1. ARTEMIO ENDAYA, complainant, vs. ATTY. WILFREDO OCA, respondent.

A.C. No. 3967. September 3, 2003

FACTS: The complainant sought the services of the Public Attorneys Office in Batangas City
for his unlawful detainer civil case filed against him and his wife. The respondent was
assigned to handle the case. When the court, ordered the parties to submit their affidavits
and position papers within ten days from receipt of the order, respondent failed to submit
the required affidavits and position paper, as may be gleaned from the Decision dated
March 19, 1992 of the MCTC where it was noted that only the plaintiffs submitted their
affidavits and position papers. Nonetheless, the court dismissed the complaint for unlawful
detainer principally on the ground that the plaintiffs are not the real parties-in-interest.
Plaintiffs appealed the Decision and the RTC directed the parties to file their respective
memoranda. Once again, respondent failed the complainant and his wife. As observed by
the RTC in its Decision dated September 7, 1992, respondent did not file the memorandum
for his clients, thereby prompting the court to consider the case as submitted for decision.
In its Decision, the RTC reversed the decision appealed from as it held that plaintiffs are
the co-owners of the property in dispute and as such are parties-in-interest. It also found
that the verbal lease agreement was on a month-to-month basis and perforce terminable by
the plaintiffs at the end of any given month upon proper notice to the defendants. It also
made a finding that defendants incurred rentals in arrears.
Having lost the unlawful detainer case, on January 12, 1993 complainant filed the
present administrative complaint against the respondent for professional delinquency
consisting of his failure to file the required pleadings in behalf of the complainant and his
spouse. Respondent denies that he committed professional misconduct in violation of his
oath, stressing that he was not the original counsel of complainant and his spouse. He
further avers that when he agreed to represent complainant at the continuation of the
preliminary conference in the main case, it was for the sole purpose of asking leave of court
to file an amended answer because he was made to believe by the complainant that a non-
lawyer prepared the answer. Upon discovering that the answer was in fact the work of a
lawyer, forthwith he asked the court to relieve him as complainants counsel, but he was
denied. He adds that he agreed to file the position paper for the complainant upon the
latters undertaking to provide him with the documents which support the position that
plaintiffs are not the owners of the property in dispute. As complainant had reneged on his
promise, he claims that he deemed it more prudent not to file any position paper, as it
would be a repetition of the answer. He offers the same reason for not filing the
memorandum on appeal with the RTC. Finally, respondent asserts that he fully explained his
stand as regards Civil Case No. 34-MCTC-T to the complainant

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct.

HELD: Yes, the court ruled that the facts and circumstances in this case indubitably show
respondents failure to live up to his duties as lawyer in consonance with the strictures of the
lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, thereby warranting his suspension
from the practice of law. At various stages of unlawful detainer case, respondent was remiss
in his performance of his duty as a counsel.
For his failure to inform the court, respondent violated Canon 12-A lawyer shall
exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration
of justice.
Respondent likewise failed to demonstrate the candor he owed his client. Canon
17 provides that (A) lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him. When complainant received the RTC decision, he
talked to respondent about it.[46] However, respondent denied knowledge of the decision
despite his receipt thereof as early as September 14, 1992. Obviously, he tried to evade
responsibility for his negligence. In doing so, respondent was untruthful to complainant and
effectively betrayed the trust placed in him by the latter.
On top of all these is respondent’s employment as a lawyer of the Public Attorneys
Office, which is tasked to provide free legal assistance for indigents and low-income persons
so as to promote the rule of law in the protection of the rights of the citizenry and the
efficient and speedy administration of justice. Against this backdrop, respondent should
have been more judicious in the performance of his professional obligations. Lawyers in the
government are public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the public service.
Furthermore, a lawyer from the government is not exempt from observing the degree of
diligence required in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 6 of the Code provides
that the canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official
tasks.
2, Isidra Barrientos vs. Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro
A.C. No. 6408. August 31, 2004

FACTS: In September 2000, the lawyer issued several Equitable PCI Bank Checks in favor of
Barrientos and Mercado for the payment of a pre-existing debt. The checks bounced due to
insufficient funds, thus, charges for violation of B.P. 22 were filed. The lawyer asked for
deferment of the criminal charges to pay her debt several times, but failed to pay the full
amount, even after a complaint for disbarment was filed against her.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The failure to pay just debts and the
issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be
sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are the instruments for the
administration of justice and the vanguards of our legal system. They are expected o
maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity
and fair dealings so that the people’s faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured.
They must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts and to
their clients, which include prompt payment of financial obligations. They must conduct
themselves in a manner that reflects the values and norms of the legal profession as
embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. The issuance of checks, which were
later, dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account, indicates a lawyer’s
unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on her. It shows a lack of personal honesty
and good moral character as to render her unworthy of public confidence. The issuance of a
series of worthless checks also shows the remorseless attitude of respondent, unmindful to
the deleterious effects of such act to the public interest and public order. It also manifests a
lawyer’s low regard to her commitment to the oath she has taken when she joined her
peers, seriously and irreparably tarnishing the image of the profession she should hold in
high esteem.
3. JOVITA BUSTAMANTE-ALEJANDRO vs. ATTYS. WARFREDO TOMAS ALEJANDRO and
MARICRIS A. VILLARIN
A.C. No. 4256. February 13, 2004

FACTS: According to Mrs. Alejandro, his husband, Atty. Alejandro abandoned her and their
children to live with his mistress, Atty. Villarin. That they have been publicly representing
themselves as husband and wife, and that the mistress gave birth to one child. Birth
certificate of the said child was presented in evidence and the mistress identified herself
therein as Ma. Cristina V. Alejandro, having married to Atty. Alejandro on May 1, 1990 in
Alicia, Isabela.
However, there is no evidence on record which would establish beyond doubt that
respondent Atty. Alejandro indeed contracted a second marriage with Atty. Villarin while his
marriage to herein complainant was subsisting.
Complainant alleged that she filed this administrative complaint when she learned
that her husband has been nominated as a regional trial court judge. She insists that he is
not fit to be a judge considering that he, and co-respondent Atty. Villarin, do not even
possess the basic integrity to remain as members of the Philippine Bar.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may be disbarred on the ground of grossly immoral conduct
considering that there is no sufficient evidence to prove that he contracted a second
marriage while the first one is still subsisting.

RULING: Yes. Although the evidence presented was not sufficient to prove that he
contracted a subsequent bigamous marriage with her, the fact remains that respondent
Atty. Alejandro exhibited by his conduct a deplorable lack of that degree of morality
required of him as a member of the Bar. It has already been held in long line of cases that
disbarment proceedings is warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife and
maintains an illicit relationship with another woman who had borne him a child. Atty.
Alejandro, for his gross immorality, is DISBARRED from the practice of law. And the
complaint against the paramour, Atty. Villarin is REFERRED BACK to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for further appropriate proceedings.
4. LINDA VDA. DE ESPINO, complainant, vs. ATTY. PEPITO C. PRESQUITO, respondent.
A.M. No. AC 4762 dated June 28, 2004

FACTS: Mrs. Linda Vda. de Espino filed a letter-complaint with the Court Administrator
Alfredo Benipayo for "having employed fraud, trickery and dishonest means in refusing to
honor and pay [her] late husband Virgilio Espino, when he was still alive, the sum of
P763,060.00" against Atty Pepito C.Presquito (respondent). Mr. Espino and the respondent
entered into an agreement for a purchase of land by the latter from the former. The price of
the land was P 1,437,410.00, payable on a staggered basis and by installments. Respondent
issues post-dated checks as payment. Respondent then entered into a joint venture or
partnership agreement with Mrs. Guadalupe Ares for the subdivision of the land into home-
size lots and its development, with a portion of the land retained by respondent for his own
use. The land was eventually titled in the name of respondent and Mrs. Ares, and subdivided
into 35 to 36 lots. The 8 post-dated checks issued by respondent were all dishonored. Mr.
Espino made repeated demands for payment from respondent but the latter refused. Mr.
Espino died in December 1996. His widow, complainant, then tried to collect from
respondent the value of the eight checks. When complainant’s numerous pleas remained
unheeded, she filed the complaint in June 1997.Respondent denied any wrongdoing, and
said that the allegations that he had employed "fraud, trickery and dishonest means" with
the late Mr. Espino were totally false and baseless. Respondents claim that he and Mr.
Espino, agreed that Mr Espino will not encash the checks until the right of way problem has
been resolved. In addition, respondent claims that the balance would be offset with the cost
he incurred when he defended Mr. Espino’s son in a criminal case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent failed to act with candor and fairness towards the
complainant.

HELD: Complainant’s testimony and exhibits have clearly established that: (1) there was an
agreement between respondent and complainant’s late husband for the sale of the latter’s
land; (2) respondent had issued the eight checks in connection with said agreement; (3)
these checks were dishonored and remain unpaid; and (4) the land sold had an existing
road-right of- way. The responded failed to prove that he had legal cause to refuse payment,
or that he was entitled to legal compensation. Respondent’s failure to present evidence is a
breach of Rule 12.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Having no legal defense to
refuse payment of the 8 dishonored checks, respondent’s indifference to complainant’s
entreaties for payment was conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar and an officer of
the court. Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by his unlawful,
dishonest and deceitful conduct towards complainant and her late husband, first by allowing
the 8 checks he issued to bounce, then by ignoring the repeated demands for payment until
complainant was forced to file this complaint, and finally by deliberately delaying the
disposition of this case with dilatory tactics.
5. Joselano Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala
A.C. No. 7136. August 1, 2007

FACTS: On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli
Eala for grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer’s oath. In the
Complaint, Guevarra first met the respondent in January 2000 when his then fiancée Irene
Moje introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to Marianne Tantoco
with whom he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant noticed that from
January to March 2001, Irene had been receiving from respondent Cellphone calls, as well as
messages some which read “I love you,” “I miss you,” or “Meet you at Megamall.” He also
noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in the morning of the
following day, and sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked her whereabouts,
she replied that she slept at her parent’s house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with
her work.
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and Respondent together on two
occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned
the conjugal house. On April 22, 2001 complainant went uninvited to Irene’s birthday
celebration at which he saw her and the respondent celebrating with her family and friends.
Out of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately. Following that
incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off all her personal belongings.
Complainant later found a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2007, the day of his wedding
to Irene, Complainant soon saw respondent’s car and that of Irene constantly parked at No.
71-B11 Street, New Manila where as he was later learn sometime in April 2001, Irene was
already residing. He also learned still later that when his friends saw Irene on about January
18, 2002 together with respondent during a concert, she was pregnant.

ISSUE: Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the reason for the disbarment
of Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala.

HELD: Lawyer’s oath stated that a lawyer should support the Constitution and obey the laws,
Meaning he shall not make use of deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct, grossly
immoral conduct, or be convicted in any crime involving moral turpitude. In the case at bar
Atty. Eala was accused of Concubinage, under ART. 334 of the Revised Penal Code, “ Any
husband who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal dwelling, or, shall have sexual intercourse,
under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her
in any other place, shall be punished by prison correctional in its minimum and medium
period. Section 2 of ART. XV states “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the state. Respondent’s grossly immoral
conduct runs afoul of the constitution and the laws that he as a lawyer has sworn to uphold.
Hence the court declared Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala DISBARRED for grossly immoral
conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
6. ROSARIO T. MECARAL , complainant, vs. ATTY. DANILO S. VELASQUEZ, respondent.
A.C. No. 8392. April 23, 2010, (Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2175),

FACTS: On June 29, 2010, Complainant was hired as a secretary of Atty. Velasquez who later
became his common-law wife. Mecaral was later brought to Upper San Agustin in Caibiran,
Biliran where he left her with a religious group known as the Faith Healers Association of the
Philippines. Later, Mecaral returned home and upon knowing, Velasquez brought her back
to San Agustin where, on his instruction, his followers tortured, brainwashed and injected
her with drugs. Her mother, Delia Tambis Vda. De Mecaral (Delia), having received
information that she was weak, pale and walking barefoot along the mountainous area of
Caibiran caused the rescue operation of Mecaral. Thus, Mecaral filed a disbarment
complaint against respondent and charged the latter with bigamy for contracting a second
marriage to Leny H. Azur on August 2, 1996, despite the subsistence of his marriage to his
first wife, Ma. Shirley G. Yunzal.

ISSUE: Whether respondent is guilty of grossly immoral and acts which constitute gross
misconduct.

RULING: Investigating Commissioner of the CBD found that [respondents] acts of converting
his secretary into a mistress; contracting two marriages with Shirley and Leny, are grossly
immoral which no civilized society in the world can countenance. The subsequent detention
and torture of the complainant is gross misconduct that only a beast may be able to do.
Certainly, the respondent had violated Canon 1 and Canon 7 Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the
state upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications
required bylaw for the conferment of such privilege. When a lawyers moral character is
assailed, such that his right to continue practicing his cherished profession is imperiled, it
behooves him to meet the charges squarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the
investigating body and this Court, that he is morally fit to keep his name in the Roll of
Attorneys. Respondent has not discharged the burden. He never attended the hearings
before the IBP to rebut the charges brought against him, suggesting that they are true.
Despite his letter dated March 28, 2008 manifesting that he would come up with his defense
in a verified pleading, he never did.
WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez, is DISBARRED, and his name
ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. This Decision is immediately executory and
ordered to be part of the records of respondent in theOffice of theBar Confidant, Supreme
Court of the Philippines.

Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal process.

Canon 7 - Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
7. WILSON CHAM, complainant, vs.ATTY. EVA PAITA-MOYA, respondent.
A.C. No. 7494. June 27, 2008

FACTS: According to the Complaint, on 1 October 1998, respondent entered into a Contract
of Lease with Greenville Realty and Development Corp. (GRDC), represented by complainant
as its President and General Manager, in a residential apartment unit owned by GRDC
located at No. 61-C Kalayaan Avenue, Quezon City, for a consideration of P8,000.00 per
month for a term of one year.
Upon the expiration of said lease contract, respondent informed the complainant
that she would no longer renew the same but requested an extension of her stay at the
apartment unit until 30 June 2000 with a commitment that she would be paying the monthly
rental during the extension period. Complainant approved such request but increased the
rental rate to P8,650.00 per month for the period beginning 1 October 1999 until 30 June
2000.
Respondent stayed at the leased premises up to October 2000 without paying her
rentals from July to October 2000. She also failed to settle her electric bills for the months of
September and October 2000. The Statement of Account as of 15 October 2000 shows that
respondent’s total accountability is P71,007.88.
Sometime in October 2000, a report reached complainant’s office that respondent
had secretly vacated the apartment unit, bringing along with her the door keys. Also,
respondent did not heed complainant’s repeated written demands for payment of her
obligations despite due receipt of the same.
In her Answer, respondent alleged that she had religiously paid her monthly rentals
and had not vacated the apartment unit surreptitiously. She also averred that she
transferred to another place because she was given notice by the complainant to vacate the
premises to give way for the repair and renovation of the same, but which never happened
until presently. Respondent actually wanted to ask that complainant to account for her
deposit for the apartment unit, but she could not do so since she did not know
complainant’s address or contact number. For the same reason, she could not turn over to
the complainant the door keys to the vacated apartment unit.

ISSUE: Whether or not failure to meet obligation is ground for suspension.

RULING: The Court Ruled that any gross misconduct of a lawyer in his or her professional or
private capacity is a ground for the imposition of the penalty of suspension or disbarment
because good character is an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law
and for the continuance of such privilege. The Court has held that the deliberate failure to
pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a
lawyer may be sanctioned with one year’s suspension from the practice of law, or a
suspension of six months upon partial payment of the obligation.
Accordingly, administrative sanction is warranted by respondent’s gross misconduct.
The case at bar merely involves the respondent’s deliberate failure to pay her just debts,
without her issuing a worthless check, which would have been a more serious offense. The
Investigating Commissioner of the IBP recommended that she be suspended from the
practice of law for three months, a penalty which this Court finds sufficient.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Eva Paita-Moya is found guilty of gross misconduct and is
hereby SUSPENDED for one month from the practice of law, effective upon her receipt of
this Decision. She is warned that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with
more severely.
8. ALFREDO B. ROA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. JUAN R. MORENO, Respondent.
A.C. No. 8382. April 21, 2010

FACTS: Sometime in September 1998, respondent sold to complainant a parcel of land

located along Starlite Street in Cupang, Antipolo. Complainant paid respondent P70,000 in
cash as full payment for the lot. Respondent did not issue a deed of sale. Instead, he issued a
temporary receipt and a Certificate of Land Occupancy purportedly issued by the general
overseer of the estate in which the lot was located. Respondent assured complainant that
he could use the lot from then on.
Complainant learned, not long after, that the Certificate of Land Occupancy could
not be registered in the Register of Deeds. When complainant went to see respondent, the
latter admitted that the real owner of the lot was a certain Rubio. Respondent also said
there was a pending legal controversy over the lot. On 25 February 2001, complainant sent a
letter[3] to respondent demanding the return of the P70,000 paid for the lot.
Complainant then filed a criminal case against respondent in the Municipal Trial
Court (Branch 2) of Antipolo City. On 26 September 2003, the trial court rendered a decision,
convicting respondent of the crime of other forms of swindling under Article 316, paragraph
1 of the Revised Penal Code. The MTC sentenced respondent to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for one month and one day and ordered him to return the amount of P70,000
to complainant.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent still fit to be allowed to be a member of the bar.

HELD: Respondent’s refusal to return to complainant the money paid for the lot is
unbecoming a member of the bar and an officer of the court. By his conduct, respondent
failed to live up to the strict standard of professionalism required by the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Respondent’s acts violated the trust and respect complainant
reposed in him as a member of the Bar and an officer of the court.
That said, we deem that the penalty of three-month suspension recommended by
the IBP is insufficient to atone for respondents misconduct in this case. We consider a
penalty of two-year suspension more appropriate considering the circumstances of this
case.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Juan R. Moreno GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him
from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years effective upon finality of this
Resolution.
The innocent public who deal in good faith with the likes of respondent are not without
recourse in law. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. A
member of the bar may be disbarred 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 admission to practice, or for a
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
Conduct, as used in the Rule, is not confined to the performance of lawyers professional
duties. A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional or
private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to
continue as an officer of the court.
9. MARJORIE F. SAMANIEGO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ANDREW V. FERRER, Respondent.
A.C. no. 7022. June 18, 2008

FACTS: Early in 1996, Ms. Samaniego was referred to Atty. Ferrer as a potential client. Atty.
Ferrer agreed to handle her cases and soon their lawyer-client relationship became intimate.
Ms. Samaniego said Atty. Ferrer courted her and she fell in love with him. He said she flirted
with him and he succumbed to her temptations. Thereafter, they lived together as "husband
and wife" from 1996 to 1997, and on March 12, 1997, their daughter was born. The affair
ended in 2000 and since then he failed to give support to their daughter.
Before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, Ms. Samaniego presented their
daughter's birth and baptismal certificates, and the photographs taken during the baptism.
She testified that she knew that Atty. Ferrer was in a relationship but did not think he was
already married. She also testified that she was willing to compromise, but he failed to pay
for their daughter's education as agreed upon. Atty. Ferrer refused to appear during the
hearing since he did not want to see Ms. Samaniego.
In his position paper, Atty. Ferrer manifested his willingness to support their
daughter. He also admitted his indiscretion; however, he prayed that the IBP consider Ms.
Samaniego's complicity as she was acquainted with his wife and children. He further
reasoned that he found it unconscionable to abandon his wife and 10 children to cohabit
with Ms. Samaniego.

ISSUE: Whether or not the penalty imposed upon respondent is an adequate sanction for his
grossly immoral conduct.

HELD: Yes, the court finds the penalty recommended by the IBP and office of the Bar
Confidant as adequate sanction for the grossly immoral conduct of respondent.
Atty. Ferrer admitted his extra-marital affair; in his words, his indiscretion which
ended in 2000. We have considered such illicit relation as a disgraceful and immoral conduct
subject to disciplinary action. The penalty for such immoral conduct is disbarment, or
indefinite17 or definite18 suspension, depending on the circumstances of the case.
Recently, in Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, Jr., we ruled that suspension from the practice
of law for two years was an adequate penalty imposed on the lawyer who was found guilty
of gross immorality. In said case, we considered the absence of aggravating circumstances
such as an adulterous relationship coupled with refusal to support his family; or maintaining
illicit relationships with at least two women during the subsistence of his marriage; or
abandoning his legal wife and cohabiting with other women.
However, in this case, we find no similar aggravating circumstances. Thus we find
the penalty recommended by the IBP and Office of the Bar Confidant as adequate sanction
for the grossly immoral conduct of respondent.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Andrew V. Ferrer GUILTY of gross immorality
and, as recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Bar
Confidant, SUSPEND him from the practice of law for six (6) months effective upon notice
hereof, with WARNING that the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more
severely.
LAWS APPLIED:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
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.
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.
10. MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. DANILO S. SAMSON,
Respondent.
A.C. NO. 9608. NOVEMBER 27, 2012.

FACTS: Complainant narrated in her Sworn Statement, narrated that sometime in December
2001, at around midnight, she was sleeping in the maids room at respondents house when
respondent entered and went on top of her. Respondent kissed her lips, sucked her breast,
and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. She struggled to free herself and
shouted, but respondent covered her mouth and nobody could hear as nobody was in the
house. She felt pain and found blood stain in her panty. She stated that another incident
happened on March 19, 2002 at respondents poultry farm in Alegria, San Francisco, Agusan
del Sur. Respondent asked her to go with him to the farm. He brought her to an old shanty
where he sexually abused her. Thereafter, respondent gave her five hundred pesos and
warned her not to tell anyone what had happened or he would kill her and her mother.
The respondent, in his counter –affidavit, admitted that sexual intercourse indeed
transpired between him and the complainant but it was a mutual agreement because the he
gave money to the complainant. Therefore, the act does not constitute grossly immoral
conduct.
The complainant and her mother appeared before the public prosecutor and
executed their respective affidavits of Desistance. Complainant stated that what happened
between respondent and her in March 2002 was based on mutual understanding. Thus, she
was withdrawing the complaint she filed against respondent before the RTC as well as the
one she filed before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. Accordingly, the criminal case
against respondent was dismissed.

ISSUE: Whether or not the penalty of Disbarment is proper

HELD: The possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a
continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to retain membership in the
legal profession. It is the bounden duty of members of the bar to observe the highest degree
of morality in order to safeguard the integrity of the Bar. Consequently, any errant behavior
on the part of a lawyer, be it in the lawyers public or private activities, which tends to show
said lawyer deficient in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to
warrant suspension or disbarment.
From the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and the admissions of
respondent himself, we find that respondents act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the
daughter of his former employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction.
Respondent not only admitted he had sexual intercourse with complainant but also showed
no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that he did nothing wrong because she allegedly
agreed and he even gave her money. Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a woman
other than his wife manifests his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his
own marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he procured the act by enticing a very
young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the
dignity of the human person and the ethics of his profession.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson is hereby DISBARRED for Gross
Immoral Conduct, Violation of his oath of office, and Violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and
Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
11.
11. JUANITA MANAOIS, Complainant, vs. ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE, respondent.
Adm. Case No. 5364. August 20,2008.

FACT: Complainant is a government employee working as a mail sorter at the Manila Central
Post Office. Sometime in 1998, she applied for a loan of P20,000 from Rodella Loans, Inc.,
through respondent. As security for the loan, respondent required her to issue and deliver
to him blank checks that he would fill out according to their agreed monthly installments.
Notwithstanding the full payment of the loan, respondent allegedly failed to return the
remaining blank checks. Respondent told complainant that the loan had not yet been paid
and that the payments had been credited to the interest on the loan. Respondent
threatened complainant with a lawsuit in the event of nonpayment. Respondent allegedly
filled out the blank checks with different amounts and made it appear that complainant had
them exchanged them for cash in the total amount of P287,500.00 for use in her business
venture. Using these checks as basis, respondent filed several cases against complainant for
estafa and for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the City Prosecutors Office of
Quezon City and Pasig City.
Complainant contended that no man of respondents stature would be too foolish to
extend a P287,500.00 loan to a mere mail sorter earning barely P6,000.00 a month on the
bare assurance that her postdated checks would be encashed on their due dates.
The respondent countered that complainant’s allegations are devoid of any truth
and merit. He maintained that it was in fact complainant who deceived him by not honoring
her commitment under the transactions. Those transactions had allegedly been covered by
the postdated checks, which were subsequently dishonored due to ACCOUNT CLOSED. Thus,
he filed the criminal cases against her. He also claimed that the checks had already been
fully filled out when complainant affixed her signature thereon in his presence. Respondent
further asserted that he had given complainant the amount of money indicated in the
checks because he was convinced, based on their previous transactions, that complainant
had capacity to pay.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of Canon
1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: Commissioner Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes conducted hearings on the matter. In his Report
and Recommendation, he found complainants version of the facts more credible than that
of respondent and, accordingly, found respondent guilty of tampering with the checks of
complainant. He likewise noted that this is not just an isolated case as several of
complainant’s officemates had also fallen prey to respondents cunning scheme.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Victor V. Deciembre is found guilty of gross misconduct and
violation of Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED
indefinitely from the practice of law.

Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS

OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct.
12. MARILI C. RONQUILLO, ALEXANDER RONQUILLO and JON ALEXANDER RONQUILLO,
represented by their Attorney-in-Fact SERVILLANO A. CABUNGCAL, complainants, vs. ATTY.
HOMOBONO T. CEZAR, respondent,
A.C. No. 6288. June 16, 2006
FACTS:
 Complainant Marili C. Ronquillo is a Filipino citizen currently residing in Cannes, France
with her sons.
 Complainants and respondent entered into a Deed of Assignment regarding a
townhouse unit and lot for P1.5M.
 Respondent transferred his rights and interests over and promised to give a copy of
the Contract to Sell he executed with Crown Asia, the townhouse developer.
 Respondent received P750K upon execution of the DOA. The balance will be paid in
four equal quarterly installments of P187.5K each.
 Respondent encashed the first check. Crown Asia informed the complainants that
respondent has not paid the full price yet. Respondent also failed to give a copy of the
Contract to Sell.
 For these reasons, complainant Marili ordered the bank to stop payment on her
checks.
 Complainants wrote the respondent to inform him that they were willing to pay the
balance if he can have Crown Asia to issue a Deed of Absolute Sale in their favor.
Otherwise, they are asking for their money with legal interest within 10 days.
 Respondent’s response was that he would work on the DOAS or return the money in
20 days. The period lapsed but respondent did not fulfill his promise.
 Complainants’ sent a second letter demand letter. The demand was unheeded.
 Hence, this administrative complaint since respondent violated his oath under Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan, recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law. The IBP Board of Governors,
approved the recommendation.

ISSUE: Whether Cezar violated his oath under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

HELD: YES. Respondent was guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct when he concealed this
lack of right from complainants. He did not inform the complainants that he did not yet paid
in full the price of the subject townhouse unit and lot, and, therefore, he had no right to sell,
transfer or assign said property at the time of the execution of Deed of Assignment. His
acceptance of P937,500, despite knowing he was not entitled to it, made matters worse for
him.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be
disbarred or suspended on any of the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other
gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful order
of a superior court; and (7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority.
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “A lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” “Conduct,” as used in this
rule, does not refer exclusively to the performance of a lawyer’s professional duties. This
Court has made clear in a long line of cases that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for
misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting
in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor, or unworthy to continue as an
officer of the court.
13. JOHNSON LEE and SONNY MORENO, complainants, vs. HON. RENATO E. ABASTILLAS,
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 50, Bacolod City, Respondent.

JUDGE RENATO E. ABASTILLAS, Complainant, v. ATTY. ENRIQUE S. CHUA

A.M No. RTJ-92-863 and A.C. No. 3815. July 11,1994

FACTS:
Judge Renato E. Abastillas was the presiding judge of the Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 and
10011, where Johnson Lee and Bonny Moreno are defendants. Judge Abastillas solicited the
amount of PhP 50,000.00 from Atty. Chua to secure a favorable decision on the said criminal
cases, which he communicated to his clients (Lee and Moreno). Johnson Lee then financed
the PhP20, 000.00 as a down payment and was delivered by Atty, Chua to Judge Abastillas.
Lee and a certain Johnny Uy had 3 meetings with Judge Abastillas to discuss the merits of the
case and the payment of $5,000.00. Lee even recorded the telephone conversation he had
with the respondent judge. After some waiting and obviously realizing that Judge Abastillas
was giving the accused a runaround, not having done anything relative to the criminal
proceedings to indicate that he would perform his part of the bargain, Johnson Lee appeared
before the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to oppose Judge Abastillas’ application for transfer
to Manila as RTC Judge on the ground of his lack of good moral character. On the other hand,
Atty. Chua was charged administratively for allowing himself to be used as a conduit for
illegal and immoral act.

ISSUE(s):
1. WON Judge Abastillas has violated the Code of Judicial Conduct for accepting bribe?
2. WON Atty. Chua has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD: Yes. The Code of Judicial Conduct requires that a judge should be the embodiment of
competence, integrity and independence (Rule 1.01). He should administer justice impartially
and without delay (Rule 1.02). He should so behave at all times as to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary (Rule 2.01).It is peculiarly essential
that the system for establishing and dispensing justice be developed to a high degree of
proficiency, to gain the absolute confidence of the public in the integrity and impartiality of
its administration, because appearance is as important as reality, so much so that a judge,
like Cesar’s wife, must not only be pure but beyond suspicion. The actuations of Judge
Abastillas transgressed against the high standard of moral ethics required of judges. Judge
Renato E. Abastillas was then dismissed from office, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits
and accrued leave credits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or
instrumentality of government, including government owned or controlled corporations.
Undoubtedly, Atty. Chua is guilty of violating Rule 1.01, canon 1, of the Code of
Professional Responsibility in view of his admission that he allegedly delivered P20,000.00 as
bribe money to Judge Abastillas, thereby allowing himself to be used as a conduit for an
illegal and immoral act. Rule 1.01 provides that “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Under the circumstances, and in addition to Atty.
Chua’s profound expression of remorse, the Court do not find it difficult to mitigate his
liability considering his willingness to come forward, at the risk of being administratively
penalized himself, to expose what is considered illegal and immoral acts perpetrated by the
very ones tasked with the sacred duty to uphold the law and dispense justice. Atty. Enrique S.
Chua is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of a similar act or acts or violation committed by
him in the future will be dealt with more severely.
 Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
 Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
 Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit
or proceeding or delay any man’s cause.
 Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if
it will admit of a fair settlement.
 (Rule 1.01) – A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and
independence.
 (Rule 1.02) - Administer justice impartially and without delay.
 (Rule 2.01) - Behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary.
14. CATHERINE JOIE P. VITUG, complainant, vs. ATTY. DIOSDADO M. RONGCAL,
respondent.
A.C. NO. 6313. SEPTEMBER 7,2006

FACTS: Catherine Joie P. Vitug sought the service of respondent Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal
who was introduced to her by her former classmate. Complainant asked Atty. Rongcal to
represent her in the support case she was going to file against her former lover, Arnulfo
Aquino. Soon after, herein complainant and respondent started having sexual relationship
with each other. According to Vitug, respondent also gave her sweet inducements such as
the promise of a job, financial security for her daughter, and his services as counsel for the
prospective claim for support against Aquino.
On 9 February 2001, respondent allegedly convinced complainant to sign an Affidavit
of Disclaimer, which the latter signed without reading the said affidavit. On 14 February
2001, respondent allegedly advised complainant that Aquino gave him P150,000.00 cash and
P58,000.00 in two (2) postdated checks to answer for the medical expenses of her daughter.
Instead of turning them over to her, respondent handed her his personal check in the
amount of P150,000.00 and promised to give her the balance of P58,000.00 soon thereafter.
However, sometime in April or May 2001, respondent informed her that he could not give
her the said amount because he used it for his political campaign as he was then running for
the position of Provincial Board Member of the 2nd District of Pampanga
Complainant argues that respondent's acts constitute a violation of his oath as a
lawyer. She filed an administrative case against Rongcal, which was referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. It was then recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for six (6) months and that he be ordered to return to complainant
the amount of P58,000.00 within two months. The same was approved by the IBP Board of
Governors. Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Set Case for
Clarificatory Questioning with the IBP and a Motion to Reopen/Remand Case for Clarificatory
Questioning with the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not respondent be disbarred for immorality
(2) Whether or not respondent’s act of preparing and notarizing the Affidavit, a document
disadvantageous to his client, is a violation of the Code.

HELD:
(1) NO. One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess
good moral character. Said requirement persists as a continuing condition for the enjoyment
of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of
such privilege. The Court has held that to justify suspension or disbarment the act
complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one
that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as
to be reprehensible to a high degree. On sexual relation and on respondent’s subsequent
marriage, by his own admission, respondent is obviously guilty of immorality in violation of
Rule 1.01 of the Code which states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. The Court find credence in respondent's assertion that it was
impossible for her not to have known of his subsisting marriage, complainant’s allegations of
deceit were not established by clear preponderant evidence required in disbarment cases.

(2) NO. It was not unlawful for respondent to assist his client in entering into a settlement
with Aquino after explaining all available options to her. The law encourages the amicable
settlement not only of pending cases but also of disputes which might otherwise be filed in
court. Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that: A lawyer shall
encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
As complainant voluntarily and intelligently agreed to a settlement with Aquino, she cannot
later blame her counsel when she experiences a change of heart. Suspicion, no matter how
strong, is not enough in the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the
presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duty in accordance with his
oath.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal GUILTY of
immorality and impose on him a FINE of P15,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of
the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.

The charge of misappropriation of funds of the client is REMANDED to the IBP for further
investigation, report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt of this
Decision.
15. EDUARDO A. ABELLA, complainant, vs. RICARDO G. BARRIOS, JR., respondent.
ADM. CASE NO. 7332. JUNE 18, 2013

FACTS: Complainant obtained a favorable judgment from the Court of Appeals involving a
Labor Case. Complainant then filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution before the
Regional Arbitration Branch, which the respondent was the Labor Arbiter. After the lapse of
five (5) months, complainant’s motion remained unacted, prompting him to file a Second
Motion for Execution. However, still, there was no action until the complainant agreed to
give respondent a portion of the monetary award thereof after the latter asked from the
former how much would be his share. Thereafter, respondent issued a writ of execution but
the employer of the complainant moved to quash the said writ. Eventually, issued a new writ
of execution wherein complainant’s monetary awards were reduced to the effect that it
modifies the DECISION of the CA. Complainant now filed the instant disbarment complaint
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), averring that respondent violated the Code
of Professional Responsibility for (a) soliciting money from complainant in exchange for a
favorable resolution; and (b) issuing a wrong decision to give benefit and advantage to PT&T,
complainant’s employer.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immorality for his violation of Rules 1.01
and 1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code.

HELD: YES. The above-cited rules, which are contained under Chapter 1 of the Code,
delineate the lawyer’s responsibility to society: Rule 1.01 engraves the overriding prohibition
against lawyers from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct;
Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers from encouraging any suit or proceeding or delaying any man’s
cause for any corrupt motive or interest; meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly directed to
lawyers in government service, enjoining them from using one’s public position to: (1)
promote private interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private interests to
interfere with public duties. It is well to note that a lawyer who holds a government office
may be disciplined as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a
violation of his oath as a lawyer.
The infractions of the respondent constitute gross misconduct. Jurisprudence illumines
that immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a
moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community.
It treads the line of grossness when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of decency. On the
other hand, gross misconduct constitutes "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of
some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in
character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment."
In this relation, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that when a lawyer is
found guilty of gross immoral conduct or gross misconduct, he may be suspended or
disbarred. However, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that he had already been
disbarred in a previous administrative case, entitled Sps. Rafols, Jr. v. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr.,
which therefore precludes the Court from duplicitously decreeing the same. In view of the
foregoing, the Court deems it proper to, instead, impose a fine in the amount of P40,000.00
in order to penalize respondent’s transgressions as discussed herein and to equally deter the
commission of the same or similar acts in the future.
16. BEL-AIR TRANSIT SERVICE CORPORATION (DOLLAR RENT-A-CAR), complainant, vs.
ATTY. ESTEBAN Y. MENDOZA, Respondent.
Adm. Case No.6107. January 31, 2005.

FACTS: The complainant narrated that, on September 19, 2001, the respondent rented a car
from it, for the amount of P5,549.00. The respondent signed the contract. The respondent
rented another car from the complainant on September 28, 2001, This second contract was
also personally signed by the respondent. The statements of account were, thereafter, sent
to the respondent at his office and business address at Martinez & Mendoza Law Office.
Despite repeated demands for payment, the respondent refused to pay his account, which
constrained the complainant to send a formal and final demand for payment through
counsel. This formal demand was, likewise, ignored by the respondent, further compelling
the complainant to resort to filing a complaint for recovery of money on March 12, 2003
before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 65.
According to the complainant, the respondent’s refusal to pay for the complainants
car rental services constitutes deceit and grossly immoral and unethical conduct, which
violates the Canons of Professional Ethics and Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code on
Human Relations. The complainant further alleged that this is a sufficient ground for the
respondent’s disbarment, considering that the respondent even ignored the complainants
repeated demands for payment.
In his Comment, the respondent denied the allegations against him. He averred that
it was the law firm of Martinez & Mendoza which engaged the services of the complainant,
and that all the trips undertaken were for an out-of-town engagement in Lucena City. It was
the Manager of the complainant requesting for the latters services.
The respondent alleged that the driver assigned to him by the complainant during
the 2 trips did not exercise extraordinary diligence. He averred that they almost figured in an
accident, and when he inquired as to why the said driver was not cautious with his driving,
the latter replied that he had does not have enough sleep, prompting the respondent to
contact the complainant to complain as to why the latter was providing drivers to their law
firm who had not had enough sleep. No one from the complainant’s staff could provide him
with a decent answer, merely Pasensiya na. The respondent then demanded a meeting with
the complainant’s president in order to resolve the matter, but despite repeated requests,
the latter refused to meet with him.

ISSUE: Whether or not non-payment of financial obligation subject to disbarment?

HELD: In this case, the respondent refused to pay for the services of the complainant,
constraining the latter to file charges in order to collect what was due to it under the
contracts, in which the respondent himself was the signatory. Moreover, as pointed out by
IBP Commissioner Dulay, the respondents claim that he almost twice figured in accidents
due to the negligent drivers employed by the complainant and that he intended to question
the company’s billings (which he also posited was a valid excuse for non-payment), appears
to have been concocted as a mere afterthought.
Verily, the respondent is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar, and
should be admonished for his actuations.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Esteban Y. Mendoza is hereby ADMONISHED to be
more circumspect in his financial obligations and his dealings with the public. He is STERNLY
WARNED that similar conduct in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
17. MAURICIO C. ULEP, petitioner, vs. THE LEGAL CLINIC, respondent.
BAR MATTER NO. 553. JUNE 17, 1993

FACTS: In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to
Nogales was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the
services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic
because of the latter’s advertisements, which contain the following:
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041
8:30am – 6:00pm
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic
beginning Monday to Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota
Res. & Special Retiree’s Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees.
Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children.
Call Marivic.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy
Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767

It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled “Rx for Legal Problems” in
Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed
of specialists that can take care of a client’s problem no matter how complicated it is even if
it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that he and
his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are “specialists” in various fields, could take care of it.
The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems,
labor, litigation and family law. A battery of paralegals, counselors and attorneys backs up
these specialists.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in
the US, which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the
advertisement is merely making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is
allowed; whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not
allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include
various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple
documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are
undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers
engaged in the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being
offered by Legal Clinic, which constitute practice of law, cannot be performed by paralegals.
Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular
standing, is entitled to practice law.
 Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true,
honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the
legal profession condemn the lawyer’s advertisement of his talents. 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 Legal Clinic seem
to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law,
which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. 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 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. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able
service and the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated
the following as allowed forms of advertisement:

1. Advertisement in a reputable law list

2. Use of ordinary simple professional card
3. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization

LAWS APPLIED:

Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man's cause.

Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit
legal business.

CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE,
HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Rule 3.01 - 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.
18. ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public
Information Office, complainant, vs. ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, respondent.
A.C. NO. 5299. AUGUST 19,2003.

FACTS: A paid advertisement in the Philippine Daily Inquirer was published which reads:
“Annulment of Marriage Specialist [contact number]”. Espeleta, a staff of the Supreme
Court, called up the number but it was Mrs. Simbillo who answered. She claims that her
husband, Atty. Simbillo was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a
court decree within 4-6mos provided the case will not involve separation of property and
custody of children. It appears that similar advertisements were also published. An
administrative complaint was filed which was referred to the IBP for investigation and
recommendation. The IBP resolved to suspend Atty. Simbillo for 1year. Note that although
the name of Atty. Simbillo did not appear in the advertisement, he admitted the acts
imputed against him but argued that he should not be charged. He said that it was time to
lift the absolute prohibition against advertisement because the interest of the public isn’t
served in any way by the prohibition.

ISSUE: Whether or not Simbillo violated Rule 2.03 & Rule 3.01.

HELD: Yes! The practice of law is not a business --- it is a profession in which the primary
duty is public service and money. Gaining livelihood is a secondary consideration while duty
to public service and administration of justice should be primary. Lawyers should
subordinate their primary interest. Worse, advertising himself as an “annulment of marriage
specialist” he erodes and undermines the sanctity of an institution still considered as
sacrosanct --- he in fact encourages people otherwise disinclined to dissolve their marriage
bond. Solicitation of business is not altogether proscribed but for it to be proper it must be
compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. Note that the law list where the lawyer’s
name appears must be a reputable law list only for that purpose --- a lawyer may not
properly publish in a daily paper, magazine…etc., nor may a lawyer permit his name to be
published the contents of which are likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar.

LAWS APPLIED:

Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done

any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.

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.
19. MANUEL G. VILLATUYA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. BEDE S. TABALINGCOS , respondent.
A.C. No. 6622, July 10, 2012

FACTS: In the position paper submitted by the complainant on August 1, 2005, he averred
that he was employed by the respondent as financial consultant to assist the respondent in a
number of corporate rehabilitation cases. Complainant claimed that they had a verbal
agreement whereby he would be entitled to ₱50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court
in the cases they would handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their
clients. Notwithstanding, 18 Stay Orders that was issued by the courts as a result of his work
and the respondent being able to rake in millions from the cases that they were working on
together, the latter did not pay the amount due to him. He also alleged that respondent
engaged in unlawful solicitation of cases by setting up two financial consultancy firms as
fronts for his legal services. On the third charge of gross immorality, complainant accused
respondent of committing two counts of bigamy for having married two other women while
his first marriage was subsisting.
In his defense, respondent denied charges against him and asserted that the
complainant was not an employee of his law firm but rather an employee of Jesi and Jane
Management, Inc., one of the financial consultancy firms. Respondent alleged that
complainant was unprofessional and incompetent in performing his job and that there was
no verbal agreement between them regarding the payment of fees and the sharing of
professional fees paid by his clients. He proffered documents showing that the salary of
complainant had been paid. Respondent also denied committing any unlawful solicitation. To
support his contention, respondent attached a Joint Venture Agreement and an affidavit
executed by the Vice-President for operations of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc. On the
charge of gross immorality, respondent assailed the Affidavit of a dismissed messenger of
Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., as having no probative value, since the affiant himself had
retracted it. Respondent did not specifically address the allegations regarding his alleged
bigamous marriages with two other women
On January 9, 2006, complainant filed a Motion to Admit Copies of 3 Marriage
Contracts of respondent wherein he attached the certified true copies of the Marriage
Contracts referred to in the Certification issued by the NSO.
On January 16, 2006, respondent submitted his Opposition to the Motion to Admit
filed by complainant, claiming that he was not given the opportunity to controvert them. He
disclosed that criminal cases for bigamy were filed against him by the complainant before the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. He also informed the Commission that he filed
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the first two marriage contracts. In both petitions, he
claimed that he had recently discovered that there were Marriage Contracts in the records of
the NSO bearing his name and allegedly executed with Rowena Piñon and Pilar Lozano on
different occasions.
The Commission scheduled a clarificatory hearing on 20 November 2007.
Respondent moved for the suspension of the resolution of the administrative case against
him, pending outcome of petition for nullification he filed with RTC, but was denied. The
Commission resolved that the administrative case against him be submitted for resolution.
On February 27, 2008, the Commission promulgated its Report and Recommendation
addressing the specific charges against respondent. The first charge, for dishonesty for the
nonpayment of certain shares in the fees, was dismissed for lack of merit. On the second
charge, the Commission found respondent to have violated the rule on the solicitation of
client for having advertised his legal services and unlawfully solicited cases. It recommended
that he be reprimanded for the violation. As for the third charge, the Commission found
respondent to be guilty of gross immorality for violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Due to the
gravity of the acts of respondent, the Commission recommended that he be disbarred, and
that his name be stricken off the roll of attorneys.

ISSUES:

1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by nonpayment of

fees to complainant;

2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation; and

3. Whether respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct for having married thrice.

RULING: First charge: Dishonesty for non-payments of share in the fees.

Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s dismissal of the first charge against respondent,
but did not concur with the rationale behind it. The first charge, if proven to be true is based
on an agreement that is violative of Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A
lawyer is proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for legal services rende-
red with a person not licensed to practice law. In the case of Tan Tek Beng v. David, Supreme
Court held that an agreement between a lawyer and a layperson to share the fees collected
from clients secured by the layperson is null and void, and that the lawyer involved may be
disciplined for unethical conduct. Considering that complainant’s allegations in this case had
not been proven, the IBP correctly dismissed the charge against respondent on this matter.

Second charge: Unlawful solicitation of clients.

In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these allegations and ruled that
respondent had violated the rule on the solicitation of clients, but it failed to point out the
specific provision that was breached. Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of
the Code, which prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit.
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.
It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted by complainant that Jesi & Jane
Management, Inc., which purports to be a financial and legal consultant, was indeed a vehicle
used by respondent as a means to procure professional employment; specifically for
corporate rehabilitation cases.

Rule 15.08 of the Code mandates that the lawyer is mandated to inform the client whether
the former is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity. This duty is a must in those
occupations related to the practice of law. In this case, it is confusing for the client if it is not
clear whether respondent is offering consultancy or legal services.

Considering, however, that complainant has not proven the degree of prevalence of this
practice by respondent, the Supreme Court affirm the recommendation to reprimand the
latter for violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the Code.

Third charge: Bigamy.

The Supreme Court have consistently held that a disbarment case is sui generis. Its focus is
on the qualification and fitness of a lawyer to continue membership in the bar and not the
procedural technicalities in filing the case. Thus, in Garrido v. Garrido:
Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure — such as the verification of pleadings
and prejudicial questions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or the filing of affidavits of
desistance by the complainant — do not apply in the determination of a lawyer's
qualifications and fitness for membership in the Bar. We have so ruled in the past and we see
no reason to depart from this ruling. First, admission to the practice of law is a component of
the administration of justice and is a matter of public interest because it involves service to
the public. The admission qualifications are also qualifications for the continued enjoyment
of the privilege to practice law. Second, lack of qualifications or the violation of the standards
for the practice of law, like criminal cases, is a matter of public concern that the State may
inquire into through this Court.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. In this case,
complainant submitted NSO-certified true copies to prove that respondent entered into two
marriages while the latter’s first marriage was still subsisting. While respondent denied
entering into the second and the third marriages, he resorted to vague assertions
tantamount to a negative pregnant.

What has been clearly established here is the fact that respondent entered into marriage
twice while his first marriage was still subsisting. In Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, 56
we held thus:

[W]e have in a number of cases disciplined members of the Bar whom we found guilty of
misconduct which demonstrated a lack of that good moral character required of them not
only as a condition precedent for their admission to the Bar but, likewise, for their continued
membership therein. No distinction has been made as to whether the misconduct was
committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer
may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at
another. He is expected to be competent, honorable and reliable at all times since he who
cannot apply and abide by the laws in his private affairs, can hardly be expected to do so in
his professional dealings nor lead others in doing so. Professional honesty and honor are not
to be expected as the accompaniment of dishonesty and dishonor in other relations. The
administration of justice, in which the lawyer plays an important role being an officer of the
court, demands a high degree of intellectual and moral competency on his part so that the
courts and clients may rightly repose confidence in him.

Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a

member of the bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect
and dignity.57 His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral conduct and
are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.58

The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the IBP to disbar respondent and
ordered that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
 EN BANC

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

MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

RESOLUTION
ADOPTING THE REVISED RULES ON THE CONTINUING
LEGAL EDUCATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
Considering the Rules on the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
for members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), recommended by the IBP,
endorsed by the Philippine Judicial Academy, and reviewed and passed upon by the
Supreme Court Committee on Legal Education, the Court hereby resolves to approve,
as it hereby approves, the following Revised Rules for proper implementation:

Rule 1. PURPOSE

SECTION 1. Purpose of the MCLE. Continuing legal education is required of

members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to ensure that throughout their
career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the
profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law.

Rule 2. MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

SECTION 1. Commencement of the MCLE. Within two (2) months from the
approval of these Rules by the Supreme Court En Banc, the MCLE Committee shall
be constituted and shall commence the implementation of the Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education (MCLE) program in accordance with these Rules.
SEC. 2. Requirements of completion of MCLE. Members of the IBP not exempt
under Rule 7 shall complete every three (3) years at least thirty-six (36) hours of
continuing legal education activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36
hours:
(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics equivalent to six (6) credit
units.
(b) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial skills equivalent to
four (4) credit units.
 (c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute
resolution equivalent to five (5) credit units.
(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and procedural
laws, and jurisprudence equivalent to nine (9) credit units.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral
advocacy equivalent to four (4) credit units.
(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and international
conventions equivalent to two (2) credit units.
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may be
prescribed by the MCLE Committee equivalent to six (6) credit units.

Rule 3. COMPLIANCE PERIOD

SECTION 1. Initial compliance period. -- The initial compliance period shall

begin not later than three (3) months from the adoption of these Rules. Except for the
initial compliance period for members admitted or readmitted after the establishment
of the program, all compliance periods shall be for thirty-six (36) months and shall
begin the day after the end of the previous compliance period.
SEC. 2. Compliance Groups. -- Members of the IBP not exempt from the MCLE
requirement shall be divided into three (3) compliance groups, namely:
(a) Compliance group 1. -- Members in the National Capital Region (NCR) or
Metro Manila are assigned to Compliance Group 1.
(b) Compliance group 2. -- Members in Luzon outside NCR are assigned to
Compliance Group 2.
(c) Compliance group 3. -- Members in Visayas and Mindanao are assigned to
Compliance Group 3.
Nevertheless, members may participate in any legal education activity
wherever it may be available to earn credit unit toward compliance with the
MCLE requirement.
SEC. 3. Compliance period of members admitted or readmitted after
establishment of the program. Members admitted or readmitted to the Bar after the
establishment of the program shall be assigned to the appropriate Compliance Group
based on their Chapter membership on the date of admission or readmission.
The initial compliance period after admission or readmission shall begin on the
first day of the month of admission or readmission and shall end on the same day as
that of all other members in the same Compliance Group.
(a) Where four (4) months or less remain of the initial compliance period after
admission or readmission, the member is not required to comply with the
program requirement for the initial compliance.
(b) Where more than four (4) months remain of the initial compliance period after
admission or readmission, the member shall be required to complete a number of
hours of approved continuing legal education activities equal to the number of
months remaining in the compliance period in which the member is admitted or
readmitted. Such member shall be required to complete a number of hours of
 education in legal ethics in proportion to the number of months remaining in the
compliance period. Fractions of hours shall be rounded up to the next whole
number.

Rule 4. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT UNITS(CU)

SECTION 1. Guidelines. - CREDIT UNITS ARE EQUIVALENT TO CREDIT

HOURS. CREDIT UNITS measure compliance with the MCLE requirement
under the Rules, based on the category of the lawyers participation in the MCLE
activity. The following are the guidelines for computing credit units and the
supporting documents required therefor:

PROGRAMS/ACTIVITY CREDIT UNITS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

1. SEMINARS, CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, IN-HOUSE EDUCATION

PROGRAMS, WORKSHOPS, DIALOGUES, ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS BY APPROVED
PROVIDERS UNDER RULE 7 AND OTHER RELATED RULES

1.1 PARTICIPANT/ 1 CU PER HOUR OF CERTIFICATE OF

ATTENDEE ATTENDANCE ATTENDANCE WITH
NUMBER OF
HOURS
1.2 LECTURER FULL CU FOR THE PHOTOCOPY OF
RESOURCE SUBJECT PER PLAQUE OR
SPEAKER COMPLIANCE PERIOD SPONSORS
CERTIFICATION

1.3 PANELIST/REACTOR 1/2 OF CU FOR THE CERTIFICATION

COMMENTATOR/ SUBJECT PER FROM
MODERATOR/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD SPONSORING COORDINATOR/ ORGANIZATION
FACILITATOR

2. AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND REVIEW

2.1 LAW BOOK OF NOT FULL CU FOR THE PUBLISHED BOOK

LESS THAN 100 PAGES SUBJECT PER
COMPLIANCE PERIOD
2.2 BOOK EDITOR 1/2 OF THE CU OF PUBLISHED BOOK
AUTHORSHIP CATEGORY WITH PROOF AS
EDITOR

2.3 RESEARCH PAPER 1/2 OF CU FOR THE DULY

INNOVATIVE PROGRAM/ SUBJECT PER CERTIFIED/
CREATIVE PROJECT COMPLIANCE PERIOD PUBLISHED
TECHNICAL
REPORT/PAPER

2.4 LEGAL ARTICLE OF AT 1/2 OF CU FOR THE PUBLISHED ARTICLE

LEAST TEN (10) PAGES SUBJECT PER
COMPLIANCE PERIOD

2.5 LEGAL NEWSLETTER/ 1 CU PER ISSUE PUBLISHED

LAW JOURNAL EDITOR NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL
2.6 PROFESSORIAL CHAIR/ FULL CU FOR THE CERTIFICATION OF
BAR REVIEW LECTURE SUBJECT PER LAW DEAN OR
LAW TEACHING/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD BAR REVIEW
DIRECTOR

Rule 5. CATEGORIES OF CREDIT UNITS

SECTION 1. Classes of Credit units. -- Credit units are either participatory or

non-participatory.
SEC. 2. Claim for participatory credit units. -- Participatory credit units may be
claimed for:
(a) Attending approved education activities like seminars, conferences, conventions,
symposia, in-house education programs, workshops, dialogues or round table
discussion.
(b) Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned panelist, reactor, commentator,
resource speaker, moderator, coordinator or facilitator in approved education
activities.
(c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review class.
SEC. 3. Claim for non-participatory credit units. Non-participatory
credit units may be claimed per compliance period for:
(a) Preparing, as an author or co-author, written materials published or accepted for
publication, e.g., in the form of an article, chapter, book, or book review which
contribute to the legal education of the author member, which were not prepared
in the ordinary course of the members practice or employment.
(b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.

Rule 6. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT HOURS (CH)

SECTION 1. Computation of credit hours. -- Credit hours are computed based on

actual time spent in an education activity in hours to the nearest one-quarter hour
reported in decimals.

Rule 7. EXEMPTIONS

SECTION 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The following members of the
Bar are exempt from the MCLE requirement:
(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and
Undersecretaries of Executive Departments;
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and
retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar
 Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial
Academy program of continuing judicial education;
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the
Department of Justice;
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government
Corporate Counsel;
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman
and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching
experience for at least ten (10) years in accredited law schools;
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and
Professorial Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
SEC. 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE. The following Members of the
Bar are likewise exempt:
(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.
(b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of
Governors.
SEC. 3. Good cause for exemption from or modification of requirement A
member may file a verified request setting forth good cause for exemption (such as
physical disability, illness, post graduate study abroad, proven expertise in law, etc.)
from compliance with or modification of any of the requirements, including an
extension of time for compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be established by
the MCLE Committee.
SEC. 4. Change of status. The compliance period shall begin on the first day of
the month in which a member ceases to be exempt under Sections 1, 2, or 3 of this
Rule and shall end on the same day as that of all other members in the same
Compliance Group.
SEC. 5. Proof of exemption. Applications for exemption from or modification of
the MCLE requirement shall be under oath and supported by documents.

Rule 8. STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF

EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

SECTION 1. Approval of MCLE program. Subject to the implementing

regulations that may be adopted by the MCLE Committee, continuing legal
education program may be granted approval in either of two (2) ways: (1) the
provider of the activity is an accredited provider and certifies that the activity meets
the criteria of Section 2 of this Rule; and (2) the provider is specifically mandated by
law to provide continuing legal education.
SEC. 2. Standards for all education activities. All continuing legal education
activities must meet the following standards:
(a) The activity shall have significant current intellectual or practical content.
(b) The activity shall constitute an organized program of learning related to legal
subjects and the legal profession, including cross profession activities (e.g.,
accounting-tax or medical-legal) that enhance legal skills or the ability to
practice law, as well as subjects in legal writing and oral advocacy.
(c) The activity shall be conducted by a provider with adequate professional
experience.
(d) Where the activity is more than one (1) hour in length, substantive written
materials must be distributed to all participants. Such materials must be
distributed at or before the time the activity is offered.
(e) In-house education activities must be scheduled at a time and location so as to be
free from interruption like telephone calls and other distractions.

Rule 9. ACCREDITATION OF PROVIDERS

SECTION 1. Accreditation of providers. -- Accreditation of providers shall be

done by the MCLE Committee.
SEC. 2. Requirements for accreditation of providers. Any person or group may
be accredited as a provider for a term of two (2) years, which may be renewed, upon
written application. All providers of continuing legal education activities, including
in-house providers, are eligible to be accredited providers. Application
for accreditation shall:
(a) Be submitted on a form provided by the MCLE Committee;
(b) Contain all information requested in the form;
(c) Be accompanied by the appropriate approval fee.
SEC. 3. Requirements of all providers. -- All approved accredited providers shall
agree to the following:
(a) An official record verifying the attendance at the activity shall be maintained by
the provider for at least four (4) years after the completion date. The provider
shall include the member on the official record of attendance only if the
members signature was obtained at the time of attendance at the activity. The
official record of attendance shall contain the members name and number in the
Roll of Attorneys and shall identify the time, date, location, subject matter, and
length of the education activity. A copy of such record shall be furnished the
MCLE COMMITTEE.
(b) The provider shall certify that:

(1) This activity has been approved BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE in the amount of ________ hours
of which ______ hours will apply in (legal ethics, etc.), as appropriate to the content of the activity;
(2) The activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by these Rules
and such regulations as may be prescribed by the MCLE COMMITTEE.

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

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

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

(f) The provider shall maintain the completed Education Activity Evaluation Forms for a period
of not less than one (1) year after the activity, copy furnished the MCLE COMMITTEE.

(g) Any person or group who conducts an unauthorized activity under this program or issues a
spurious certificate in violation of these Rules shall be subject to appropriate sanctions.

SEC. 4. Renewal of provider accreditation. The accreditation of a provider may

be renewed every two (2) years. It may be denied if the provider fails to comply with
any of the requirements of these Rules or fails to provide satisfactory education
activities for the preceding period.
SEC. 5. Revocation of provider accreditation. -- the accreditation of any
provider referred to in Rule 9 may be revoked by a majority vote of the MCLE
Committee, after notice and hearing and for good cause.

Rule 10. FEE FOR APPROVAL OF ACTIVITY AND ACCREDITATION OF PROVIDER

SECTION 1. Payment of fees. Application for approval of an education activity

or accreditation as a provider requires payment of the appropriate fee as provided in
the Schedule of MCLE Fees.

Rule 11. GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES

SECTION 1. Compliance card. -- Each member shall secure from the MCLE
Committee a Compliance Card before the end of his compliance period. He shall
complete the card by attesting under oath that he has complied with the education
requirement or that he is exempt, specifying the nature of the exemption. Such
Compliance Card must be returned to the Committee not later than the day after the
end of the members compliance period.
SEC. 2. Member record keeping requirement. -- Each member shall maintain
sufficient record of compliance or exemption, copy furnished the MCLE Committee.
The record required to be provided to the members by the provider pursuant to
Section 3 of Rule 9 should be a sufficient record of attendance at a participatory
activity. A record of non-participatory activity shall also be maintained by the
member, as referred to in Section 3 of Rule 5.

Rule 12. NON-COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES

SECTION 1. What constitutes non-compliance. The following shall constitute

non-compliance:
(a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance period;
(b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;
(c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of
exempt status) within the prescribed period;
(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such
compliance within sixty (60) days from receipt of non-compliance notice;
(e) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period;
(f) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to
circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE requirements.
SEC. 2. Non-compliance notice and 60-day period to attain compliance. -
Members failing to comply will receive a Non-Compliance Notice stating the specific
deficiency and will be given sixty (60) days from the date of notification to file a
response clarifying the deficiency or otherwise showing compliance with the
requirements. Such notice shall contain the following language near the beginning of
the notice in capital letters:

IF YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE MCLE

REQUIREMENT BY (INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF NOTICE), YOU SHALL
BE LISTED AS A DELINQUENT MEMBER AND SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO
PRACTICE LAW UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE IS
RECEIVED BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE.

Members given sixty (60) days to respond to a Non-Compliance Notice may use this period to
attain the adequate number of credit units for compliance. Credit units earned during this period
may only be counted toward compliance with the prior compliance period requirement
unless units in excess of the requirement are earned, in which case the excess may be counted
toward meeting the current compliance period requirement.

Rule 13. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE

SECTION 1. Non-compliance fee. -- A member who, for whatever reason, is in

non-compliance at the end of the compliance period shall pay a non-compliance fee.
SEC. 2. Listing as delinquent member. -- A member who fails to comply with the
requirements after the sixty (60) day period for compliance has expired, shall be listed
as a delinquent member of the IBP upon the recommendation of the MCLE
Committee. The investigation of a member for non-compliance shall be conducted by
the IBPs Commission on Bar Discipline as a fact-finding arm of the MCLE
Committee.
 SEC. 3. Accrual of membership fee. -- Membership fees shall continue to accrue
at the active rate against a member during the period he/she is listed as a delinquent
member.

Rule 14. REINSTATEMENT

SECTION 1. Process. -- The involuntary listing as a delinquent member shall be

terminated when the member provides proof of compliance with the MCLE
requirement, including payment of non-compliance fee. A member may attain the
necessary credit units to meet the requirement for the period of non-compliance
during the period the member is on inactive status. These credit units may not be
counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement.
Credit units earned during the period of non-compliance in excess of the number
needed to satisfy the prior compliance period requirement may be counted toward
meeting the current compliance period requirement.
SEC. 2. Termination of delinquent listing is an administrative process. The
termination of listing as a delinquent member is administrative in nature AND it shall
be made by the MCLE Committee.

Rule. 15. COMMITTEE ON MANDATORY CONTINUING

LEGAL EDUCATION

SECTION 1. Composition. The MCLE Committee shall be composed of five (5)

members, namely, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court as Chair, and four (4)
members respectively nominated by the IBP, the Philippine Judicial Academy, a law
center designated by the Supreme Court and associations of law schools and/or law
professors.
The members of the Committee shall be of proven probity and integrity. They
shall be appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of three (3) years and shall
receive such compensation as may be determined by the Court.
SEC. 2. Duty of committee. The MCLE Committee shall administer and adopt
such implementing rules as may be necessary subject to the approval of the Supreme
Court. It shall, in consultation with the IBP Board of Governors, prescribe a schedule
of MCLE fees with the approval of the Supreme Court.
SEC. 3. Staff of the MCLE Committee. Subject to approval by the Supreme
Court, the MCLE Committee shall employ such staff as may be necessary to perform
the record-keeping, auditing, reporting, approval and other necessary functions.
SEC. 4. Submission of annual budget. The MCLE Committee shall submit to the
Supreme Court for approval, an annual budget [for a subsidy] to establish, operate
and maintain the MCLE Program.
This resolution shall take effect on the fifteenth of September 2000, following its
publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2000, as amended on 02 October 2001.
 CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
(Promulgated June 21, 1988)

CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY
THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND
LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence
in the legal system.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or
interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any
man's cause.
Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to
avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a
fair settlement.
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.
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid
reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.
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.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done
any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than
those customarily prescribed unless the circumstances so
warrant.
CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES
SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND
OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Rule 3.01 - 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.
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.
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he
shall withdrawal from the firm and his name shall be
dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to
practice law currently.
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.
CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS
IN LAW REFORM AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL
DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN
LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW
STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND
JURISPRUDENCE.
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN
GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in
public prosecution is not to convict but to see that
justice is done. The suppression of facts or the
concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the
innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is
cause for disciplinary action.
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.
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.

CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT
THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

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.
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.
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.

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY,

FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES,
AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING
COUNSEL.

Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional

dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.
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.

CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,

ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

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.
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:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(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 profit sharing agreement.

CHAPTER III. THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS

CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH
TO THE COURT.
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.
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.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of
procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of
justice.

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.

Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly

attired.
Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court
hearings.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language or behavior before the
Courts.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge
motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a
Judge to the proper authorities only.

CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER

IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

Rule 12.01 - 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 proferrence. He should also be ready with
the original documents for comparison with the copies.
Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions
arising from the same cause.
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.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case,
impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court
processes.
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.
Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a
witness to misrepresent himself or to impersonate
another.
Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass
a witness nor needlessly inconvenience him.
Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of
his client, except:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(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.

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.

Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary

attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for
cultivating familiarity with Judges.
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.
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.

CHAPTER IV. THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT

CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THE
NEEDY.

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.
Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for
serious and sufficient cause, an appointment as
counsel de officio or as amicus curiae, or a request from
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its
chapters for rendition of free legal aid.
Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept
representation of an indigent client if:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(a) he is not in a position to carry out the work

effectively or competently;
(b) he labors under a conflict of interest between him
and the prospective client or between a present client
and the prospective client.
Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person
unable to pay his professional fees shall observe the
same standard of conduct governing his relations with
paying clients.

CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND

LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS
CLIENTS.

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 15.02.- A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on
privilege communication in respect of matters disclosed
to him by a 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.
Rule 15.04. - A lawyer may, with the written consent of
all concerned, act as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator
in settling disputes.
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
overstating nor understating the prospects of the case.
Rule 15.06. - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he
is able to influence any public official, tribunal or
legislative body.
Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client
compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness.
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.
 CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND
PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS
PROFESSION.

Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or

property collected or received for or from the client.
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.
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.
Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his
client unless the client's interest 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.

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.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal

service which he knows or should know that he is not
qualified to render. However, he may render such service
if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as
collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the
matter.
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter
without adequate preparation.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of
the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the client's request for information.
CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL
WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.

Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest

means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and
shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten
to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
Rule 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.
Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to
dictate the procedure in handling the case.

CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND REASONABLE

FEES.

Rule 20.01 - A lawyer shall be guided by the following

factors in determining his fees:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(a) the time spent and the extent of the service rendered
or required;
(b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
(c) The importance of the subject matter;
(d) The skill demanded;
(e) The probability of losing other employment as a
result of acceptance of the proffered case;
(f) The customary charges for similar services and the
schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs;
(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the
benefits resulting to the client from the service;
(h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;
(i) The character of the employment, whether occasional
or established; and
(j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in case of referral, with
the consent of the client, be entitled to a division of
fees in proportion to the work performed and
responsibility assumed.
Rule 20.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the full
knowledge and consent of the client, accept any fee,
reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or forwarding
allowance or other compensation whatsoever related to his
professional employment from anyone other than the
client.
Rule 20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies with
clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to
judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or
fraud.

CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND

SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT
RELATION IS TERMINATED.

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 21.02 - 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.
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.
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 clients.
Rule 21.06 - A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation
about a client's affairs even with members of his family.
Rule 21.07 - A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been
consulted about a particular case except to avoid
possible conflict of interest.

CANON 22 - A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR

GOOD CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
Rule 22.01 - A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of
the following case:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(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.
Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged
shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn over
all papers and property to which the client is entitled,
and shall cooperative with his successor in the orderly
transfer of the matter, including all information
necessary for the proper handling of the matter.