resident of
[ADDRESS], and [NAME OF LESSEE], of legal age, single and resident of [ADDRESS] (LESSEE), WITNESSETH
that:

1. In consideration of a monthly rental of [AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS] (PhP xxx,xxx.xx) and the
covenants made below, the LESSOR hereby LEASES to the LESSEE a(n) [PROPERTY] located at [ADDRESS OF
PROPERTY TO BE LEASED] covered by [TCT/TAX DEC. NO.] for a period of TWELVE (12) MONTHS from signing
of this contract.

2. The LESSEE covenants, as follows:

2.1. To pay the rentals on or before the fifth day of each month, without need of demand at the residence
of LESSOR;

2.2. To keep the premises in good and habitable condition, making the necessary repairs inside and outside
the house;

2.3. Not to make major alterations and improvements without the written consent of the LESSOR and in
the event of such unauthorized major alterations and improvements, surrendering ownership over such
improvements and alterations to the LESSOR upon expiration of this lease;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this contract on the date and the place first mentioned.

(sgd.) (sgd.)
[NAME OF LESSOR] [NAME OF LESSEE]
LESSOR LESSEE

[If Lessor is married, include spousal consent as follows:]

With my consent:

(sgd.)
[NAME OF SPOUSE OF LESSOR]
SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:
_________________ _________________

[PLUS ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR TWO-PARTY INSTRUMENT]

Page 79 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

 Contracts of Sale
Deed of Sale of Motor Vehicle

DEED OF SALE OF MOTOR VEHICLE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That I, [NAME OF SELLER], Filipino, of legal age, single/married to [SPOUSE, IF APPLICABLE], a resident
of [ADDRESS OF SELLER], is the lawful owner of a certain motor vehicle which is more particularly described as
follows:

MAKE : MOTOR NO. :

SERIES : SERIAL/CHASSIS NO. :
TYPE OF BODY : PLATE NO. :
YEAR MODEL : FILE NO. :
C.R. NO. :

That for and in consideration of the sum of [AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS] (PhP xxx, xxx.xx), Philippine
Currency, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged to my entire satisfaction, I hereby sell, transfer and convey by
way of Absolute Sale unto [NAME OF BUYER], Filipino, of legal age, and resident of [ADDRESS OF BUYER], the
above described motor vehicle, free from all liens and encumbrances.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this agreement this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE
OF SIGNING].

(sgd.) (sgd.)
[NAME OF BUYER] [NAME OF SELLER]
VENDEE VENDOR

[If Seller is married, include spousal consent as follows:]

With my consent:

(sgd.)
[NAME OF SPOUSE OF SELLER]

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

_________________ _________________

[PLUS ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR TWO-PARTY INSTRUMENT]

Page 80 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

Bill of Sale (Personal Property)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
City/Municipality of ____________ ) S.S.

BILL OF SALE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

I, [NAME OF SELLER], Filipino, single, and resident of [ADDRESS OF SELLER] for and in consideration of
the amount of [AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS] (PhP xxx,xxx.xx), paid to me today by [NAME OF BUYER], Filipino,
single and resident of [ADDRESS OF BUYER] do hereby SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY absolutely and
unconditionally unto said [NAME OF BUYER] the following property:

(Description of property)
I own and have the right to sell and transfer the title and ownership of the above–described property; I will
defend the same against the claims of any and all persons whatsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE OF
SIGNING].
(sgd).
[NAME OF SELLER]

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

_________________ _________________

[PLUS ACKNOWLEDGMENT]

Page 81 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

Unilateral Deed of Sale of Registered Land

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

City/Municipality of ____________ ) S.S.

DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

I, [NAME OF SELLER], Filipino, single/married to [SPOUSE, IF APPLICABLE], and resident of [ADDRESS
OF SELLER] for and in consideration of the amount of [AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS] (PhP xxx,xxx.xx), paid to me
today by [NAME OF BUYER], Filipino, single and resident of [ADDRESS OF BUYER] do hereby SELL, TRANSFER
and CONVEY absolutely and unconditionally unto said [NAME OF BUYER] that certain parcel(s) of land, together
with the buildings and improvements thereon situated in the [CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF ____], free from all liens
and encumbrances whatsoever and more particularly described as follows:
(Technical Description of property as indicated in the title)
of which I am the registered owner in fee simple, my title thereto being evidenced by [TRANSFER/ORIGINAL
CERTIFICATE TITLE NO.__________], issued by the Register of Deeds of [CITY/MUNICIPALITY].
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE OF
SIGNING].
(sgd).
[NAME OF SELLER]

[If Seller is married, include spousal consent as follows:]

With my consent:
(sgd.)
[NAME OF SPOUSE OF SELLER]
SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:
_________________ _________________

[PLUS ACKNOWLEDGMENT]

Page 82 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

Unilateral Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
City/Municipality of ____________ ) S.S.

DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

I, [NAME OF SELLER], Filipino, single/married to [SPOUSE, IF APPLICABLE], and resident of [ADDRESS

OF SELLER] for and in consideration of the amount of [AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS] (PhP xxx,xxx.xx), paid to me
today by [NAME OF BUYER], Filipino, single and resident of [ADDRESS OF BUYER] do hereby SELL, TRANSFER
and CONVEY absolutely and unconditionally unto said [NAME OF BUYER] that certain parcel(s) of land, together
with the buildings and improvements thereon situated in the [CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF ____], free from all liens
and encumbrances whatsoever and more particularly described as follows:
(Description: state the nature of each piece of land and its improvements, situations and boundaries, area in square
meters, e.g. “Bounded on the N. by ____________; on the E. by ___________; on the S. by ____________; and on the W. by
____________; with an area of ________ square meters, more or less.”)
THAT the SELLER does hereby declare that the boundaries of the foregoing land are visible by means of
[MONUMENTS, CREEKS, TREES ETC.] that the permanent improvements existing thereon consist of [LIST
VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS, IF NONE, STATE SO.]; that the land is assessed for the current year at (PhP xxx.xx)
as per Tax Declaration No. _________, and that the property is in present possession of the SELLER.
The above described real estate, not having been registered under Act No. 496 nor under the Spanish
Mortgage Law, I have agreed to register this instrument under the provisions of Sec. 194 of the Revised
Administrative Code, as amended by Sec. 113 of P.D 1159.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE OF
SIGNING].
(sgd).
[NAME OF SELLER]

[If Vendor is married, include spousal consent as follows:]

With my consent:

(sgd.)
[NAME OF SPOUSE OF SELLER]
SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

_________________ _________________

[PLUS ACKNOWLEDGMENT]

Page 83 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

Bilateral Deed of Sale of Registered Land

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

City/Municipality of ____________ ) S.S.

DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

This DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE is made, executed and entered into by:

[NAME OF SELLER], Filipino, single/married to [SPOUSE, IF APPLICABLE], and resident of [ADDRESS

OF SELLER] (SELLER)

-and-

[NAME OF BUYER], Filipino, single/married to [SPOUSE, IF APPLICABLE] and resident of [ADDRESS OF

BUYER] (BUYER)

WITNESSETH

That the SELLER is the registered owner in fee simple of a parcel of land with improvements situated in the
[CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF ____] with [TRANSFER/ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE TITLE NO.__________], issued by the
Register of Deeds of [CITY/MUNICIPALITY] and more particularly described as follows:

(Technical Description of property as indicated in the title)

That the SELLER for and in consideration of the amount of [AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS] (PhP
xxx,xxx.xx), does hereby SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY absolutely and unconditionally unto the BUYER that
certain parcel(s) of land, together with the buildings and improvements thereon free from all liens and
encumbrances whatsoever.
That it is hereby mutually agreed that the BUYER shall bear all expenses for the execution and registration
of this deed of sale.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this contract on this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE
OF SIGNING].

(sgd.) (sgd.)
[NAME OF BUYER] [NAME OF SELLER]
BUYER SELLER

[If Buyer and/or Seller are married, include spousal consent as follows:]

With my consent:

(sgd.) (sgd.)
[NAME OF SPOUSE OF BUYER] [NAME OF SPOUSE OF SELLER]

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

_________________ _________________

[PLUS ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR TWO-PARTY INSTRUMENT]

Page 84 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

 Promissory Notes
Promissory Note (No Interest)
[DATE]

PhP [xxx,xxx.xx]

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, I promise to pay to [NAME OF PAYEE] or order the sum of [AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS]
on or before [DATE OF PAYMENT]. The makers and indorsers severally waive presentment for payment, protest
and notice of non-payment of this note.

(sgd.)
[NAME OF MAKER]

Promissory Note (With Interest)

[DATE]

PhP [xxx,xxx.xx]

[X DAYS/MONTHS] after date. I promise to pay, for value received, [NAME OF PAYEE] or order the sum of
[AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS] on or before [DATE OF PAYMENT] with interest at [INTEREST RATE] per annum
until fully paid. The makers and indorsers severally waive presentment for payment, protest and notice of non-
payment of this note.

(sgd.)
[NAME OF MAKER]

Note: The following are the relevant sections of the Negotiable Instruments Law:

Section 1. Form of negotiable instruments. - An instrument to be negotiable must conform to the following
requirements:

a)   It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer;

b)   Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money;
c)   Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time;
d)   Must be payable to order or to bearer; and
e)   Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be named or otherwise indicated therein with
reasonable certainty.

Sec. 184. Promissory note, defined. - A negotiable promissory note within the meaning of this Act is an unconditional
promise in writing made by one person to another, signed by the maker, engaging to pay on demand, or at a fixed or
determinable future time, a sum certain in money to order or to bearer. Where a note is drawn to the maker's own
order, it is not complete until indorsed by him.

Page 85 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

 Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping

I, [NAME], Filipino, of legal age, with residence at [ADDRESS] do hereby state that:

1.   I am the [PARTY e.g. COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER etc.] in the above-entitled case;

2.   I caused the preparation of the foregoing [DESIGNATION OF THE PLEADING e.g. PETITION,
COMPLAINT etc.];

3.   I have read its contents and affirm that they are true and correct to the best of my own personal
knowledge and authentic documents in our possession;

4.   I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;

5.   To the best of my knowledge no other such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency and if I should thereafter learn that a similar action
or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE
OF SIGNING].

(sgd.)
[NAME OF AFFIANT]
Affiant

[PLUS JURAT]

Notes:
As per In Re: Letter Complaint of Fabiana [A.M. No. CA-13-51-J (2013)], if there are pending actions involving the same
parties and/or related question of law and/or fact, the affiant must render complete statements of the present status
thereof.
In Jacinto v. Gumaru, Jr. [G.R. No. 191906 (2014), the Court reiterated the difference between non-compliance and
defective form:
1.   A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective
verification, and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum
shopping.
2.   As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally
defective. The Court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances
are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served
thereby.
3.   Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of
the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have
been made in good faith or are true and correct.
4.   As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is
generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule
on the ground of substantial compliance or presence of special circumstances or compelling reasons.
5.   The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise,
those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances,
however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action
or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies
with the Rule.
6.   Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If,
however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power
of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.

Page 86 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

 Notice of Hearing and Explanation

Request for and Notice of Hearing

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

[COURT e.g. METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT etc.]
[CITY/MUNICIPALITY], [BRANCH NO.]

Please submit the foregoing Motion to the Court for its consideration and approval immediately upon receipt hereof
and kindly include the same in the court’s calendar for hearing on [DATE] at [TIME e.g. 8:30 in the morning.]

[NAME AND DETAILS OF COUNSEL OF OTHER PARTY]

Please take notice that counsel has requested to be heard on [DATE] at [TIME e.g. 8:30 in the morning.]

(sgd.)
[NAME AND DETAILS OF COUNSEL]

Note: The following provisions of Rule 15 – Motions, Rules of Court state the requirements of a notice of hearing:

Sec. 4. Hearing of motion. — Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the
adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant.

Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to
ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause
sets the hearing on shorter notice. (4a)

Sec. 5. Notice of hearing. — The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the
time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion. (5a)

Page 87 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

Proof of Service by Registered Mail with Explanation

Copy Furnished:

[NAME AND DETAILS OF COUNSEL OF OTHER PARTY]

EXPLANATION

The foregoing [DESIGNATION OF PLEADING, MOTION, ETC.] and its attachment(s) were served on [NAME OF
OPPOSING COUNSEL] [IF APPLICABLE: “AND FILED WITH THIS HONORABLE COURT”] by registered mail
due to the lack of time and available personnel to effect personal service. This explanation is given pursuant to
Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.

(sgd.)
[NAME AND DETAILS OF COUNSEL]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

City/Municipality of ____________ ) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, [NAME], a messenger of [NAME OF COUNSEL], with office address at [ADDRESS] after being duly
sworn, hereby depose and state:

That on [DATE OF MAILING], I served a copy of the following pleadings/papers by registered mail in
accordance with Section 10, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court:

Nature of Pleading/Paper
________________________
________________________

in Case No. _________________ entitled ____________________ by depositing a copy in the post office in a sealed
envelope, plainly addressed to [NAME OF PARTY OR HIS/HER COUNSEL] at [ADDRESS] with postage fully paid,
as evidenced by Registry Receipt No. _____________________ attached and with instructions to the post master to
return the mail to sender after ten (10) days if undelivered.

TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this Affidavit on ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE
OF SIGNING].

(sgd.)
[NAME OF AFFIANT]
Affiant

[PLUS JURAT]

Page 88 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

 Affidavits
Affidavit of Loss
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
City/Municipality of ____________ ) S.S.
AFFIDAVIT OF LOSS

I, [NAME], with residence at [ADDRESS] after being duly sworn, do hereby depose and state:

1. That I am the owner/holder of [LOST PROPERTY]

2. [STATE CIRCUMSTANCES OF LOSS – DATE, PLACE, TIME]

3. That I undertook earnest efforts to retrieve the [LOST PROPERTY] to no avail

4. I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing [AND IF APPLICABLE OTHER
PURPOSES, e.g. “to request for a copy of the document” or “to request for a new identification card”
etc.]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE
OF SIGNING].

(sgd.)
[NAME OF AFFIANT]
Affiant
[PLUS JURAT]

Notes:
•   For loss of Motor Vehicles include the following details:
MAKE:
MOTOR Engine NO.
SERIES:
SERIAL/CHASSIS NO.
PLATE NO.
YEAR MODEL:
MV FILE NO.:

•   For the loss of Valid Passports, the affiant must also attest to the fact that they reported the loss to the nearest
Police Authority since a Police Report is required in both cases of the loss happening here or abroad. [Article 13,
Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. 8239]

Page 89 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

Affidavit of Change of First Name

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

City/Municipality of ____________ ) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF CHANGE OF NAME

I, [NAME], with residence at [ADDRESS] after being duly sworn, do hereby depose and state that:

1. I am seeking the change of my first name in my Certificate of Live Birth hereto attached as “ANNEX A”

2. [STATE CIRCUMSTANCES OF BIRTH (WHERE, WHEN, TO WHOM etc.)

3. My first name is reflected as [NAME IN BIRTH CERTIFICATE] in the attached Certificate of Live Birth

4. I am executing this affidavit to change the name reflected in my Certificate of Live Birth to [“DESIRED
NAME”]

5. I am changing my first name for the following reasons: [STATE REASONS; NOTE THE REASONS IN
R.A. 9048 AS AMENDED]

6. I am submitting the following documents to support this petition: [LIST DOCUMENTS; NOTE THE
REQUIREMENTS UNDER R.A. 9048 AS AMENDED]

7. I have not filed any other similar petition before any Local Civil Registry Office, any court in the Philippines
or in any Philippine consulate or embassy

8. I have no pending criminal, civil or administrative case in any court or quasi-judicial body

9. I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing for the purposes of changing my name
in accordance with R.A. 9048 as amended and its Implementing Rules and Regulations

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE
OF SIGNING].

(sgd.)
[NAME OF AFFIANT]
Affiant

[PLUS JURAT]
Note:
Grounds for Changing First Name/Nickname:
1.   The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to
write or pronounce.
2.   The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he has been
publicly known by that by that first name or nickname in the community: or
3.   The change will avoid confusion [Sec. 4, R.A. 9048 as amended by R.A. 1072]
Supporting documents of Petition for Change of Name:
1.   A certified true machine copy of the certificate or of the page of the registry book containing the entry or entries
sought to be corrected or changed.
2.   At least two (2) public or private documents showing the correct entry or entries upon which the correction or
change shall be based such as baptismal certificate, voters affidavit, employment record, GSIS/SSS record,
medical record, business record, driver’s license, insurance, land titles, certificate of land transfer, bank
passbook; and
3.   Other documents which the petitioner or the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general may consider
relevant and necessary for the approval of the petition.
4.   A certification from the appropriate law enforcements, agencies that he has no pending case or no criminal
record. [Sec. 4, R.A. 9048 as amended by R.A. 1072]

Page 90 of 91
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

Judicial Affidavit
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

I, [NAME], of legal age, [SINGLE/MARRIED], [CITIZENSHIP], residing at [ADDRESS], employed as

[OCCUPATION/PROFESSION] at [OFFICE ADDRESS], after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law and
fully conscious that I do so under oath and that I may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury in way of
answers to the questions propounded to me during the examination conducted on [DATE] by [NAME OF LAWYER],
with office address [OFFICE ADDRESS OF LAWYER], do hereby depose and state:

Q1: [QUESTION]

A: [ANSWER]

Q2: [QUESTION]

A: [ANSWER]

Q3: [QUESTION]

A: [ANSWER]

Q4: [QUESTION]

A: [ANSWER]

Q5: [QUESTION]

A: [ANSWER]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE
OF SIGNING].

(sgd.)
[NAME OF AFFIANT]
Affiant

ATTESTATION AND OFFER

I, [NAME OF LAWYER], of legal age, with office address [OFFICE ADDRESS OF LAWYER], do hereby
certify that:

I propounded questions to [NAME] and faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions I asked
and the corresponding answers that [NAME] gave, as above stated.

Neither I nor any other person then present or assisting [HIM/HER] coached [HIM/HER] regarding
[HIS/HER] answers and which testimony is being offered to prove: [ENUMERATE THE PURPOSE OF THE OFFER].

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE
OF SIGNING].

(sgd.)
[NAME OF LAWYER]

[PLUS JURAT WHICH INCLUDES THE DETAILS OF THE WITNESS AND LAWYER]
Note: Judicial Affidavit Rule shall apply to ALL actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the presentation of
evidence; ALL courts, quasi-judicial and investigative bodies authorized by SC to receive evidence, including IBP; and
NOT to small claims cases.
A false attestation shall subject the lawyer to disciplinary action against disbarment.

Page 91 of 91