PALE ASSIGNMENT NOVEMBER 26, 2014
UP TO CANON 6
LAWYERS OATH
RULE 138
BAR MATTER NO. 850 AND 1922
ZAGUIRRE VS. CASTILLO A.C. NO. 4921 MARCH 6, 2003
ZARI VS. FLORES A.M. NO. (2170-MC) P-1356. NOVEMBER
21, 1979
NUEZ VS. ASTORGA A.C. NO. 6131. FEBRUARY 28, 2005
GUEVARRA VS. EALA A.C. NO. 7136. AUGUST 1, 2007
UI VS. BONIFACIO A.C. NO. 3319. JUNE 8, 2000
TOLEDA VS. ABALOS A.C. NO. 5141. SEPTEMBER 29, 1999
BUSTAMANTE-ALEJANDRO VS. ALEJANDRO A.C. NO. 4256.
FEBRUARY 13, 2004
CHUA VS. MESINA A.C. NO. 4904. AUGUST 12, 2004
PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF THE FIRM
NAME "SYCIP, SALAZAR, FELICIANO, HERNANDEZ &
CASTILLO." G.R. NO. X92-1. JULY 30, 1979
ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC. B.M. NO. 553 . JUNE 17,
1993
LIM VS. BARCELONA A.C. NO. 5438. MARCH 10, 2004
PCGG VS. SANDIGANBAYAN GR NO. 151809-12 APRIL 2005
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.
LAWYERS OATH
I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines, I will support the Constitution
and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful
suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man
for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with
all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I
impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

RULE 138

Attorneys and Admission to Bar

Section 1. Who may practice law. Any person

heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or
hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the
provisions of this rule, and who is in good and regular
standing, is entitled to practice law.

Section 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission

to the bar. Every applicant for admission as a member of
the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-
one years of age, of good moral character, and resident of
the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court
satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no
charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been
filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.
Section 3. Requirements for lawyers who are citizens of
the United States of America. Citizens of the United
States of America who, before July 4, 1946, were duly
licensed members of the Philippine Bar, in active practice in
the courts of the Philippines and in good and regular
standing as such may, upon satisfactory proof of those facts
before the Supreme Court, be allowed to continue such
practice after taking the following oath of office:
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., having been permitted
to continue in the practice of law in the Philippines, do
solemnly swear that I recognize the supreme authority of
the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution
and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful
suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no
man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a
lawyer according to the best of may knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity as well as to the courts as to
my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary
obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion. So help me God.
Section 4. Requirements for applicants from other
jurisdictions. Applicants for admission who, being Filipino
citizens, are enrolled attorneys in good standing in the
Supreme Court of the United States or in any circuit court of
appeals or district court therein, or in the highest court of
any State or Territory of the United States, and who can
show by satisfactory certificates that they have practiced at
least five years in any of said courts, that such practice
began before July 4, 1946, and that they have never been
suspended or disbarred, may, in the discretion of the Court,
be admitted without examination.
Section 5. Additional requirements for other applicants.
All applicants for admission other than those referred to
in the two preceding section shall, before being admitted to
the examination, satisfactorily show that they have regularly
studied law for four years, and successfully completed all
prescribed courses, in a law school or university, officially
approved and recognized by the Secretary of Education. The
affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by a certificate from
the university or school of law, shall be filed as evidence of
such facts, and further evidence may be required by the
court.
No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations
unless he has satisfactorily completed the following courses
in a law school or university duly recognized by the
government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law,
criminal law, public and private international law, political
law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence,
taxation and legal ethics.
Section 6. Pre-Law. No applicant for admission to the
bar examination shall be admitted unless he presents a
certificate that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education
that, before he began the study of law, he had pursued and
satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized
university or college, requiring for admission thereto the
completion of a four-year high school course, the course of
study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or
sciences with any of the following subjects as major or field
of concentration: political science, logic, english, spanish,
history and economics.
Section 7. Time for filing proof of qualifications. All
applicants for admission shall file with the clerk of the
Supreme Court the evidence required by section 2 of this
rule at least fifteen (15) days before the beginning of the
examination. If not embraced within section 3 and 4 of this
rule they shall also file within the same period the affidavit
and certificate required by section 5, and if embraced within
sections 3 and 4 they shall exhibit a license evidencing the
fact of their admission to practice, satisfactory evidence that
the same has not been revoked, and certificates as to their
professional standing. Applicants shall also file at the same
time their own affidavits as to their age, residence, and
citizenship.
Section 8. Notice of Applications. Notice of
applications for admission shall be published by the clerk of
the Supreme Court in newspapers published in Pilipino,
English and Spanish, for at least ten (10) days before the
beginning of the examination.
Section 9. Examination; subjects. Applicants, not
otherwise provided for in sections 3 and 4 of this rule, shall
be subjected to examinations in the following subjects: Civil
Law; Labor and Social Legislation; Mercantile Law; Criminal
Law; Political Law (Constitutional Law, Public Corporations,
and Public Officers); International Law (Private and Public);
Taxation; Remedial Law (Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure,
and Evidence); Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (in
Pleadings and Conveyancing).
Section 10. Bar examination, by questions and answers,
and in writing. Persons taking the examination shall not
bring papers, books or notes into the examination rooms.
The questions shall be the same for all examinees and a
copy thereof, in English or Spanish, shall be given to each
examinee. Examinees shall answer the questions personally
without help from anyone.
Upon verified application made by an examinee stating that
his penmanship is so poor that it will be difficult to read his
answers without much loss of time., the Supreme Court may
allow such examinee to use a typewriter in answering the
questions. Only noiseless typewriters shall be allowed to be
used.
The committee of bar examiner shall take such precautions
as are necessary to prevent the substitution of papers or
commission of other frauds. Examinees shall not place their
names on the examination papers. No oral examination shall
be given.
Section 11. Annual examination. Examinations for
admission to the bar of the Philippines shall take place
annually in the City of Manila. They shall be held in four
days to be disignated by the chairman of the committee on
bar examiners. The subjects shall be distributed as follows:
First day: Political and International Law (morning) and Labor
and Social Legislation (afternoon); Second day: Civil Law
(morning) and Taxation (afternoon); Third day: Mercantile
Law (morning) and Criminal Law (afternoon); Fourth day:
Remedial Law (morning) and legal Ethics and Practical
Exercises (afternoon).
Section 12. Committee of examiners. Examinations
shall be conducted by a committee of bar examiners to be
appointed by the Supreme Court. This committee shall be
composed of a Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall act
as chairman, and who shall be designated by the court to
serve for one year, and eight members of the bar of the
Philippines, who shall hold office for a period of one year.
The names of the members of this committee shall be
published in each volume of the official reports.
Section 13. Disciplinary measures. No candidate shall
endeavor to influence any member of the committee, and
during examination the candidates shall not communicate
with each other nor shall they give or receive any
assistance. The candidate who violates this provisions, or
any other provision of this rule, shall be barred from the
examination, and the same to count as a failure against him,
and further disciplinary action, including permanent
disqualification, may be taken in the discretion of the court.
Section 14. Passing average. In order that a candidate
may be deemed to have passed his examinations
successfully, he must have obtained a general average of 75
per cent in all subjects, without falling below 50 per cent in
any subjects. In determining the average, the subjects in the
examination shall be given the following relative weights:
Civil Law, 15 per cent; Labor and Social Legislation, 10 per
cent; Mercantile Law, 15 per cent; Criminal Law; 10 per
cent: Political and International Law, 15 per cent; Taxation,
10 per cent; Remedial Law, 20 per cent; Legal Ethics and
Practical Exercises, 5 per cent.
Section 15. Report of the committee; filing of examination
papers. Not later than February 15th after the
examination, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable,
the committee shall file its report on the result of such
examination. The examination papers and notes of the
committee shall be filed with the clerk and may there be
examined by the parties in interest, after the court has
approved the report.
Section 16. Failing candidates to take review course.
Candidates who have failed the bar examinations for three
times shall be disqualified from taking another examination
unless they show the satisfaction of the court that they have
enrolled in and passed regular fourth year review classes as
well as attended a pre-bar review course in a recognized law
school.
The professors of the individual review subjects attended by
the candidates under this rule shall certify under oath that
the candidates have regularly attended classes and passed
the subjects under the same conditions as ordinary students
and the ratings obtained by them in the particular subject.
Section 17. Admission and oath of successful applicants.
An applicant who has passed the required examination, or
has been otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the
bar, shall take and subscribe before the Supreme Court the
corresponding oath of office.
Section 18. Certificate. The supreme Court shall
thereupon admit the applicant as a member of the bar for all
the courts of the Philippines, and shall direct an order to be
entered to that effect upon its records, and that a certificate
of such record be given to him by the clerk of court, which
certificate shall be his authority to practice.
Section 19. Attorney's roll. The clerk of the Supreme
Court shall kept a roll of all attorneys admitted to practice,
which roll shall be signed by the person admitted when he
receives his certificate.
Section 20. Duties of attorneys. It is the duty of an
attorney:
(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the
laws of the Philippines.
(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts of justice and judicial officers;
(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings
only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as
he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.
(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes
confided to him, such means only as are consistent with
truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any
judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or
law;
(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every
peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to
accept no compensation in connection with his client's
business except from him or with his knowledge and
approval;
(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to
advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a
party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause
with which he is charged;
(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the
continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any man's
cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;
(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to
himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed;
(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all
fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion
as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that
the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived
of life or liberty, but by due process of law.
Section 21. Authority of attorney to appear. an attorney
is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any
cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney
is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client,
but the presiding judge may, on motion of either party and
on reasonable grounds therefor being shown, require any
attorney who assumes the right to appear in a case to
produce or prove the authority under which he appears, and
to disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the name of
the person who employed him, and may thereupon make
such order as justice requires. An attorneys wilfully appear
in court for a person without being employed, unless by
leave of the court, may be punished for contempt as an
officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official
transactions.
Section 22. Attorney who appears in lower court
presumed to represent client on appeal. An attorney who
appears de parte in a case before a lower court shall be
presumed to continue representing his client on appeal,
unless he files a formal petition withdrawing his appearance
in the appellate court.
Section 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients.
Attorneys have authority to bind their clients in any case by
any agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and in
taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial
procedure. But they cannot, without special authority,
compromise their client's litigation, or receive anything in
discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in cash.
Section 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to
fees. An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover
from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for
his services, with a view to the importance of the subject
matter of the controversy, the extent of the services
rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney. No
court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert
witnesses as to the proper compensation, but may disregard
such testimony and base its conclusion on its own
professional knowledge. A written contract for services shall
control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the
court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.
Section 25. Unlawful retention of client's funds; contempt.
When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of
his client after it has been demanded, he may be punished
for contempt as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved
in his official transactions; but proceedings under this
section shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution.
Section 26. Change of attorneys. An attorney may
retire at any time from any action or special proceeding, by
the written consent of his client filed in court. He may also
retire at any time from an action or special proceeding,
without the consent of his client, should the court, on notice
to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that
he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the
name of the attorney newly employed shall be entered on
the docket of the court in place of the former one, and
written notice of the change shall be given to the advance
party.
A client may at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute
another in his place, but if the contract between client and
attorney has been reduced to writing and the dismissal of
the attorney was without justifiable cause, he shall be
entitled to recover from the client the full compensation
stipulated in the contract. However, the attorney may, in the
discretion of the court, intervene in the case to protect his
rights. For the payment of his compensation the attorney
shall have a lien upon all judgments for the payment of
money, and executions issued in pursuance of such
judgment, rendered in the case wherein his services had
been retained by the client.
Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme
Court on what grounds. A member of the bar may be
removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before the admission to practice, or for a wilfull
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
Section 28. Suspension of attorney by the Court of
Appeals or a Court of First Instance. The Court of Appeals
or a Court of First Instance may suspend an attorney from
practice for any of the causes named in the last preceding
section, and after such suspension such attorney shall not
practice his profession until further action of the Supreme
Court in the premises.
Section 29. Upon suspension by the Court of Appeals or
Court of First Instance, further proceedings in Supreme
Court. Upon such suspension, the Court of Appeals or the
Court of First Instance shall forthwith transmit to the
Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of suspension
and a full statement of the facts upon which the same was
based. Upon the receipt of such certified copy and
statement, the Supreme Court shall make a full investigation
of the facts involved and make such order revoking or
extending the suspension, or removing the attorney from his
office as such, as the facts warrant.
Section 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or
suspension. No attorney shall be removed or suspended
from the practice of his profession, until he has had full
opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges
against him, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to
be heard by himself or counsel. But if upon reasonable
notice he fails to appear and answer the accusation, the
court may proceed to determine the matter ex parte.
Section 31. Attorneys for destitute litigants. A court
may assign an attorney to render professional aid free of
charge to any party in a case, if upon investigation it
appears that the party is destitute and unable to employ an
attorney, and that the services of counsel are necessary to
secure the ends of justice and to protect the rights of the
party. It shall be the duty of the attorney so assigned to
render the required service, unless he is excused therefrom
by the court for sufficient cause shown.
Section 32. Compensation for attorneys de oficio.
Subject to availability of funds as may be provided by the
law the court may, in its discretion, order an attorney
employed as counsel de oficio to be compensates in such
sum as the court may fix in accordance with section 24 of
this rule. Whenever such compensation is allowed, it shall
be not less than thirty pesos (P30) in any case, nor more
than the following amounts: (1) Fifty pesos (P50) in light
felonies; (2) One hundred pesos (P100) in less grave
felonies; (3) Two hundred pesos (P200) in grave felonies
other than capital offenses; (4) Five Hundred pesos (P500) in
capital offenses.
Section 33. Standing in court of person authorized to
appear for Government. Any official or other person
appointed or designated in accordance with law to appear
for the Government of the Philippines shall have all the
rights of a duly authorized member of the bar to appear in
any case in which said government has an interest direct or
indirect.
Section 34. By whom litigation conducted. In the court
of a justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in
person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him
for the purpose, or with the aid an attorney. In any other
court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid
of an attorney, and his appearance must be either personal
or by a duly authorized member of the bar.
Section 35. Certain attorneys not to practice. No judge
or other official or employee of the superior courts or of the
Office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private
practice as a member of the bar or give professional advice
to clients.
Section 36. Amicus Curiae. Experienced and impartial
attorneys may be invited by the Court to appear as amici
curiae to help in the disposition of issues submitted to it.

Section 37. Attorneys' liens. An attorney shall have a

lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his client
which have lawfully come into his possession and may
retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have
been paid, and may apply such funds to the satisfaction
thereof. He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon all
judgments for the payment of money, and executions issued
in pursuance of such judgments, which he has secured in a B.M. No. 850 August 22, 2000
litigation of his client, from and after the time when he shall MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL
EDUCATION
have the caused a statement of his claim of such lien to be
entered upon the records of the court rendering such
judgment, or issuing such execution, and shall have the
Republic of the Philippines
caused written notice thereof to be delivered to his client SUPREME COURT
and to the adverse paty; and he shall have the same right Manila
and power over such judgments and executions as his client
would have to enforce his lien and secure the payment of B.M. No. 850 August 22, 2000
his just fees and disbursements.
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION (MCLE)
ADOPTING THE RULES ON MANDATORY CONTINUING
LEGAL EDUCATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

EN BANC

RESOLUTION

Considering the Rules on 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 adopt, as it hereby adopts, the
following 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. Constitution of the MCLE Committee
Within two (2) months from the approval of these Rules by
the Supreme Court En Banc, the MCLE Committee shall be
constituted in accordance with these Rules.
Section 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.
(b) At least (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and
pretrial skills.
(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to
alternative dispute resolution.
(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to
updates on substantive and procedural laws, and
jurisprudence.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal
writing and oral advocacy.
(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to
international law and international conventions.
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to
such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE
Committee.
RULE 3
COMPLIANCE PERIOD
Section 1. Initial compliance period
The initial compliance period shall begin not later than three
(3) months from the constitution of the MCLE Committee.
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.
Section 2. Compliance Group 1.
Members in the National Capital Region (NCR) or Metro
Manila shall be permanently assigned to Compliance Group
1.
Section 3. Compliance Group 2.
Members in Luzon outside NCR shall be permanently
assigned to Compliance Group 2.
Section 4. Compliance Group 3.
Members in Visayas and Mindanao shall be permanently
assigned to Compliance Group 3.
Section 5. Compliance period for members admitted or
readmitted after establishment of the program.
Members admitted or readmitted to the Bar after the
establishment of the program shall be permanently assigned
to the appropriate Compliance Group based on their Chapter
membership on the date of admission or readmission.
The initial compliance period after admission or readmission
shall begin on the first day of the month of admission or
readmission and shall end on the same day as that of all
other members in the same Compliance Group.
(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
Section 1. Guidelines
The following are the guidelines for computation of credit
units (CU):
PROGRAMS 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 CERTIFICATE
OF ATTENDANCE WITH NUMBER OF HOURS
1.2 LECTURER 5 CU PER HOUR PHOTOCOPY
OF PLAQUE OR SPONSOR'S CERTIFICATION
1.3 RESOURCE 3 CU PER HOUR PHOTOCOPY
OF PLAQUE OR SPONSOR'S SPEAKER
CERTIFICATION
1.4 ASSIGNED 2 CU PER HOUR CERTIFICATION
FROM SPONSORING PENALIST/
ORGANIZATION REACTOR/COMMENTATOR
1.5 MODERATOR/ 2 CU PER HOUR
CERTIFICATION FROM SPONSORING
COORDINATOR/ ORGANIZATION FACILITATOR
2. AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND REVIEW
 2.1 RESEARCH/ 5-10 CREDIT UNITS DULY
CERTIFIED/PUBLISHED INNOVATIVE
TECHNICAL REPORT/PAPER
PROGRAM/CREATIVE PROJECT
2.2 BOOK 50-100 PP 101+ PUBLISHED BOOK
SINGLE AUTHOR 12-16 CU 17-20 CU
2 AUTHORS 10-12 CU 13-16 CU
3 OR MORE 5-6 CU 7-11 CU
2.3 BOOK EDITOR 1/2 OF THE CU OF
PUBLISHED BOOK WITH PROOF AUTHORSHIP
AS EDITOR CATEGORY
2.4 LEGAL ARTICLE 5-10 PP 11+ PUBLISHED
ARTICLE SINGLE AUTHOR 6 CU 8 CU
2 AUTHORS 4 CU 6 CU
3 OR MORE 2 CU 4 CU
2.5 LEGAL 3-6 CU PER ISSUE PUBLISHED
NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL NEWSLETTER/LAW
JOURNAL EDITOR
3. PROFESSIONAL 6 CU PER CHAIR CERTIFICATION OF
LAW DEAN CHAIR/BAR 1 CU PER LECTURE OR BAR
REVIEW DIRECTOR REVIEW/ HOUR LECTURE/LAW
TEACHING
Section 2. Limitation on certain credit units
In numbers 2 and 3 of the guidelines in the preceding
Section, the total maximum credit units shall not exceed
twenty (20) hours per three (3) years.
RULE 5
CATEGORIES OF CREDIT
Section 1. Classes of credits
The credits are either participatory or non-participatory.
Section 2. Claim for participatory credit
Participatory credit may be claimed for:
(a) Attending approved education activities like
seminars, conferences, symposia, in-house education
programs, workshops, dialogues or round table
discussions.
(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.
Section 3. Claim for non-participatory credit
Non-participatory credit 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 member's practice or
employment.
(b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.
RULE 6
COMPUTATION OF CREDIT HOURS
Section 1. Computation of credit hours
Credit hours are computed based on actual time spent in an
activity (actual instruction or speaking time), in hours to the
nearest one-quarter hour.
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 Executives Departments;
(b) Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives;
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the
Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members of
the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and
Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by
the Philippine Judicial Academy program of
continuing judicial education;
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor
and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of
Justice;
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitor
General;
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and
Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional
Commissions;
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy
Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsmen and the
Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-
judicial functions;
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviews and professors of
law who have teaching experience for at least 10
years accredited law schools;
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of
the Corps of Professors and Professorial Lectures of
the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
Section 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.
Section 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.
Section 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.
Section 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 rules as 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 approved provider and certifies that the
activity meets the criteria of Section 3 of this Rules; and (2)
the provider is specially mandated by law to provide
continuing legal education.
Section 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
APPROVAL OF PROVIDERS
Section 1. Approval of providers
Approval of providers shall be done by the MCLE Committee.
Section 2. Requirements for approval of providers
Any persons or group may be approved 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
approved providers. Application for approval shall:
(a) Be submitted on a form provided by the IBP;
 (b) Contain all information requested on the form;
(c) Be accompanied by the approval fee;
Section 3. Requirements of all providers
All approved 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 member's signature
was obtained at the time of attendance at the
activity. The official record of attendance shall
contain the member's 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
IBP.
(b) The provider shall certify that:
(1) This activity has been approved for MCLE
by the IBP 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 IBP pertaining to MCLE.
(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 activities by
members of the IBP Board of Governors, the MCLE
Committee, or designees of the Committee and IBP
staff 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 devoted to each topic and identify of
the instructors. The provider shall make available to
each participant a copy of IBP-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 IBP.
(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.
Section 4. Renewal of provider approval
The approval 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.
Section 5. Revocation of provider approval
The approval of any provider referred to in Rule 9 may be
revoked by a majority vote of the IBP Board of Governors,
upon recommendation of the MCLE Committee, after notice
and hearing and for good cause.
 RULE 10
ACTIVITY AND PROVIDER APPROVAL FEE
Section 1. Payment of fees
Application for approval of an education activity or as a
provider requires payment of an appropriate fee.
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 address indicated
therein not later than the day after the end of the member's
compliance period.
Section 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(c) of Rule 9 should be
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 a non-compliance notice;
(e) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the
foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade
compliance with the MCLE requirements.
Section 2. Non-compliance notice and 60-day period to
attain compliance
A member 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 explain the
deficiency or otherwise show compliance with the
requirements. Such notice shall contain, among other
things, the following language in capital letters:
YOUR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION
FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OR PROOF OF COMPLIANCE
WITH THE MCLE REQUIREMENT BY (INSERT DATE 60
DAYS FROM THE DATE OF NOTICE), SHALL BE A
CAUSE FOR LISTING AS A DELINQUENT MEMBER.
The Member may use this period to attain the adequate
number of credit hours for compliance. Credit hours earned
during this period may only be counted toward compliance
with the prior compliance period requirement unless hours
in excess of the requirement are earned, in which case, the
excess hours may be counted toward meeting the current
compliance period requirement.lawphil.net
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.
Section 2. Listing as delinquent member
Any member who fails to satisfactorily comply with Section
2 of Rule 12 shall be listed as a delinquent member by the
IBP Board of Governors upon the recommendation of the
MCLE Committee, in which case, Rule 139-A of the Rules of
Court shall apply.
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
hours to meet the requirement for the period of non-
compliance during the period the member is on inactive
status. These credit hours may not be counted toward
meeting the current compliance period requirement. Credit
hours attained 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.lawphil.net
Section 2. Termination of delinquent listing administrative
process
The termination of listing as a delinquent member is
administrative in nature but it shall be made with notice and
hearing by the MCLE Committee.
RULE 15
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
COMMITTEE
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.
Section 2. Duty of the Committee
The MCLE Committee shall administer and adopt such
implementing rules as may be necessary subject to the
approval by 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.
Section 3. Staff of the IBP
The IBP shall employ such staff as may be necessary to
perform the record-keeping, auditing, reporting, approval
and other necessary functions.
Section 4. Submission of annual budget

The IBP shall submit to the Supreme Court an annual budget

for a subsidy to establish, operate and maintain the MCLE
Program.

This resolution shall take effect in October 2000, following

its publication in two (2) newspaper of general circulation in
the Philippines.

Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2000.

PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE - FULL

TEXT
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law
Foundation
B.M. No. 1922 June 3, 2008
RE. NUMBER AND DATE OF MCLE
CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLETION/EXEMPTION REQUIRED IN
ALL PLEADINGS/MOTIONS

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

B.M. No. 1922 June 3, 2008

RE. NUMBER AND DATE OF MCLE CERTIFICATE

OF COMPLETION/EXEMPTION REQUIRED IN ALL
PLEADINGS/MOTIONS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution
of the Court En Banc dated June 3, 2008
"Bar Matter No. 1922. Re: Recommendation of the
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Board
to Indicate in All Pleadings Filed with the Courts the
Counsels MCLE Certificate of Compliance or
Certificate of Exemption. The Court Resolved
to NOTE the Letter, dated May 2, 2008, of Associate
Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Chairperson,
Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters,
informing the Court of the diminishing interest of the
members of the Bar in the MCLE requirement
program.
The Court further Resolved, upon the
recommendation of the Committee on Legal
Education and Bar Matters, to REQUIRE practicing
members of the bar to INDICATE in all pleadings filed
before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number
and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of
Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be
applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance
period. Failure to disclose the required
information would cause the dismissal of the
case and the expunction of the pleadings from
the records.
The New Rule shall take effect sixty (60) days after its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation."
Caprio-Morales Velasco, Jr., Nachura, JJ., on official
leave. (adv216a)
ZAGUIRRE VS. CASTILLO
FACTS:Complainant and respondent had their illicit
relationship while the latter was preparing to take the bar
examinations. After the admission of the respondent to the
Philippine Bar, complainant learned that he was already
married. Respondent, who by now is a lawyer, executed an
affidavit, admitting his relationship with the complainant
and recognizing the unborn child she was carrying as his.
After the birth of the baby, however, respondent had started
to refuse recognizing the child and giving her any form of
support. After due hearing, the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline found Atty. Castillo guilty of gross immoral
conduct and recommends that he be meted the penalty of
indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the penalty imposed is proper.
HELD: YES. Respondent violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility; Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the
same Code.
The conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly
immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a
high degree or committed under such scandalous or
revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of
decency.
Siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a
conduct way below the standards of morality required of
every lawyer. Moreover, the attempt of respondent to
renege on his notarized statement recognizing and
undertaking to support his child by Carmelita demonstrates
a certain unscrupulousness on his part which is highly
censurable, unbecoming a member of a noble profession,
tantamount to self-stultification.
The rule is settled that a lawyer may be suspended
or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his
private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in
moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.
GUEVARRA VS. EALA
Facts: Wife of petitioner, Irene Moje was having an illicit
affair with the respondent. After leaving the conjugal home,
petitioner found out that Irene and respondent was living
together in a residential house few blocks away from the
church they were married. Few months thereafter, Irene
gave birth to a baby girl and wrote the name of the
respondent as the father in the certificate of live birth.
Petitioner filed a petition for annulment of marriage to Irene
and a criminal complaint for adultery against respondent
and Irene.
Petitioner also filed a complaint for disbarment before the
IBP-CBD on the ground of gross immoral conduct and
unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath which was
dismissed by the IBP Board of Governors due to lack of
merit.
Hence, the petition of complaint before the Supreme Court.
Issue: Would an illicit affair between a married lawyer and a
married woman constitute gross immoral conduct?
Ruling: Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman
not his wife or without the benefit of marriage should be
characterized as 'grossly immoral conduct' depends on the
surrounding circumstances." The case at bar involves a
relationship between a married lawyer and a married
woman who is not his wife. It is immaterial whether the
affair was carried out discreetly.
Sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful
and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the
sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the
Constitution and affirmed by our laws. (Vitug v. Rongcal)
Respondent has been carrying on an illicit affair with a
married woman, a grossly immoral conduct and indicative of
an extremely low regard for the fundamental ethics of his
profession. This detestable behavior renders him regrettably
unfit and undeserving of the treasured honor and privileges
which his license confers upon him. (Tucay v. Atty. Tucay)
Respondent in fact also violated the lawyer's oath he took
before admission to practice law.
Respondent admittedly is aware of Section 2 of Article XV
(The Family) of the Constitution reading: Section 2.
Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation
of the family and shall be protected by the State.
In this connection, the Family Code (Executive Order No.
209), which echoes this constitutional provision, obligates
the husband and the wife "to live together, observe mutual
love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and
support."
Furthermore, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes a
lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct," and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same
Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any
"conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law."
WHEREFORE, Petition is GRANTED. Respondent, Atty. Jose
Emmanuel M. Eala, is 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.
UI VS. BONIFACIO
Facts: Lesli Ui filed an administrative complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Iris Bonifacio on the ground of
immorality, for allegedly carrying an immoral relationship
with Carlos Ui, her (Lesli) husband.
In the proceeding before the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline, Iris attached a photocopy of a marriage
certificate that said that she and Carlos got married in 1985
but according to the certificate of marriage obtained from
the Hawaii State Department of Health, they were married
in 1987.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Iris Bonifacio conducted herself
in an immoral manner for which she deserves to be barred
from the practice of law.
Held: NO. The practice of law is a privilege. The bar
candidate does not have the right to enjoy the practice of
the legal profession simply by passing the bar, he must also
have a continued possession of good moral character. A
lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct ,
which has been defined as the conduct which is willful,
flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral
indifference to the good and respectable members of the
community. Lawyers, as keepers of public faith, are
burdened with a higher degree of social responsibility and
thus must handle their personal affairs with great caution.
Iris Bonifacio was imprudent in managing her personal
affairs. However the fact remains that her relationship with
Carlos, clothed as it was with what she believed as a valid
marriage, cannot be considered immoral. Immorality
connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral
norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable
members of the community. For such conduct to warrant
disciplinary action, it must be grossly immoral, it must be
so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
A lawyer is not only required to refrain from adulterous
relationships but must also behave himself as to avoid
scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is
flouting those moral standards. Her act of distancing herself
on her discovery that Carlos was married proves that she
had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral
standard of the legal profession.
On the matter of the falsified marriage certificate, it is
contrary to human experience and highly improbable that
she did not know the year of her marriage or she failed to
check that the information on the document she attached to
her Answer were correct. Lawyers are called upon to
safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and
acts of malpractice.
TOLEDA VS. ABALOS
FACTS: Atty. Erlinda Abalos obtained a loan of P20,000.00
from Priscila Toledo, payable within six months from date,
plus interest of 5% per month. To guarantee the payment of
said obligation, respondent executed a Promissory Note.
After the lapse of six months, and despite repeated
demands, respondent failed to pay her obligation. Afraid
that she will not recover her money, Ms. Toledo sought the
help of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which
referred the matter to the Commission on Bar Discipline.
[T]he Commission issued an order directing Atty. Abalos to
file her Answer to the letter-complaint of Ms. Toledo.
Despite receipt of said order, respondent did not answer the
complaint. Investigating Commissioner issued an order
setting the case for hearing Despite due notices, respondent
failed to appear. Accordingly, complainant was allowed to
present her evidence ex-parte after which, the case was
considered submitted for resolution. Respondent received
this order as shown by the registry return. However, she
again did not do anything about it.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Abalos may be disciplined by the
IB
HELD: YES. Respondent suspended for one (1) month.
RATIO: According to the Supreme Court, the general rule is
that a lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred, and the
court may not ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline
him, for misconduct in his non-professional or private
capacity. It was, however, still necessary for respondent to
acknowledge the orders of the Commission in deference to
its authority over her as a member of the IBP. Her wanton
disregard of its lawful orders subjects her to disciplinary
sanction. Thus, her suspension from the practice of law is
warranted.
BUSTAMANTE-ALEJANDRO VS. ALEJANDRO
Facts: Complainant submitted a photocopy of the marriage
contract between her andrespondent Atty. Alejandro in
support of her charge of bigamy and concubinage against
thelatter and Villarin. She also submitted a photocopy of the
birth certificate of a child of therespondent and also stated
that they were married in May 1, 1990 in Isabela,
Province.The Supreme Court directed respondents to file
their comment on the complaint within 10 days but they
failed to comply. Copies of the resolution, complaint and its
annexes were returned to both respondents unserved with
notation moved, same as when served
personally.Complainant was required anew to submit the
correct, present address of respondents underpain of
dismissal of her administrative complaint. She disclosed
respondents address at 12403Develop Drive Houston,
Texas in a handwritten letter.The Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) recommended that both respondents be
disbarred.The Supreme Court ordered Atty. Alejandro to be
disbarred while the complaint against his co-respondent
Atty. Villarin was returned to the IBP for further proceedings
or it appears that acopy of the resolution requiring comment
was never deemed served upon her as it was upon Atty.
Alejandro.
Issue: Whether or not abandonment of lawful wife and
maintaining an illicit relationship withanother woman are
grounds for disbarment.
Held: Sufficient evidence showed that respondent Atty.
Alejandro, lawfully married tocomplainant, carried on an
illicit relationship with co-respondent Atty. Villarin. Although
theevidence was not sufficient to prove that he co0ntracted
a subsequent bigamous marriage, thatfact remains of his
deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as
member of the bar. A disbarment proceeding is warranted
against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife andmaintains
an illicit relationship with another woman who had borne
him a child. We can do noless in this case where Atty.
Alejandro even fled to another country to escape the
consequencesof his misconduct.Therefore, Atty. Alejandro
disbarred from the practice of law while the complaint
against Atty. Villarin was referred back to the IBP.
CHUA VS. MESINA
Facts: Complainants Ana Alvaran Chua and Marcelina Hsia
administratively charged respondent Atty. Simeon M.
Mesina, Jr., for breach of professional ethics, gross
professional misconduct, and culpable malpractice.
Complainants were lessees of the property of respondent's
mother. Respondent's mother defaulted in paying a loan
that she obtained in a bank, thus respondent convinced
complainants to help her mother if paying the said
obligation, to which the complainants acceded. It was
agreed among that that in consideration for the act of
complainants, the property which they are leasing will be
transferred to their name. The complainants complied with
the terms of the agreement. A deed of sale concerning such
property was executed.
However, to evade liability for paying capital gains tax,
respondent instructed complainants to execute another
deed of sale which will be antedated 1979, wherein the
capital gains tax was not yet in effective.
Subsequently, after the execution of the deed of sale,
respondents instructed his clients [complainants] to execute
a simulated deed of sale which will reflect that the property
was re-conveyed to his mother.
The cunning acts of respondent did not end there.
Respondent went to the house of complainants and got the
owners certificate of title of the said property which is still
under the name of her mother. he promised to the
complainants that he will process the transfer of the
property to their name. Years passed, but respondent never
returned the said title to the complainants.
Meanwhile, another lessee file a criminal case against the
complainants and respondents for falsification. He claims
that was also given the promise that the property will be
offered to him before it will be sold to another, but
respondents sold it to complainants without offering to him.
Because of the foregoing circumstances, complainants filed
an administrative case against respondent.
Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross
misconduct.
Held: Yes, said the Court- "This Court finds that indeed,
respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.
First, by advising complainants to execute another Deed of
Absolute Sale antedated to 1979 to evade payment of
capital gains taxes, he violated his duty to promote respect
for law and legal processes, and not to abet activities aimed
at defiance of the law; That respondent intended to, as he
did defraud not a private party but the government is
aggravating.
Second, when respondent convinced complainants to
execute another document, a simulated Deed of Absolute
Sale wherein they made it appear that complainants
reconveyed the Melencio property to his mother, he
committed dishonesty.
Third, when on May 2, 1990 respondent inveigled his own
clients, the Chua spouses, into turning over to him the
owners copy of his mothers title upon the
misrepresentation that he would, in four months, have a
deed of sale executed by his mother in favor of
complainants, he likewise committed dishonesty.
That the signature of Felicisima M. Melencio in the 1985
document and that in the 1979 document are markedly
different is in fact is a badge of falsification of either the
1979 or the 1985 document or even both.
A propos is this Courts following pronouncement in Nakpil v.
Valdez
As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client
but the business transaction must be characterized with
utmost honesty and good faith. The measure of good faith
which an attorney is required to exercise in his dealings with
his client is a much higher standard that is required in
business dealings where the parties trade at arms length.
Business transactions between an attorney and his client
are disfavored and discouraged by the policy of the law.
Hence, courts carefully watch these transactions to assure
that no advantage is taken by a lawyer over his client. This
rule is founded on public policy for, by virtue of his office, an
attorney is in an easy position to take advantage of the
credulity and ignorance of his client. Thus, no presumption
of innocence or improbability of wrongdoing is considered in
an attorneys favor.
Respondent having welched on his promise to cause the
reconveyance of the Melencio property to complainants,
consideration of whether he should be ordered to honor
such promise should be taken up in the civil case filed for
the purpose, the issue there being one of ownership while
that in the case at bar is moral fitness.
PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF THE
FIRM NAME "SYCIP, SALAZAR, FELICIANO,
HERNANDEZ & CASTILLO
Facts: The case involves two petitions. The first was filed by
the surviving partners of Atty. Alexander Sycip who died on
May 5, 1975 and the other by the surviving partners of Atty.
Herminio Ozaeta who died on February 14, 1976 praying
that they be allowed to continueusing in the name of their
firms the names of their deceasedpartners who had passed
away. The petitioner anchored their petitions on the
following: 1)that under the law, a partnership is not
prohibited from continuing its business under a firm name
which includes the name of a deceased partner; 2) that
in regulating other professions, such as accountancy and
engineering, the legislature has authorized the adoption of
firm names without any restriction as to the use, in such
firm name, of the name of a deceased partner; 3)that
the Canons of Professional Ethics are not transgressed by
the continued use of the name of a deceased partner in the
firm name of a law partnership because Canon 33 of
the Canons of Professional Ethics adopted by the American
Bar Association declares that the continued use of the name
of a deceased or former partner whenpermissible by local
custom, is not unethical but care should be taken that no
imposition or deception is practiced through this use; 4) that
there is no possibility of imposition or deception because the
deaths of their respective deceased partners were well-
publicized in all newspapers of general circulation for
several days; the stationeries now being used by them carry
new letterheads indicating the years when their
respective deceased partners were connected with the firm
and; 5) that no local custom prohibits the continued use of
a deceased partner's name in a professional firm's name.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioners should be allowed to
use in their firm names the names of
their deceased partners
Held: The court ruled in the negative. The court cited the
following reasons. First is that Article. 1815 of the Civil Code
provides that Every partnership shall operate under a firm
name, which may or may not include the name of one or
more of the partners. Those who, not being members of the
partnership, include their names in the firm name, shall be
subject to the liability, of a partner thus it is clearly tacit in
the above provision that names in a firm name of a
partnership must either be those of living partners and. in
the case of non-partners, should be living persons who can
be subjected to liability. Second, the courts said that a
partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to
partnerships formed by other professionals or for business.
For one thing, the law on accountancy specifically allows the
use of a trade name in connection with the practice of
accountancy. A partnership for the practice of law is not a
legal entity. It is a mere relationship or association for a
particular purpose. It is not a partnership formed for the
purpose of carrying ontrade or business or of holding
property. Thus, it has been stated that "the use of a nom de
plume, assumed or trade name in law practice is improper.
And lastly while the court admits that it is true that Canon
33 does not consider as unethical the continued use of the
name of a deceased or former partner in the firm name of a
law partnership when such a practice is permissible by local
custom but the Canon warns that care should be taken that
no imposition or deception is practiced through this use. It
must be conceded that in the Philippines, no local custom
permits or allows the continued use of a deceased or former
partner's name in the firm names of law partnerships.
ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Facts:
Mauricio C. Ulep, petitioner, prays this Court "to order the
respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., to cease and desist from
issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as
that of Annexes `A' and `B' (of said petition) and to
perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making
advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law
profession other than those allowed by law. The
advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as
follows:
Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE? It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements
above reproduced are champertous, unethical, demeaning
P560.00 for a valid marriage. of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of
the community in the integrity of the members of the bar
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
and that, as a member of the legal profession, he is
ANNULMENT. VISA. ashamed and offended by the said advertisements, hence
the reliefs sought in his petition as herein before quoted.
THEPlease call: 521-0767,
In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of
LEGAL5217232, 5222041 publication of said advertisements at its instance, but claims
that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the
CLINIC, INC.8:30 am-6:00 pm rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals with
the use of modern computers and electronic machines.
7-Flr. Victoria Bldg. UN Ave., Mla.
Respondent further argues that assuming that the services
Annex B advertised are legal services, the act of advertising these
services should be allowed supposedly in the light of the
GUAM DIVORCE case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of
Arizona, reportedly decided by the United States Supreme
DON PARKINSON Court on June 7, 1977.
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Issue:
Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday
during office hours. Whether or not the services offered by respondent,
The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised by it constitutes practice
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration of law and, in either case, whether the same can properly be
Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special the subject of the advertisements herein complained of.
Retiree's Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina
Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa Held:
for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the services
THE 7 F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave. offered by the respondent constitute practice of law. The
definition of practice of law is laid down in the case of
LEGALErmita, Manila nr. US Embassy Cayetano vs. Monsod, as defined:
CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-7232521-7251 Black defines "practice of law" as:
522-2041; 521-0767
"The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the
application of legal principles and technique to serve the
interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to
appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct
of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and
other papers incident to actions and special proceedings,
conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all
kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It
embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them
in matters connected with the law."
The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal
support services can neither be seriously considered nor
sustained. Said proposition is belied by respondent's own
description of the services it has been offering. While some
of the services being offered by respondent corporation
merely involve mechanical and technical know-how, such as
the installation of computer systems and programs for the
efficient management of law offices, or the computerization
of research aids and materials, these will not suffice to
justify an exception to the general rule. What is palpably
clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal
information to laymen and lawyers. Its contention that such
function is non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more
apparent than real. In providing information, for example,
about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption, it
strains the credulity of this Court that all that respondent
corporation will simply do is look for the law, furnish a copy
thereof to the client, and stop there as if it were merely a
bookstore. With its attorneys and so called paralegals, it will
necessarily have to explain to the client the intricacies of
the law and advise him or her on the proper course of action
to be taken as may be provided for by said law. That is what
its advertisements represent and for which services it will
consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely
within the jurisprudential definition of "practice of law." Such
a conclusion will not be altered by the fact that respondent
corporation does not represent clients in court since law
practice, as the weight of authority holds, is not limited
merely to court appearances but extends to legal research,
giving legal advice, contract drafting, and so forth.
That fact that the corporation employs paralegals to carry
out its services is not controlling. What is important is that it
is engaged in the practice of law by virtue of the nature of
the services it renders which thereby brings it within the
ambit of the statutory prohibitions against the
advertisements which it has caused to be published and are
now assailed in this proceeding. 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. The proscription
against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal
business rests on the fundamental postulate that the
practice of law is a profession. The canons of the profession
tell us that 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
LIM VS. BARCELONA
Facts:
1976: General Bank & Trust Company (Genbank)
encountered financial difficulties. Central Bank
extendedloans to Genbank in the hope of rehabilitating it
(P310M). Nonetheless, Genbank failed to recover.
1977: Genbank was declared insolvent. A public bidding of
Genbanks assets was held with the Lucio TanGroup winning
the bid. Solicitor General Mendoza, representing the
government, intervened with theliquidation of Genbank.
1986: after EDSA I, Cory established the PCGG to recover
the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos, his family andcronies.
1987: PCGG filed a case against Lucio Tan and certain
other people (basta marami sila). In relation to thiscase,
PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on properties
allegedly acquired by the respondents bytaking advantage
of their close relationship and influence with Marcos.
Sandiganbayan heard the case.
Estelito Mendoza (Solicitor General during the time of
Marcos) represented the respondents.
1991: PCGG filed a motion to disqualify Mendoza, because
of his participation in the liquidation of Genbank. Genbank
(now Allied Bank) is one of the properties that PCGG is
seeking to be sequestered fromthe Lucion Tan group. PCGG
invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Sandiganbayan denied PCGGs motion. According to the
Sandiganbayan, Mendoza did not take an adverseposition to
that taken on behalf of the Central Bank. And Mendozas
appearance as counsel was beyondthe 1 year prohibitory
period since he retired in 1986.Issue:
W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
apllies to Estelito MendozaHeld:
No, it does not apply to Mendoza. Sandiganbayan decision
is affirmed.
The matter (see 3rdnote), or the act of Mendoza as
Solicitor General is advising the Central Bank on how
toproceed with the liquidation of Genbank. This is not the
matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
The matter involved in the liquidation of Genbank is
entirely different from the matter involved in thePCGG case
against the Lucio Tan group.
The intervention contemplated in Rule 6.03 should be
substantial and important. The role of Mendoza inthe
liquidation of Genbank is considered insubstantial.
SC is even questioning why PCGG took such a long time to
revive the motion to disqualify Mendoza.Apparently, PCGG
already lost a lot of cases against Mendoza. Kyles
interpretation: PCGG gettingdesperate
Something to think about: SC is somehow of the opinion
that Rule 6.03 will make it harder for thegovernment to get
good lawyers in the future to work for them because of the
prohibition of acceptingcases in the future that were related
to ones work as a government counsel.Concurring Opinions:
Panganiban & Carpio: the congruent interest prong of Rule
6.03 should have a prescriptive period
Tinga: Rule 6.03 cannot apply retroactively to Mendoza
(when he was Solicitor General, no Rule 6.03 yet)
Bottom line, they are all questioning the unfairness of the as it prohibits lawyers from representing a private person
rule if applied without any prescriptive periodand if applied even if the interests of the formergovernment client and the
retroactivelyNotes: new client are entirely parallel

Adverse-interest conflicts where the matter in which the Matter any discrete, isolatable act as well as
former government lawyer represents a clientin private indentifiable transaction or conduct involving a
practice is substantially related to a matter that the lawyer particularsituation and specific party
dealt with while employed with thegovernment and the
interests of the current and former are adverse Intervention interference that may affect the interests of
others.
Congruent-interest conflicts the use of the word
conflict is a misnomer, it does not involve conflicts atall,