LEGAL ETHICS - This prohibition applies one year after consignation
- This is an important case which touches on 6.02 6.03 and
January 27, 2018
Ma’am: Just read canon 4 and 5
Canon 5
It is the bounded duty of the lawyer to keep abreast with the
developments; negligence of lawyer binds the client;
Mandatory Legal Education – 36 hours for every three years
Canon 6
Canons apply to lawyers in government service;
An emphasis on prosecutors; When the private prosecutor appears in
court he says he is appearing under authority of public prosecutor;
Solicitor general – in CA.
REMEMBER HERE: Shall not use his public position to promote
his public interest;
Some government lawyers are engaged in notarial services; they need
authority from their boss; he must not use his public position to
influence to make a lot of money;
CASES
Diana Ramos v. Atty Imbang
- Lawyer working in public attorney’s office;
- Government employees are expected to devote themselves
in public service; Thus they cannot handle private cases;
- Atty Imbang had accepted complainant’s case even when he
is a PAO lawyer; he received 8,500 pesos.
Cuenca v. Court of Appeals
- Accused was convicted for violation of the Trust Receipts
Law.
- But there was a new evidence; that affidavit can exonerate
accused; (free him)
- Whether or not to grant a new trial to the case;
- Court solicited the comment of the SolGen. Who cited
Canon 6.01; Solgen recommended that a new trial be given
to accused.
- The Solicitor Generals’ finest hour. Even if it will possibly
exonerate the accused Sol gen supported motion for new trial
- 6.02 the primary duty of lawyers is not to convict but to see
that justice is done.
Olaza v. Justice Tinga
- Violation of 6.02 6.03 and 1.01
- Olazo filed for sales application for a parcel of land;
Memorandum creating a committee on awards; Tinga was a
committee member. This case revolved around how Tinga
had interfered in the sales application due to personal
interest; that there was abuse of official function; sale
application was denied. Dismiss the complaint;
- Lawyer may be disciplined as a member of the bar if his
violation constitutes violation of the Canons;
- There is absence of complete proof to show that he abused
his position as congressman. No sufficient basis that he used
that position for personal benefit;
- A government Employee Lawyer can engage in other
positions if:
o Authorized by the law or constitution
o Will not conflict with his official position
1.01;
- Read this case; There was not enough evidence to prove
interference; it does not constitute practice of law
involving only a single document.
Just read : Gisela Gutierrez case
Not discussed in class
Canon 7
The integrity or dignity of the legal profession.
7.01- on the application sa bar; false info
7.02- because you will ask for a good moral character;
7.03- Gross immorality; to satisfy suspension or disbarment the act
must be grossly immoral; Just remember if suspension or
disbarment dapat GROSSLY IMMORAL.
Canon 8
8.01 – abusive language;
8.02 – client of another lawyer; but you have the obligation to give
proper advise if neglectful ang counsel niya.
Canon 9
Talks about unauthorized practice of law
9.02 – example: ipapapirma ng lawyer sa secretary; pleadings by
paralegal are okay but it’s the lawyers name that must appear;
9.02 – you cannot divide fees with non-lawyers
CASES
Letter of Atty. Cecilio Arevalo
- Whether he is exempted from payment of dues when he was
inactive;
- The compulsory nature of dues subsists for so long as
membership in IBP remains regardless of type of practice;
- There is nothing which allows exemption from payment of
membership dues;
Re: 2003 Bar Examinations
- The Court took into consideration the Character of Atty De
Guzman; that he was 30 years old; he had only been 5 years
since his last practice; he had good moral repute after his
disbarment;
- That he was active in several social activities; proves his
strength of character
- However his act of recovering the questions from the
computer from the Atty which turned out to be the questions
in the Bar Exam! Hahaha
- Disbarment is converted to 7 years of suspension
- 2003 examinations leakage; He was disbarred; the Court
reconsidered and granted him judicial clemency; age niya,
character; promising future ahead; good moral repute.
Que v. Atty Revilla
Not discussed. Absent.
Tan and Pagayokan v. Balajadia
- Balajadia was pretending to be a lawyer;
- SC: that respondent did not have intent to pretend to be a
lawyer; because it was the mistake of the secretary of
another counsel.
 - Petition dismissed; respondent warned to be more careful
- In this case there is no indirect contempt because there was
no intent; because there was inadvertent negligence in the
preparation of documents;
Plus Builders Inc. v. Atty Revilla Jr.
- A lawyer working with other people not members of the bar
- Silence is deemed an admission
- An allegation that he allowed non-lawyers to engage in the
practice of law; there was silence as reply
- But the Court held that silence is deemed an admission.
- Canon 9 lawyers should not allow nonlawyers to engage
in the practice of law
Canon 10
10.01
- part of the lawyers oath; doing any falsehood nor consent to
the doing;
- lawyer should not disclose information to the court;
- he should not hide anything to the courts
10.02
- don’t mislead the court; even through pleadings and
documents submitted; not allowed to cite repealed decision;
10.03
- observes the rules of procedure; lawyers must use rules of
court as a mean to achieve justice;
Maligaya v. Atty Donorilla Jr
- that said attorney; had an agreement that if Donarilla would
withdraw his lawsuits Maligaya will also withdraw;
- Maligaya filed a complaint for misleading the Court;That
Atty Donarilla only did this to settle the case amicably
without going to trial; that his false statement caused no
effect to the continuance of the case;
- Whether or not he is guilty of purposely stating a falsehood.
- SC: that he did not act in an ethical manner; violated Canon
10 Rule 10.01.
- Suspended for 2 months.
- He stated in court that his client was willing to withdraw the
lawsuit; but the court knew the truth;
Sebastian v. Atty Bajar
- Respondendent was suspended; but respondent continued to
practice law.
- Suspension for 3 years
- In relation to 10.01 & Canon 19
Insular Life
Canon 11
Lists the proper conduct of the lawyer in Court.
11.01
- Proper attire;
11.02
- Punctual;
11.03
- Language; behavior
11.04
- you cannot accuse the judge that he is biased; if not
supported by record/evidence.
11.05
- Submit grievances to the Supreme Court.
In Re: Almacen;
- Notice did not include time or place of hearing;
- He claims that there was injustice done by the Court
- Court held that the lawyers duty to render respect to the
Court;
- Statements or accusations after judgement attained finality’
- Review by CA is not a matter of right but is under the Courts
decision
- He did not follow rules of procedure;
- Motion filed by atty almacen; but he did not put notice of
time and hearing; court said that it’s a useless piece of paper;
- Almacen filed a Petition to surrender lawyers certificate of
title- he submitted this;
- He called the members of the SC blind; but also deaf and
dumb.
Asean Pacific v. City of Urdaneta
- Violation of 11.04
- Atty sent pleadings; and called CA court of technicalities for
dismissing prepared petition
- Accused CA of cprotecting an incompetent judge
- Used strong language and accused CA for being protective
of incompetent judge;
Just read other cases for canon 11
Canon 12
Talks about the duty of lawyers in speedy and efficient administration
of justice.
12.01 – lawyers should prepare for Court.
12.02
– lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from same cause;
– Forum Shopping; shopping to get favorable decision; same party;
same cause of action; identity of parties rather than interest; I will not
ask you to enumerate elements of forum shopping
12.03 – file pleadings on time; but you can file a motion for extension
of time; if wala talaga nag file violation na ng 12.03;
12.04 – wala
12.05 –
12.06 – you cannot tell your witness to lie in court; practice is okay;
12.07 –
12.08 – formal matters; substantial matters; as much as possible don’t
testify in behalf of client; but if essential then you can.
De Espino
Violation of 12.01; lawyer failed to present evidence; he sent a lot of
resettings and extension; but still did not present evidence
Vaflor
Numerous violations; lawyer caused the filing of baseless criminal
complaints against the complainant; (violation of lawyers oath)
violation of 12.03; filed for extension but he did not file;
Bugaring
12.04 violation; during a hearing this lawyer showed disrespect to
opposing counsel and Court; during this hearing there was a marking
of evidence; he kept on interrupting the other counsel; despite court
denying his request to mark evidence;
Persisting to have his documentary evidence to be marked despite
contrary order; he says to pretect interest of client;
SC: lawyer is an officer of the Court; he is bound by the speedy and
efficient duty; also not misuse court processes;
PNB
SC emphasized that although the law does not forbid the atty be a
witness; law prefers that atty not testify unless it is necessary; and for
the the furtherance of justice;
 Canon 13
Lawyer must rely upon merits of his cause; without any impropriety
which tends to influence or influence the Court.

13.02 – talking about a pending case to media; trial by publicity na;

right of lawyer to criticize however this must not spill over the walls
of decency and propriety; concluded litigation, is allowed, because it
is already part of public records;
Court in a pending litigation must be shielded from embarrassment;

Just read the cases

Foodsphere
Violation of 13.02; despite pendency of civil case against lawyer and
status quo order restraining him from publishing matter relative to the
case; Respondent lawyer still continued with attacks against
complainant and products;

-End for 1st Exam-