1 WHAT IS LEGAL ETHICS?

Branch of moral science which treats of the duties which an attorney owes
to the court, to his client, to his colleagues in the profession and to the public.
It is the embodiment of all principles of morality and refinement that should
govern the conduct of every member of the bar

2 WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF ETHICAL STANDARDS IN THE PHILIPPINE

JUDICIARY?
1. The 1987 Constitution.
2. Applicable Jurisprudence.
3. Code of Professional Responsibility.
4. New Civil Code.
5. Rules of Court.
6. Revised Penal Code.
7. Local Government Code.

3 WHAT CONSTITUTES PRACTICE OF LAW?

Any activity, in and out of the court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law
is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. (Cayetano
vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210)

4 BAR VS BENCH
“Bar” refers to the legal profession.
“Bench” refers to the judiciary.

5 WHO IS AN AMICUS CURIAE?

An experienced and impartial attorney invited by the court to appear and
help in the disposition of issues submitted to it. It implies friendly intervention
of counsel to call the attention of the court to some matters of law or facts
which might otherwise escape its notice and in regard to which it might go
wrong.
Appears in court not to represent any particular party but only to assist the
court

6 ATTORNEY AT LAW VS ATTORNEY IN FACT

Attorneys-At-Law – that class of persons who are licensed officers of the
courts empowered to appear, prosecute and defend, and upon whom peculiar
duties, responsibilities and liabilities are developed by law as a consequence.
Attorney in fact- simply an agent whose authority is strictly limited by the
instrument appointing him. His authority is provided in a special power of
attorney or general power of attorney or letter of attorney. He is not
necessarily a lawyer.

7 PRO SE?
an appearance by a lawyer in his own behalf

8 COUNSEL DE OFFICIO VS COUNSEL DE PARTE?

Counsel de parte:
 An attorney retained by a party litigant, usually for a fee, to
prosecute or defend his cause in court.
 Implies freedom of choice either on the attorney or the litigant.
Counsel de oficio:
 Attorney appointed by the court.
 To defend an indigent defendant in a criminal action.
 To represent a destitute party

9 PRACTICE OF LAW IS A PROFESSION NOT A BUSINESS

1. A duty of public service.
2. A relation, as an ―officer of the court, to the administration ofjustice
involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability.
3. A relation to clients with the highest degree of fiduciary
4. A relation to the colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness
and unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and
encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients.

10 PRACTICE UNDER DETENTION (PEOPLE VS MACEDA, JAN 24, 2000)

FACTS:
The case stems from the denied motion for reconsideration of the SolGen
and a Senior State Prosecutor in a decision promulgated by the SC on August
13, 1990 holding that Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda committed no grave abuse
of discretion in issuing the order of August 8, 1989 giving custody over private
respondent Avelino T. Javellana to Atty Deogracias del Rosario, the Clerk of
Court of the Antique RTC during the pendency of criminal cases charged against
Javellana et al for murder, frustrated murder and four counts of attempted
murder.
At that time, there was sufficient reason was shown why Javellana should
not be detained at the Antique Provincial Jail. The trial court’s order specifically
provided for Javellana’s detention at the residence of Atty del Rosario with the
condition that he is not allowed liberty to roam around but was to be held as a
detention prisoner in the said residence. However, it was found out that the court
order was not strictly followed because during his detention at the residence of
Atty del Rosario, Javellana continued with his daily and normal activities as if he
were a free man. He even continued to engage in the practice of law.

HELD: In the case at bar, Javellana has been arrested based on the filing of the
criminal case against him. Pursuant to the arrest, he is deemed to be under the
custody of law. As a matter of law, when a person indicted for an offense is
arrested, he is deemed placed under the custody of law. He is placed in actual
restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of
the offense. He must be detained in jail during the pendency of case against him,
unless he is authorized by the court to be released on bail or on recognizance.
The more important issue is that all prisoners whether under preventive detention
or serving final sentence CAN NOT PRACTICE THEIR PROFESSION NOR
ENGAGE IN ANY BUSINESSOR OCCUPATION, OR HOLD OFFICE, ELECTIV
EOR APPOINTIVE, WHILE IN DETENTION.
11 PRIVATE PRACTICE (OCA VS LADAGA)
FACTS: Atty. Misael M. Ladaga, Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial
Court of Makati, Branch 133, requested the Court Administrator, Justice Alfredo
L. Benipayo, for authority to appear as Zpro bono counsel of his cousin, Narcisa
Naldoza Ladaga, in Criminal Case No. 84885, entitled People vs. Narcisa
Naldoza Ladaga for Falsification of Public Document pending before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 40. While respondent’s letter-
request was pending action, Lisa Payoyo Andres, the private complainant in
Criminal Case No. 84885, sent a letter to the Court Administrator requesting for a
certification with regard to respondents authority to appear as counsel for the
accused in the said criminal case.
Atty. Ladaga admitted that he had appeared in Criminal Case No. 84885 without
prior authorization for the reason that his cousin who have no means of hiring a
lawyer is facing a member of a powerful family. The Court denied his request for
authorization to appear as counsel and directed the Office of the Court
Administrator to file formal charges against him appearing in court without the
required authorization from the Court. the Court Administrator filed the instant
administrative complaint against respondent for violating Sec. 7(b)(2) of Republic
Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees.

(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by

the Constitution or law, Provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend
to conflict with their official functions;

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Lagada’s appearance as counsel considered a private

practice of law

HELD: Private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to
be in the active and continued practice of the legal profession and that his
professional services are available to the public for a compensation, as a source
of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services. It is evident that the
isolated instances when respondent appeared as pro bono counsel of his cousin
in Criminal Case No. 84885 does not constitute the private practice of the law
profession contemplated by law.
During the occasions that the respondent appeared as such counsel before the
METC of Quezon City, he was on official leave of absence. Moreover, his
Presiding Judge, Judge Napoleon Inoturan was aware of the case he was
handling.
While respondents isolated court appearances did not amount to a private
practice of law, he failed to obtain a written permission therefor from the head of
the Department. Atty. Ladaga was reprimanded with a stern warning that any
repetition of such act would be dealt with more severely.

12 ADMISSION TO BAR ( IN RE: ALMACEN, FEB 18, 1970; IN RE:

LANUEVO, AUG 29, 1975)
IN RE: ALMACEN, FEB 18, 1970
FACTS: Vicente Raul Almacen’s “Petition to Surrender Lawyer’s Certificate of
Title,” filed on Sept. 26, 1967, in protest against what he therein asserts is “a great
injustice committed against his client by Supreme Court”. He indicts SC, in his
own phrase, as a tribual “peopled by men who are calloused to our pleas for justice,
who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable
violations of the Constitution with impunity.” His client’s he continues, who was
deeply aggrieved by this Court’s “unjust judgment,” has become one of the
sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy.”

He ridicules the members of the Court, saying “that justice as administered

by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only bline, but also deaf and
dumb.” He then vows to argue the cause of his client ”in the people’s forum,” so
that “ people may know of the silent injustices committed by this court’ and that
“whatever mistakes, wrongs and injustices that were committed must never be
repeated.” He ends his petition with a prayer that:

“………a resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the certificate of
the undersigned attorney that at any time in the future and in the event we regain
our faith and confidence, we may retrieve our title to assume the practice of the
noblest profession.”

The genesis of this unfortunate incident was a civil case entitled Yaptichay
v. Calero, in which Atty. Almacen was counsel for the defendant. The trial court
rencered judgment agains his client. On June 15, 1966 atty. Almacen receive
acopy of the decision. Twenty days later on he moved for its reconsideration but
did not notify the latter of the time and plce of hearing on said motion. Meanwhile,
onJuly 18, 1966, the plaintiff moved for execution of the judgment. For lack of
proof of service, ‘the trial court denied both motions. To prove that he did serve
on the adverse party a copy of his first motion for reconsideration, atty. Almacen
filed on August 17, 1966 a second motion for reconsideration, however, was
ordered withdrawn by the trial court on August 30, 1966, upon verbal motion of
Atty. Almacen himself, who earlier, that is, on Aug. 22, 1966 had already perfected
the appeal. Motion for reconsideration was denied by Court of Appeals.

HELD: Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and
as citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels
the acts of courts and judges.

As a citizen and as officer of the court, a lawyer is expected not only to

exercise the right, but also to consider it his duty to avail of such right. No law may
abridge this right. Nor is he “professionally answerable for a scrutiny into the
official conduct of the judges, which would not expose him to legal animadversion
as a citizen. Atty. Almacen is suspended from the practice of law until further
orders.

IN RE: LANUEVO, AUG 29, 1975

FACTS: Administrative proceeding against Victorio Lanuevo for disbarment.

1. Admitted having brought the five examination notebooks of Ramon E. Galang

back to the respective examiners for re-evalution or re-checking.
2. The five examiners admitted having re-evaluated or re-checked the notebook
to him by the Bar Confidant, stating that he has the authority to do the same
and that the examinee concerned failed only in his particular subject and was
on the borderline of passing.
3. Ramon galang was able to pass the 1971 bar exam because of Lanuevo’s
move but the exam results bears that he failed in 5 subjects namely in (Political,
Civil, Mercantile, Criminal & Remedial).
4. Galang on the otherhand, denied of having charged of Slight Physical Injuries
on Eufrosino de Vera, a law student of MLQU.

RULING: The court disbarred Lanuevo as he has no authority to request the

examiners to re-evaluate grades of examinees w/o prior authority from Supreme
Court.

He does not possess any discretion with respect to the matter of admission
of examinees to the bar. He does not a have any business evaluating the answers
of the examinees.
 Consequently, Galang was also disbarred Sec. 2 of Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Curt of 1964, candidates for admission to the bar must be of good moral
character. Galang has a pending criminal cases of Physical Injuries, he committed
perjury when he declared under oath that he had no pending criminal case this
resulted him to revoked his license

13 CAN THE LEGISLATURE ENACT LAWS TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE

OF LAW?
LEGISLATURE’S EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER may enact laws
regulating the practice of law but may not pass a law that will control the
Supreme Court on its function to decide who may enjoy the privilege of
practicing law. Could be considered unconstitutional.

14 10 INITIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR (IN RE:

APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR OF VICENTE
CHING, OCTOBER 1, 1999)
1. Citizenship – must be Filipino citizen
2. Age- at least 21
3. Resident of the Philippines
4. Educational qualifications – secondary educ. Completed
5. Bachelor’s degree (UNITS IN ENGLISH= 18)
6. Philsat exams passing 45
7. Bachelor of Laws
8. Moral uprightness – no pending case involving moral turpitude.
9. Bar exam –passed
10. Oath / Signing of Attorney’s roll

IN RE: APPLICAION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR OF VICENTE

CHING

FACTS: In 1998, Vicente Ching finished his law degree at the Saint Louis
University in Baguio City. He eventually passed the bar but he was advised that
he needs to show proof that he is a Filipino citizen before he be allowed to take his
oath. Apparently, Ching’s father was a Chinese citizen but his mother was a
Filipino citizen. His parents were married before he was born in 1963. Under the
1935 Constitution, a legitimate child, whose one parent is a foreigner, acquires the
foreign citizenship of the foreign parent. Ching maintained that he has always
considered himself as a Filipino; that he is a certified public accountant – a
profession reserved for Filipinos; that he even served as a councilor in a
municipality in La Union.

The Solicitor-General commented on the case by saying that as a legitimate

child of a Chinese and a Filipino, Ching should have elected Filipino citizenship
upon reaching the age of majority; that under prevailing jurisprudence, “upon
reaching the age of majority” is construed as within 7 years after reaching the age
of majority (in his case 21 years old because he was born in 1964 while the 1935
Constitution was in place).

Ching did elect Filipino citizenship but he only did so when he was preparing
for the bar in 1998 or 14 years after reaching the age of majority. Nevertheless,
the Solicitor-General recommended that the rule be relaxed due to the special
circumstance of Ching.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ching should be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.

HELD: No. Unfortunately, he belatedly elected Filipino citizenship. The Supreme

Court cannot agree with the recommendation of the Solicitor-General. Fourteen
years had lapsed and it’s way beyond the allowable 7 year period. The Supreme
Court even noted that the period is originally 3 years but it was extended to 7 years.
(It seems it can’t be extended any further). Ching’s special circumstances can’t be
considered. It is not enough that he considered all his life that he is a Filipino; that
he is a professional and a public officer (was) serving this country. The rules for
citizenship are in place. Further, Ching didn’t give any explanation why he
belatedly chose to elect Filipino citizenship (but I guess it’s simply because he
never thought he’s Chinese not until he applied to take the bar). The prescribed
procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a tedious and
painstaking process. All that is required of the elector is to execute an affidavit of
election of Philippine citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil
registry. Ching’s unreasonable and unexplained delay in making his election
cannot be simply glossed over.

15 PHILIPPINE SHARIA BAR ( IN RE: DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR

EXAMINEE HARON MELING, JUNE 8, 2004)
IN RE: DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE HARON S. MELING
FACTS: Atty Froilan Melendrez filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a
Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar
Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate disciplinary penalty as a
member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar. Petitioner Alleges that Meling did not
disclose in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has three (3)
pending criminal cases both for Grave Oral Defamation and for Less Serious
Physical Injuries.
• Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against Melendrez and his wife
in front of media practitioners and other people.
• Meling also purportedly attacked and hit the face of Melendrez’ wife
causing the injuries to the latter.
• Alleges that Meling has been using the title “Attorney” in his
communications, as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the
fact that he is not a member of the Bar.

Meling explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases because retired
Judge Corocoy Moson, their former professor, advised him to settle
misunderstanding. Believing in good faith that the case would be settled because
the said Judge has moral ascendancy over them, considered the three cases that
arose from a single incident as “closed and terminated.”

Melting also Denies the charges and added that the acts do not involve
moral turpitude.
On the use of the title “Attorney,” Meling admits that some of his communications
really contained the word “Attorney” as they were typed by the office clerk. The
Office of Bar Confidant disposed of the charge of non-disclosure against Meling:

• Meling should have known that only the court of competent jurisdiction
can dismiss cases, not a retired judge nor a law professor. In fact, the
cases filed against Meling are still pending.
• Even if these cases were already dismissed, he is still required to
disclose the same for the Court to ascertain his good moral character.

ISSUE: Whether the imposition of appropriate sanctions upon Haron S. Meling is

proper and shall subsequently barred him from taking his lawyer’s oath and signing
on the Roll of Attorneys

HELD: 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.”
 He is aware that he is not a member of the Bar, there was no valid reason
why he signed as “attorney” whoever may have typed the letters. Unauthorized
use of the appellation “attorney” may render a person liable for indirect contempt
of court.

The Petition is GRANTED insofar as it seeks the imposition of appropriate

sanctions upon Haron S. Meling as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar.
Accordingly, the membership of Haron S. Meling in the Philippine Shari’a Bar is
hereby SUSPENDED until further orders from the Court, the suspension to take
effect immediately. Insofar as the Petition seeks to prevent Haron S. Meling from
taking the Lawyer’s Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the
Philippine Bar, the same is DISMISSED for having become moot and academic.

Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Shari’a Court, is not a
matter of right but merely a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only
learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral character. The
requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission
to the practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in
the practice of law.

The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court to determine whether

there is satisfactory evidence of good moral character of the applicant. The nature
of whatever cases are pending against the applicant would aid the Court in
determining whether he is endowed with the moral fitness demanded of a lawyer.
By concealing the existence of such cases, the applicant then flunks the test of
fitness even if the cases are ultimately proven to be unwarranted or insufficient to
impugn or affect the good moral character of the applicant.

16 WHO MAY BE CALLED ATTORNEY? ( ALAWI VS ALAUYA, FEB 4, 1997;

IN RE: GALANG 1975; AGUIRRE VS RANA, 2003)
IN RE: DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE HARON S. MELING

FACTS: Atty Froilan Melendrez filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a
Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar
Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate disciplinary penalty as a
member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar. Petitioner Alleges that Meling did not
disclose in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has three (3)
pending criminal cases both for Grave Oral Defamation and for Less Serious
Physical Injuries.
• Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against Melendrez and his wife
in front of media practitioners and other people.
 • Meling also purportedly attacked and hit the face of Melendrez’ wife
causing the injuries to the latter.
• Alleges that Meling has been using the title “Attorney” in his
communications, as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the
fact that he is not a member of the Bar.

Meling explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases because retired
Judge Corocoy Moson, their former professor, advised him to settle
misunderstanding. Believing in good faith that the case would be settled because
the said Judge has moral ascendancy over them, considered the three cases that
arose from a single incident as “closed and terminated.”

Melting also Denies the charges and added that the acts do not involve
moral turpitude.
On the use of the title “Attorney,” Meling admits that some of his communications
really contained the word “Attorney” as they were typed by the office clerk. The
Office of Bar Confidant disposed of the charge of non-disclosure against Meling:

• Meling should have known that only the court of competent jurisdiction
can dismiss cases, not a retired judge nor a law professor. In fact, the
cases filed against Meling are still pending.
• Even if these cases were already dismissed, he is still required to
disclose the same for the Court to ascertain his good moral character.

ISSUE: Whether the imposition of appropriate sanctions upon Haron S. Meling is

proper and shall subsequently barred him from taking his lawyer’s oath and signing
on the Roll of Attorneys

HELD: 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.”

He is aware that he is not a member of the Bar, there was no valid reason
why he signed as “attorney” whoever may have typed the letters. Unauthorized
use of the appellation “attorney” may render a person liable for indirect contempt
of court.

The Petition is GRANTED insofar as it seeks the imposition of appropriate

sanctions upon Haron S. Meling as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar.
Accordingly, the membership of Haron S. Meling in the Philippine Shari’a Bar is
hereby SUSPENDED until further orders from the Court, the suspension to take
effect immediately. Insofar as the Petition seeks to prevent Haron S. Meling from
taking the Lawyer’s Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the
Philippine Bar, the same is DISMISSED for having become moot and academic.

Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Shari’a Court, is not a
matter of right but merely a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only
learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral character. The
requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission
to the practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in
the practice of law.

The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court to determine whether

there is satisfactory evidence of good moral character of the applicant. The nature
of whatever cases are pending against the applicant would aid the Court in
determining whether he is endowed with the moral fitness demanded of a lawyer.
By concealing the existence of such cases, the applicant then flunks the test of
fitness even if the cases are ultimately proven to be unwarranted or insufficient to
impugn or affect the good moral character of the applicant.

17 OBLIGATONS OF A NEWY CONSTITUTED LAWYER?

To be a full-fledged lawyer in the Philippines and be eligible to use the title
Attorney, a candidate must graduate from a Philippine law school, take and pass
the Philippine Bar Examinations, take the Attorney's Oath, and sign his name in
the Rolls of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.

The full names of lawyers are found in the Rolls of Attorneys of the Supreme
Court, and in a similar list included in a Supreme Court publication entitled Law
List.

After admission to the bar (must remain in good and regular standing)
requirements:
1. Member IBP
2. Regular pay IBP dues
3. Compliant – MCLE
4. 120 hours / year free legal service
5. Faithfully observe rules and ethics of the profession
6. Subject to judicial discipline and control.
18 CONTINUING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRACTICE OF LAW AFTER
PASSING THE BAR

• MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

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.

• Membership in Good Standing

This means continued membership and, concomitantly, payment of annual

membership dues in the IBP; payment of the annual professional tax; compliance
with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement; faithful observance of
the rules and ethics of the legal profession and being continually subject to judicial
disciplinary control.

• Compliance “Community Legal Aid Service Rule”.

Under the rule, rookie lawyers are given one year after signing the roll of
attorneys to complete the required 120-hour free legal services in criminal, civil
and administrative cases. Aside from indigent litigants, also entitled to pro bono
legal aid are groups, individuals and organizations that cannot get the services of
the Public Attorney’s Office due to conflict of interest. The new lawyers may also
render their professional services for public interest cases and legal issues that
affect the society.

• Faithfully observe rules and ethics of the profession. Subject to judicial discipline
and control.

19 MAY A NON-LAWYER APPEAR IN COURT?

Yes. Non-lawyers may be authorized to appear in court in the following instances:

1. Cases before the MTC: Party to the litigation, in person OR through an agent
or friend or appointed by him for that purpose (Sec. 34, Rule 138, RRC)
2. Before any other court: Party to the litigation, in person (Ibid.)
3. Criminal case before the MTC in a locality where a duly licensed member of
the Bar is not available: the judge may appoint a non-lawyer who is:
4. resident of the province
5. of good repute for probity and ability to aid the accused in his defense (Rule
116, Sec. 7, RRC).
6. Legal Aid Program – A senior law student, who is enrolled in a recognized law
school’s clinical education program approved by the supreme Court may
appear before any court without compensation, to represent indigent clients,
accepted by the Legal Clinic of the law school. The student shall be under the
direct supervision and control of an IBP member duly accredited by the law
school.
7. Under the Labor code, non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any Labor
Arbiter, if
8. they represent themselves, or if
9. they represent their organization or members thereof (Art 222, PO 442, as
amended).
10. Under the Cadastral Act, a non-lawyer can represent a claimant before the
Cadastral Court (Act no. 2259, Sec. 9).