Leg Prof Notes

LAW 120 THE LEGAL PROFESSION
LEGAL PROFESSION
A. Supervision and Control
Supreme Court
ART. VIII, SEC. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules
shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.
Congress
ART. XII, SEC 14.
(2) The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino
citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.
ART. XVIII, SEC 10.
All courts existing at the time of the ratification of this Constitution shall continue
to exercise their jurisdiction, until otherwise provided by law. The provisions of the
existing Rules of Court, judiciary acts, and procedural laws not inconsistent with
this Constitution shall remain operative unless amended or repealed by the
Supreme Court or the Congress.
Integration of the Philippine Bar – the official unification of the entire lawyer population
of the Philippines.
 Requires: a) membership, and b) financial support of every attorney as conditions to
the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the
Supreme Court.
Bar – refers to the collectivity of all persons whose names appear in the Roll of Attorneys.
 An Integrated (or Unified Bar) perforce must include all lawyers.
 Complete unification is not possible unless it is decreed by an entity with power to do
so: the State.
 Bar integration, therefore, signifies the setting up by Government authority of a
national organization of the legal profession based on the recognition of the lawyer
as an officer of the court.
1 | Block E (DJ JD)

 An "Integrated Bar" is a State-organized Bar, to which every lawyer must belong, as
distinguished from bar association organized by individual lawyers themselves,
membership in which is voluntary.
- They are subject to all the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar,
including:
o The requirement of payment of a reasonable annual fee for the effective
discharge of the purposes of the Bar, and
o Adherence to a code of professional ethics or professional responsibility.
 The practice of law is not a property right but a mere privilege, and as such must bow
to the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyer's
public responsibilities.
 Designed to improve the position of the Bar as an instrumentality of justice and the
Rule of Law, integration fosters cohesion among lawyers, and ensures, through their
own organized action and participation, the promotion of the objectives of the legal
profession, pursuant to the principle of maximum Bar autonomy with minimum
supervision and regulation by the Supreme Court.
 The power to integrate is an inherent part of the Court's constitutional authority over
the Bar.
- Courts have inherent power to supervise and regulate the practice of law.
o Because the practice of law is a privilege clothed with public interest, it
must be regulated to assure compliance with the lawyer's public
responsibilities.
o These public responsibilities can best be discharged through collective
action, that is, with an organized body.
o Organization incurs expenses. Hence, all attorneys must contribute to
support such organized body.
o Given existing Bar conditions, the most efficient means is by integrating the
Bar.
- The Court may integrate the Philippine Bar in the exercise of its power, under
Article VIII, Sec. 5 of the Constitution, "to promulgate rules concerning pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law."
 Republic Act 6397 is a mere legislative declaration that the integration of the Bar will
promote public interest (neither confers a new or restricts the Court’s power).
 Bar integration is constitutional.

- Freedom to associate:
o Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. The
only compulsion is the payment of annual dues (in reasonable amount).
o Assuming it does compel a lawyer to be a member, such compulsion is
justified as an exercise of the police power of the State.
- Dues ≠Tax
2 | Block E (DJ JD)

o Membership fee is an exaction for regulation, while the purpose of a tax is
revenue.
o As an incident to regulation, the Court may impose a membership fee for
that purpose (means to defray expenses).
- Freedom of speech:
o A lawyer is free to voice his views on any subject in any manner even
though such views be opposed to positions taken by the Unified Bar.
- Fair to all lawyers:
o It will apply equally to ALL lawyers.
o Although it is a new regulation, it will give the members of the Bar a new
system which they hitherto have not had and through which, by proper
work, they will receive benefits they have not heretofore enjoyed, and
discharge their public responsibilities in a more effective manner than they
have been able to do in the past.
CASE FACTS DOCTRINE

In the matter of This is the SC Resolution Legal Basis:
the IBP, S. Ct. instituting the integration of the  Article VIII, Section 5 (5),
Resolution Philippine Bar. Constitution
(1973)  R.A. 6397
The case is about the Legal Basis:
constitutionality of R.A. 972 (Bar  Rule 127 (14), Rules of
Flunkers Act of 1953) lowering of Court
Bar Exam Passing Rate from 75%  Rule 138 (14), Rules of
for 1946-1953 exams. The court Court
partially invalidated the act and
held that by passing the law,
Congress exceeded its powers to
In re Cunanan
repeal, alter and supplement
rules on admission to the Bar
since by its enactment, the law
reversed the decision of the court
on the bar petitions of the
examiners instead of simply
adding to or regulating the rules
concerning admission to the bar.
B. Practice of Law
Section 1, Rule 138 of ROC. 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.
3 | Block E (DJ JD)

Practice of Law - any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience, or those acts which are characteristics of the
profession.
 It is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court. It involves engaging in
the business of advising clients as to their rights under the law and performing any
act/acts for that purpose either in or out of court in a representative capacity.
 Black: rendition of services requiring the knowledge and application of legal
principles and techniques to serve the interest of another with his consent;
preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special
proceedings, conveyancing, and legal instruments; giving of legal advice;
maintaining office, using letterhead, counselling; negotiating, fixing, and collecting
fees
Private Practice – does not pertain to an isolated court appearance; rather, it contemplates
a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding one’s self to the
public as a lawyer.
 An individual or organization engaged in the business of delivering legal services.
o Lawyers who practice alone are often called sole practitioners.
o Groups of lawyers are called firms.
Three principal types of professional activity:

1. Legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations;
2. Preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not
possessed by ordinary layman; and
3. Appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess power and authority to
determine rights of life, liberty, and property according to law, in order to assist in
proper interpretation and enforcement of law.
 The practice of law is limited to those who meet the requirements for, and have been
admitted to, the bar, and various statutes or rules specifically so provide.
- Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found
duly qualified in education and character.
- The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client and the bar from the
incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to
the disciplinary control of the court.
The following cannot practice law in the Philippines:

1. Government officials and employees in public service,
2. Shari’a counsellors (practice is limited to Shari’a courts)
3. Paralegals,
4. Corporations,
5. An alien law firm, and
6. Any other group, individual, and entity not being trained professionals or licensed
attorneys.
4 | Block E (DJ JD)

CASE FACTS DOCTRINE
Monsod’s qualifications as See the definitions under Practice
COMELEC Chair were questioned of Law
in this case, particularly the
requirement that he be engaged
in the practice of law for at least
ten years. The Court ruled that
Cayetano v.
past work experiences as lawyer-
Monsod
economist, lawyer-manager,
lawyer-entrepreneur of industry,
lawyer-negotiator of contracts,
and lawyer-legislator more than
satisfy the constitutional
requirement.
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW

 The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is so delicately affected
with public interest that it is both the power and duty of the State (through this Court)
to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote the public welfare.
 Any breach by a lawyer of any of these conditions makes him unworthy of the trust
and confidence which the courts and clients repose in him for the continued exercise
of his professional privilege.
For ALL applicants (Sec. 2, Rule 138 of ROC) –

1. Citizen of the Philippines;
2. At least 21 years old;
3. Of good moral character;
4. Resident of the Philippines;
5. Must produce before SC satisfactory evidence of good moral character; and
6. That no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed of are pending
in any court in the Philippines.
7. Certificate from Secretary of Education proving completion of:
a. 4-year high school course;
b. Bachelor’s degree in arts or sciences in an authorized and recognized
university, with the following subjects as major:
i. Political Science, iv. Spanish,
ii. Logic, v. History, and
iii. English, vi. Economics
8. Except for US citizen lawyers (Sec.3), and applicants from other jurisdictions (Sec. 4),
show that they have:
a. Studied law for 4 years;
b. Completed all prescribed courses in a law school or university, officially
approved and recognized by the Secretary of Education;
5 | Block E (DJ JD)

- Such facts evidenced by: Affidavit of candidate accompanied by a
certificate from the university or law school
- Others required by the court.
Prescribed courses to be completed in a law school or university:

1. Civil Law 6. Political Law
2. Commercial Law 7. Labor and Social Legislation
3. Remedial Law 8. Medical Jurisprudence
4. Criminal Law 9. Taxation
5. Public and Private International 10. Legal Ethics
Law
For Lawyers who are US citizens (Sec. 3, Rule 138 of ROC) –

 Applies to those who:
o Were born before July 4, 1946;
o Licensed member of the Philippine Bar;
o Active in Philippine courts; and
o In good and regular standing
 MAY be allowed to continue such practice without examination:
1. Upon showing of satisfactory proof of those facts before SC; and
2. After taking the oath of office (stated under same provision).
For Applicants from other Jurisdictions (Sec. 4, Rule 138 of ROC) –

 Applies to those who:
o Filipino citizens;
o Enrolled attorneys in the SC of US or in any circuit court of appeals or district
court therein, or in the highest court of any State or Territory of the US;
o For at least 5 years, which began before July 4, 1946; and
o Never been suspended or disbarred.
 MAY be admitted to the Philippine bar without examination:
1. Upon showing by satisafactory certificates of those facts.
A. Legal Education
Section 6, Rule 138 of ROC. 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.
6 | Block E (DJ JD)

Section 5, Rule 138 of ROC. 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.
Read:
RA 7662 (Legal Education Reform Act)
LEB, Policies and Standards of Legal Education and Manual of Regulations for Law Schools
BM No. 1552-A Guidelines on Legal Apprenticeship in the SC and Other Collegiate Courts
B. Citizenship
ART. XII, SEC 14.

(2) The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino
citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.
Read:
RA 9225 (Dual Citizenship Act)
 Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar and is, in fact, a
continuing requirement for the practice of law.
- The loss thereof means termination of the petitioner’s membership in the bar;
ipso jure the privilege to engage in the practice of law.
 A Filipino lawyer, who becomes a citizen of another country and later re-acquires his
Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, remains to be a member of the Philippine
Bar.
- However, as stated in Dacanay, the right to resume the practice of law is not
automatic.
- R.A. No. 9225 provides that a person who intends to practice his profession in the
Philippines must apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage
in such practice.
7 | Block E (DJ JD)

CASE FACTS DOCTRINE
Atty. Muneses filed a petition with The Office of the Bar Confidant
the OBC praying that he be required him to submit certified
granted the privilege to practice true copies of the following
law in the Philippines. He alleged documents:
that he became a member of the 1. Petition for Re-Acquisition
IBP on March 21, 1966, that he of Philippine Citizenship;
lost his membership when he 2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of
became a US citizen, and that by Philippine citizenship);
virtue of RA 9225, he reacquired 3. Oath of Allegiance to the
his Philippine citizenship. Republic of the Philippines;
Petition by 4. Identification Certificate
Epifanio (IC) issued by the Bureau of
Muneses Immigration;
5. Certificate of Good Standing
issued by the IBP;
6. Certification from the IBP
indicating updated
payments of annual
membership dues;
7. Proof of payment of
professional tax; and
Certificate of compliance issued
by the MCLE Office.
C. Bar Examinations
Filing of Proof of Qualifications –

What: Requirements (as per Secs. 2-5, Rule 138 of ROC)
When: At least 15 days before the beginning of the examination
To whom: Clerk of SC
Notice of Applications for Admission –

 Published by Clerk of SC in newspapers in Pilipino, English and Spanish
 For at least 10 days before the beginning of the examinaion.
BAR Subjects –
1. Civil Law 6. International Law (Private and
2. Labor and Social Legislation Public)
3. Mercantile Law 7. Taxation
4. Criminal Law 8. Remedial Law (Civil Procedure,
5. Political Law (Constitutional Law, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence)
Public Corporations, and Public 9. Legal Ethics
Officers) 10. Practical Exercises (in Pleadings
and Conveyancing).
8 | Block E (DJ JD)

Committee of Bar Examiners –
 Shall conduct the examinations;
 Appointed by the SC;
 Composed of (term-1year):
o 1 Justice of the SC (chairman)
o 8 Members of the Philippine Bar
- The names of the members of this committee shall be published in each
volume of the official reports.
 No candidate shall endeavor to influence any member of the committee.
Examination –
Where: Manila City
When: Annually
How long: 4 days to be designated by the Chairman of the Committee on bar examiners.
Schedule:
Day
Time
1 2 3 4
Political and Civil Law Mercantile Remedial
Morning International (15%) Law (15%) Law (20%)
Law (15%)
Labor and Taxation Criminal Law Legal Ethics
Social (10%) (10%) and Practical
Afternoon
Legislation Execises
(10%) (5%)
Passing average (an examinne must obtain):

o General average of 75% in all subjects;
o Without failing below 50% in any subjects.
Questions –
 Same for all examinees;
 A copy in English or Spanish given to each examinee;
 To be answered personally by the examinee in writing and without help from anyone.
- If penmanship is so poor (difficult to read without much loss of time), SC may
allow examinee to use a typewriter upon verified application.
- ONLY noiseless typewriters shall be allowed.
During examination, examinees cannot:

 Bring papers, books, or notes in examination rooms;
 Place their names on the examination papers;
 Have oral examination;
 Communicate with each other;
9 | Block E (DJ JD)

 Receive any assistance.
 The committee of bar examiners shall take such precautions as are necessary to
prevent the substitution of papers or commission of other frauds.
 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.
After examination –
Who: Committee
What: File its report on the result of such examination, examination papers and notes
Where: Clerk
When: Not later than February 15th after the examination, or as soon thereafter as may be
practicable.
 Parties in interest may examine examination papers and notes of the committee, after
the court has approved the report.
Failures –
 Those who failed for 3 times shall be disqualified from taking another examination.
 Unless, they show satisfaction of the court that:
o They enrolled in and passed regular 4th year review classes;
o Attended a pre-bar review course in a recognized law school.
 Professors of the individual review subjects 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.
SUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS –
 Shall take and subscribe before the SC the corresponding oath of office;
 Sign the roll of all attorneys after receiving his certificate (issued by SC as proof of
record that he has been admitted to the bar).
Read:
Reforms in the Bar Examinations, BM No. 1161, June 8, 2004
2010 Bar Matter No. 2265, January 28, 2001 re Reforms in the Bar Examinations
Bar Matter No. 2505, March 20, 2012
CASE FACTS DOCTRINE

Atty. De Guzman leaked DISBARMENT commuted to 7
Re: 2003 Bar
questions during the 2003 Bar year suspension, based on his
Examinations,
Exams, from the computers in the good actions before and after the
Atty. De Guzman
firm Balgos & Perez, and sent incident
10 | Block E (DJ JD)

them to other persons to take
advantage.
D. Good Moral Character as a Prerequisite to Bar Admission
 Good moral character is what a person really is, as distinguished from good
reputation or from the opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in which he
is held by the public in the place where he is known.
- Moral character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds to objective
reality.
- The standard of personal and professional integrity is not satisfied by such
conduct as it merely enables a person to escape the penalty of criminal law.
- Good moral character includes at least common honesty.
 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 practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the strict
intellectual and moral qualifications required of lawyers who are instruments in the
effective and efficient administration of justice. It is the sworn duty of this Court not
only to "weed out" lawyers who have become a disgrace to the noble profession of
the law but, also of equal importance, to prevent "misfits" from taking the lawyer' s
oath, thereby further tarnishing the public image of lawyers which in recent years has
undoubtedly become less than irreproachable.
CASE FACTS DOCTRINE

Argosino was allowed to take the He shows a deficiency in moral
1993 Bar Examinations, which he character, so he must be able to
passed, BUT he was not allowed prove through convincing
In re Argosino to take Lawyer’s Oath because of evidence (testimonies, sworn
conviction for reckless certifications, etc.) that he has
imprudence resulting in changed his ways.
homicide (hazing).
Maling failed to disclose pending See above
criminal cases against him in his
application to take 2002 Bar
Examinations. In addition, he
In re Maling
uses of title of “Attorney” despite
not being a member of the IBP but
only the Shari’a Bar, from which
he was suspended as penalty.

E. Law Student Practice Rule
 A law student may appear without compensation in any civil, criminal or

administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer, to represent
indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school, subject to conditions.
- The Rules safeguarding privileged communications between attorney and client
apply.
- The law student shall comply with the standards of professional conduct
governing members of the Bar.
Conditions for Student Practice –

a. Law student;
b. Successfully completed his 3rd year of the regular 4-year prescribed law curriculum;
c. Enrolled in a recognized law school’s clinical legal education program approved by
SC; and
d. Under direct supervision and control of a member of the IBP duly accredited by the
law school.
- Supervising attorney must sign any and all pleadings, motions, briefs,
memoranda or other papers to be filed in behalf of the legal clinic.
- Failure to provide adequate supervision of student practice may be a ground
for disciplinary action.
 A law student is prohibited from appearing as counsel without the supervision of an

attorney duly accredited by the law school in which he or she is enrolled.
- EXCEPTION: A party may conduct his litigation in person with the aid of an agent
or friend where the issues and procedure are relatively simple without the
supervision of a lawyer.
CASE FACTS DOCTRINE

Cruz’s, a third-year law student, See above
application to appear before an
Cruz v. Mina inferior court as counsel for his
father was denied. On appeal to
the SC, it was granted.
F. Non-Lawyers Authorized to Appear in Courts/Quasi-Judicial Agencies
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.
Act. 2259 (Cadastral Act), Section 9.

Any person claiming any interest in any part of the lands, whether named in the
notice or not, shall appear before the court by himself, or by some person in his
behalf and shall file an answer on or before the return day or within such further
time as may be allowed by the court. The answer shall be signed and sworn to by
the claimant or by some person in his behalf, and shall state whether the claimant
is married or unmarried and, if married, the name of the husband or wife and the
date of the marriage, and shall also contain;
(a) The age of the claimant.
(b) The cadastral number of the lot or lots claimed as appearing on the plan
filed in the case by the Director of Lands, or the block and lot numbers, as
the case may be.
(c) The name of the barrio and municipality, township or settlement in
which the lots are situated.
(d) The names of the owners of the adjoining lots as far as known to the
claimant
(e) If the claimant is in possession of the lots claimed and can show no
express grant of the land by the Government to him or to his predecessors
in interest the answer shall state the length of time he has held such
possession and the manner in which it has been acquired, and shall also
state the length of time, as far as known, during which his predecessors, if
any, held possession.
(f) If the claimant is not in possession or occupation of the land the answer
shall fully set forth the interest claimed by him and the time and manner of
its acquisition.
(g) If the lots have been assessed for taxation, their last assessed value.
(h) The incumbrances, if any, affecting the lots and the names of adverse
claimants as far as known.
Art. 222. Appearances and Fees.

a. Non-lawyers may appear before the Commission or any Labor Arbiter only:
1. If they represent themselves; or
2. If they represent their organization or members thereof.
b. No attorney‘s fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising from
any collective bargaining agreement shall be imposed on any individual member of
the contracting union: Provided, However, that attorney‘s fees may be charged
against union funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. Any contract,

agreement or arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall be null and void. (As
amended by Presidential Decree No. 1691, May 1, 1980)
DARAB, Rule VIII, SECTION 1. Appearance.

A lawyer appearing for a party is presumed to be properly authorized for that
purpose. A non-lawyer may appear before the Board or any of its Adjudicators, if:
a. He represents himself as a party to the case;
b. He represents a farmers‘ organization or its members, provided that he
shall present proof of authority from the organization or its members or
such authority duly signed by the President or head of the organization;
c. He is a law student who has successfully completed his third year of the
regular four-year prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a
recognized law school‘s clinical legal education program approved by
the Supreme Court. His appearance pursuant to this rule shall be under
the direct supervision and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines duly- accredited by the law school. Any and all pleadings,
motions, memoranda or other papers to be filed must be signed by the
supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal aid clinic.
d. He is a DAR Legal Officer duly authorized by the appropriate Head of
Office in accordance with the internal regulations of the Department of
Agrarian Reform. For this purpose, the DAR Legal Officer must have the
prescribed authorization form before he may be allowed to appear
before the Board or any of its Adjudicators, Provided, that when there
are two or more representatives for any individual or group, such
individual or group should choose only one representative.
Local Government Code RA 7160 (1991), SEC. 415. Appearance of Parties in Person.
In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties must appear in person
without the assistance of counsel or representative, except for minors and
incompetents who may be assisted by their next-of-kin who are not lawyers.
Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases Sec. 17. Appearance of Attorneys Not Allowed.
No attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a party at the hearing, unless the
attorney is the plaintiff or defendant.
If the court determines that a party cannot properly present his/her claim or
defense and needs assistance, the court may, in its discretion, allow another
individual who is not an attorney to assist that party upon the latter‘s consent.
Non-lawyers authorized to appear:

1. Official or person appointed by the Government in a case which the Government has
a direct or indirect interest;
2. Person by whom litigation is conducted with the aid of agent or friend or attorney,
and if any court other than the court of a justice of the peace, with the aid of an
attorney;

3. Any person claiming any interest in any part of the lands under the Cadastral Act, or
by some person in his behalf;
4. Before the Labor Commission or any Labor Arbiter, non-lawyers who represent
themselves or their organizations or members thereof;
5. One who represents a farmer’s organization or its members;
6. Law student, subject to conditions;
7. DAR legal officer authorized by the appropriate Head of Office;
8. Those in Katarungang Pambarangay proceedings appearing in person;
9. Those assisting minors and incompetents in Katarungang Pambarangay proceedings,
who are the latter’s next-of-kin; and
10. Those assisting a person to present his/her claim in small claims cases.
G. Lawyer’s Oath
I, ______________, of ______(place of birth)_______, do solemnly swear that I will maintain

allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support and defend 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 its commission; 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 not
delay any man‘s cause 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 this obligation voluntarily, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
 The lawyer's oath is NOT a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law.
- Every lawyer should at ALL TIMES weigh his actions according to the sworn
promises he makes when taking the lawyer's oath.
- It is a sacred trust that should be upheld and kept inviolable at all times.
- If all lawyers conducted themselves strictly according to the lawyer's oath and the
CPR, the administration of justice will undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier for
everyone concerned.

PART 1
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Two related powers of the Supreme Court in disbarment cases:

1. Inherent power to discipline attorneys; and
2. Contempt power.
Disciplinary power
- The Supreme Court, as regulator and guardian of the legal profession, has plenary
disciplinary authority over attorneys.
 The authority to discipline lawyers stems from the Court's constitutional mandate
to regulate admission to the practice of law, which includes as well authority to
regulate the practice itself of law.
 Apart from this constitutional mandate, the disciplinary authority of the Supreme
Court over members of the Bar is an inherent power incidental to the proper
administration of justice and essential to an orderly discharge of judicial
functions.
 The disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar is but corollary
to the Court's exclusive power of admission to the Bar.
Contempt power
- The Supreme Court has inherent power to punish for contempt, to control in the
furtherance of justice the conduct of ministerial officers of the Court including lawyers
and all other persons connected in any manner with a case before the Court.
 The power to punish for contempt is necessary for its own protection against an
improper interference with the due administration of justice; it is not dependent
upon the complaint of any of the parties’ litigant.
 Contempt of court may be committed both by lawyers and non-lawyers, both in
and out of court.
 The disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar is broader than the
power to punish for contempt.
- The power to punish for contempt of court does not exhaust the scope of
disciplinary authority of the Court over lawyers.
- Where the respondent is a lawyer, the Supreme Court's disciplinary authority
over lawyers may come into play whether or not the misconduct with which the
respondent is charged also constitutes contempt of court.
 The power to exclude persons from the practice of law is but a necessary incident of
the power to admit persons to said practice.
- By constitutional precept, this power is vested exclusively in this Court.
- This duty it cannot abdicate just as much as it cannot unilaterally renounce
jurisdiction legally invested upon it.
- Public policy demands that they exercise the power in all cases, which call for
disciplinary action.

 Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken
by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
upon the verified complaint of any person.
Disbarment proceedings
- Sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, this proceeding is not – and does not
involve – a trial of an action or a suit.
 Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution.
 Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff/complainant nor a prosecutor therein. It
may be initiated by the Court motu proprio.
 The complainant in the case need not be the aggrieved party.
 Acquittal of a lawyer in a criminal action is not determinative of an administrative
case against him
- It is an investigation by the Court into the conduct of its officers.
 Objective: Public interest
 Question: WON the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the priveleges as
such.
 In the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of
the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of
preserving the purity of the legal profession and the property and honest
administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their
misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties
and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney.
 To a certain degree, the members of the Court are aggrieved parties, as any tirade
against the Court as a body is necessarily and inextricably as much so against the
individual members thereof.
 However, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court acts as an entity
separate and distinct from the individual personalities of its members.
- Consistently with the intrinsic nature of a collegiate court, the individual members
act not as such individuals but only as a duly constituted court.
- The distinct individualities are lost in the majesty of their office.
- In a very real sense, if there be any complainant in the case at bar, it can only be
the Court itself, not the individual members thereof.
 The merger in one entity of the personalities of complainant, prosecutor and judge is
absolutely inexistent because:
- Of the nature if disbarment proceedings; and that
- Even if it the members collectively are in a sense the aggrieved parties, that does
not and cannot disqualify them from the exercise of the power because public
policy demands that they, acting as a Court, exercise the power in all cases which
call for disciplinary action.

 The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and only in a clear case of
misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an
officer of the Court and as a member of the bar. Thus, where a lesser penalty, such as
could accomplish the end desired, disbarment should never be decreed.
 The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound

judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts.
- The exercise of the discretion should neither be arbitrary nor despotic, nor
motivated by any animosity or prejudice towards the lawyer.
- It should instead be ever controlled by the imperative need to scrupulously guard
the purity and independence of the Bar and to exact from the lawyer strict
compliance with his duties to the Court, to his client, to his brethren in the
profession, and to the general public.
Grounds for the suspension or disbarment of a lawyer: (Sec. 27, Rule 138, ROC)
1. For any deceit;
2. For malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office;
3. For grossly immoral conduct;
4. By reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
5. For any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice;
6. For a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court;
7. For corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority to do so.
 In disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar, only clear preponderance of

evidence is required to establish liability.
- Burden of proof rests upon complainant. The attorney is presumed innocent.
- As long as the evidence presented by complainant or that taken judicial notice of
by the Court is more convincing and worthy of belief than that which is offered in
opposition thereto, the imposition of disciplinary sanction is justified.
 In several cases, the Court has disciplined lawyers without further inquiry or resort
to any formal investigation where the facts on record sufficiently provided the basis
for the determination of their administrative liability under the principle of res ipsa
loquitur.
- The absence of any formal charge against and/or formal investigation do not
preclude the Court from immediately exercising its disciplining authority, as long
as the errant lawyer or judge has been given the opportunity to be heard.
For the IBP to suspend a lawyer, there should be a: (Sec. 8 and 12 of Rule 139-B, and 6 of
Rule 139-A of ROC)
1. Review of the investigator’s report;
2. Formal voting; and
3. Vote of at least five (5) members of the Board.

- The rationale for this rule is simple: a decision reached by the Board in compliance
with the procedure is the official decision of the Board as a body and not merely
as the collective view of the individual members thereof.
- This is in keeping with the very nature of a collegial body which arrives at its
decisions only after deliberation, the exchange of views and ideas, and the
concurrence of the required majority vote.
Moral turpitude – includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty
or good morals.
 As used in disbarment statutes, it means an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in
the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen or to society in
general, contrary to the accepted rule of right and duty between man and man.
 The determination of whether an act involves moral turpitude is a factual issue and
frequently depends on the circumstances attending the violation of the statute.
 An absolute pardon, compared to a conditional one, operates to wipe out the

conviction and is a bar to any proceeding for the disbarment of the attorney after the
pardon has been granted.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Gutierrez was convicted for murder and granted a DISBARMENT
conditional pardon. The widow of the deceased
filed a disbarment complaint against him. Citing
In re Gutierrez
the case of in re: Lontok, the Court ruled that a
conditional pardon is not a bar to disbarment
proceedings, but an absolute pardon may be.
Gonzalez made contemptuous statements about INDEFINITE
the Court to the media regarding the case of SUSPENSION
Zaldivar v.
Zaldivar violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Gonzales
Practices Act. Such acts constitute contempt of
court and gross misconduct as officer of the court.

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 AND LEGAL
PROCESSES.
 Public confidence in the law and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and
improper conduct of a member of the bar. Every lawyer should act and comport
himself in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the legal
profession.
 It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of

morality. The legal profession exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are
called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts
constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no
less than the highest degree of morality.
 They should not simply obey the laws; they should also inspire respect for and
obedience thereto by serving as exemplars worthy of emulation.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct.
 Unlawful conduct under Rule 1.01 does not necessarily require the element of
criminality or the presence of evil intent on the part of the lawyer.
 For such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be grossly immoral.
Grossly immoral – so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as

to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of decency.
 Immoral conduct – that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which
shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of
the community.
 Immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society
and the opinion of good and respectable members of the community.
 A member of the bar may be suspended or removed from his office as a lawyer for
other than statutory grounds.
- A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional
or private capacity.
- TEST: whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to continue as
an officer of the court.

CASE FACTS PENALTY
Abordo agreed to purchase a quantity of opium SUSPENSION for
offered to him by two individuals for P600. Upon 1 year
inspecting the opium, he found it to be fake. He
Piatt v. Abordo went to the authorities and reported that he had
been robbed of P600. The sellers were convicted
for estafa. Such acts constitute reprehensible
conduct and intent to flaunt the law.
Ui filed a disbarment complaint against Bonifacio REPRIMAND
on the grounds of gross immorality as Bonifacio
was having an affair with Ui’s husband. Bonifacio
entered into evidence a falsified marriage
Ui v. Bonifacio
certificate/contract. The Court considered as
mitigating the circumstance that she ended the
affair as soon as Bonifacio found out that he was a
married man.
Over a number of years, Figueroa filed motions N/A, but because
asking the Court to prevent Barranco from taking they were the
his Lawyer’s Oath because of his gross immoral subject of
conduct. Barranco not only breached on his complaints,
Figueroa v.
promise to marry her despite their premarital Barranco was
Barranco
sexual relations resulting in a child and the not allowed to
fulfillment of his personal condition to pass the Bar take Lawyer’s
exams, but also married somebody else. Oath until he was
60 years old.
Llorente and Salayon tampered with the 1995 FINE of P 10, 000
senatorial election results, taking advantage of + STRICT
Pimentel v. their positions in the COMELEC as ex-officio vice- REPRIMAND
Llorente Chair and election officer, respectively. The Court
considered the circumstance that it was their first
offense as mitigating.
Samson was charged for sexual assault of a minor DISBARMENT
staying at his house. This, in addition to the
following, constitute gross immoral conduct:
Ventura v.
Having sex with another person besides spouse
Samson
(disrespect for laws and sanctity of marriage),
luring a minor with money for sex, and
unrepentant demeanor for said acts.
Maccarubo contracted subsequent marriages DISBARMENT
despite the subsistence of the original ones by
Macarrubo v.
abusing the legal remedy of annulment to escape
Macarrubo
liability. He also failed to support his children who
were the products of said marriages.
De Leon v. Pedrene was charged with sexual harassment by SUSPENSION for
Pedrene his client after he gave her a ride. 2 years

Justice Villaluz contracted another marriage SUSPENSION for
Castillo vda. De despite the existence/subsistence of his civil 2 years
Miajires v. marriage to Judge Castillo vda. de Mijares. The
Villaluz Court considered his advanced age and declining
years in penalizing him.
Mas duped a foreigner into “buying” property DISBARMENT
worth P 4.2 M (foreigners cannot acquire property
Stemmerik v.
in the Philippines by virtue of Article XII, Section 7
Mas
of the Constitution). To further his ruse, he falsified
official documents.
Atty. Moreno misrepresented that he owned the lot SUSPENSION for
which he sold to Alfredo Roa. Roa paid Atty. 2 years
Moreno PHP 75,000 in exchange for the land and
the Certificate of Land Occupancy. When Roa tried
to register the Certificate of Land Occupancy in the
Roa v. Morena
Register of Deeds, he failed in doing so because the
said certificate was bogus. Roa thus demanded to
get his money back to which Atty. Moreno refused.
Moreno even denied having any transaction with
Roa.
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.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Terrell assisted and appeared as counsel of “Centro INDEFINITE
In re Terrell Bellas Artes” club, an organization known for its SUSPENSION
purpose of evading the law
Estrada’s counsel made contemptuous and INDEFINITE
Estrada v.
derogatory statements against the Court that were SUSPENSION
Sandiganbayan
published and broadcasted by the media.
Hontanosas created and endorsed lease SUSPENSION for
Kupers v.
agreements between Filipinos and foreign lessees 6 months
Hontanosas
exceeding the conditions provided by law.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any
suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause.
Ambulance Chasing - the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an attorney,
personally or through an agent in order to gain employment
 This rule proscribes “ambulance chasing” as a measure to protect the community

from barratry (persistent incitement of litigation) and champerty (a proceeding by
which a person not a party in a suit bargains to aid in or carry on its prosecution or
defense in consideration of a share of the matter in suit).

Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
 It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the intricacies
and vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of his case.
- If he finds that his client's cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to
advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the
incontrovertible.
- A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his client’s
propensity to litigate.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Venancio Castañeda and Nicetas Henson filed a Treble costs to be
replevin suit against Pastor Ago to recover certain paid by Atty.
machineries. When judgement against Ago was Luison
rendered, he and his wife, with the assistance and
Castaneda v. Ago advice of their legal counsel, Atty. Jose Luison,
protracted the resolution of the case for 14 years,
appealing to the Supreme Court 5 times, to the
Court of Appeals 4 times and attempted to obtain a
writ of preliminary injunction thrice.
CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN

AN EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE
INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVE-NESS OF THE
PROFESSION.
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed.
Read:
IBP Handbook, Guidelines Governing the Establishment and Operation of Legal Aid Office,
Art. 1, Sec. 1
RA 10389 (Recognizance Act of 2012)
 A lawyer who is a vanguard in the bastion of justice is expected to have a bigger dose
of social conscience and a little less of self-interest.
- He must exercise his best efforts and professional ability in behalf of the person
assigned to his care. He is to render effective assistance.
- The client expects of him due diligence, not mere perfunctory representation.
 As counsel de oficio, he has as high a duty to the accused as one employed and paid by
defendant himself.

CASE FACTS PENALTY
Ledesma wished to withdraw as counsel de oficio N/A
for the defense of two accused, as he was also
appointed Election Registrar which required “full-
time service”, but his motion was denied by
Ledesma v.
respondent judge. He filed for certiorari in the SC,
Climaco
but they found no merit in the petition, as it was
evident that Ledesma was less than mindful of his
obligation as counsel de oficio, and was not
enthusiastic about the task entrusted to him.
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.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Nebreja filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. SUSPENSION for
Reonal for failing to perform the contracted legal 1 year
service to institute a petition for annulment as well
Nebreja v. Reonel
as misrepresenting its status and providing a
fictitious office address despite her repeated
payments and efforts to follow up on her case.
RULE 138, 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 willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
 Any act of solicitation, not compatible with the dignity of the legal profession,
constitutes malpractice, which calls for the exercise of the Court’s disciplinary
powers.
 Lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally
or through paid agents or brokers.

 A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation.
- Impropriety arises, though, when the business is of such a nature or is conducted
in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyer’s duties as a member of the
bar.
- This inconsistency arises when:
o The business is one that can readily lend itself to the procurement of
professional employment for the lawyer; or
o That can be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyer’s behalf;
or
o Is of a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the practice
of law.
 A lawyer cannot advertise his talents or skill as in a manner similar to a merchant

advertising his goods.
- Law is a profession and not a trade. Moneymaking is not the primary
consideration.
- The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and adopts the
practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to the
public.
- 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.
The following elements distinguish the legal profession from a business:

1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one
may attain the highest eminence without making much money;
2. A relation as an "officer of the court" to the administration of justice involving
thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability;
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
4. A relation to 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.
 Lawyers should not resort to indirect advertisements for professional employment,

such as:
o Furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or
o Procuring his photograph to be published in connection with causes in which
the lawyer has been or is engaged or concerning the manner of their conduct,
the magnitude of the interest involved, the importance of the lawyer's
position, and
o All other like self-laudation.
Exceptions to the rule against advertising or solicitation:

1. Those expressly allowed:
a. The publication in reputable law lists;

b. The use of an ordinary simple professional card; and
c. Having his name listed in a telephone directory but not under a designation of
special branch of law, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct
imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data.
2. Those which are necessarily implied from the restrictions.
 Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:

1. Lawyer’s name;
2. Name of the law firm with which he is connected;
3. Address;
4. Telephone number, and
5. Special branch of law practiced.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Respondent corporation advertised their “legal N/A
support services.” What they do is basically engage
paralegals to research related legal information,
Ulep v. Legal and refer the client to a specialist. Petitioner says
Clinic ads degrade the profession. The Court agrees by
saying their services = practice of law, paralegals
are not lawyers, and that the practice of law should
not be advertised.
Linsangan alleged that Tolentino was soliciting his SUSPENSION for
Linsangan v. clients and encroaching on his professional 1 year
Tolentino services by advertising his business and offering
loans/financial assistance.
Villatuya, a financial consultant of Tabalingcos in DISBARMENT
the latter’s financial firm filed a disbarment case for bigamy +
against Tabalingcos for the following violation of STERN
Villatuya v. the Code of Professional Responsibility for REPRIMAND for
Tabalingcos nonpayment of fees to complainant, unlawful advertising
solicitation of cases and gross immorality for
marrying two other women while respondent’s
first marriage was subsisting.
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.

 For solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal
profession.
- If it were made in a modest and decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the
lawyer and to the bar.
- Hence, data to be published must not be misleading.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Atty. Simbillo was found guilty of improper SUSPENSION for
advertising and solicitation of his legal services 1 year
Khan v. Simbillo after a paid advertisement that appeared in the
newspaper, which reads: “ANNULMENT OF
MARRIAGE After Specialist 532-4333/521-266”.
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.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Atty. Torres used the letterhead of Baker & N/A, but
McKenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois, to send
respondents
a letter on behalf of a Filipino client. enjoined from
using firm name
of Baker and
Dacanay v. Baker
McKenzie
and McKenzie
because alien
law firms aren’t
allowed to
practice law in
the Philippines
The Supreme Court denied the petitions of the two N/A
firms who asked that they be authorized to
continue using their firm names despite the death
of Attorney Alexander Sycip, founder of the firm
originally known as Sycip Law Office, and the
deaths of former Justice Roman Ozaeta and his son,
In re Sycip Herminio, who established the Ozaeta Law Office.
Note: NOT GOOD LAW

According to Agpalo: 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 withdraw from the
firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows
him to practice law concurrently.
ART. VI, Sec. 14.

No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as
counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-
judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be
interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege
granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including any government-owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary,
during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of
the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on
account of his office.
ART. VII, Sec. 13.
The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or
assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other
office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure,
directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or
be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special
privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their
office.
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree
of the President shall not, during his tenure, be appointed as Members of the
Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries,
Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including government-
owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.
ART. IX, Sec. 2.
No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other
office or employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or
in the active management or control of any business which, in any way, may be
affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be financially interested, directly
or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the
Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including
government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

As evidenced by a calling card bearing his name as REPRIMAND +
one of the partners of a law firm, Atty. Gatdula Ordered to
Samonte v.
engaged in the private practice of law whilst being exclude his name
Gatdula
a Branch Clerk of Court of the Metropolitan Trial from firm name
Court of Quezon City. As per Section 7 (b) (2) of R.A.

6713, a Branch Clerk of Court is a public officer and
is prohibited to engage in private practice of law.
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.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Fiscal Francisco Salva conducted a reinvestigation PUBLIC
of the killing of Manuel Monroy after information REPRIMAND +
from the Constabulary implicating individuals PUBLIC
different from those convicted came to light. The CENSURE
Court ruled that while such reinvestigation was
Cruz v. Salva
valid, even if the original case was pending on
appeal, the manner by which Salva conducted the
investigation, allowing it to be attended by
sensationalism, publicity and fanfare should be
discouraged and is punishable by censure.
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, SUPPORTEFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW
SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS
AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING INFORMATION REGARDING THE LAW
AND JURISPRUDENCE.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Atty. Flores failed to submit the required proof of FINE of P 5000 +
his MCLE compliance despite being provided with WARNING
several opportunities. Instead of filing what was
being asked (Pre-Trial Brief with proof of his MCLE
Rodriguez
compliance) he filed different pleadings alleging
Manahan v.
that Judge Manahan is indifferent (etc). In these
Flores
pleadings, he used intemperate words. His actions
(disobeying Court orders to submit proof of his
MCLE compliance and using intemperate words)
were regarded by the Supreme Court as showing

disrespect towards the judicial branch of the
government.
The petition in this case was dismissed because N/A
Rivera-Pascual’s counsel failed to submit the
requirements (Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) Certificate of Compliance or
Exemption and an amended Verification and
Rivera-Pascual v. Certification Against Non-Forum-Shopping) within
Spouses Lim the 5 days, so the CA dismissed the petition. Rivera-
Pascual filed a petition for review on certiorari
with the Supreme Court which the Court dismissed
because her counsel failed to explain or provide
any reason why he failed to submit the
requirements on time.
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT

SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS.
Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees in the discharge and execution of
official duties (RA 6713, Sec. 4):
a. Commitment to public interest;
b. Professionalism;
c. Justness and sincerity;
d. Political neutrality;
e. Responsiveness to the public;
f. Nationalism and patriotism;
g. Commitment to democracy; and
h. Simple living.
 As lawyers, officials in the government service are under an even greater obligation
to observe the basic tenets of the legal profession because public office is a public
trust.
- Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the
public service.
- Lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official task have more
restrictions than lawyers in private practice.
- They should be more sensitive in the performance of their professional
obligations, as their conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the public.
 Government employees are expected to devote themselves completely to public

service. For this reason, the private practice of profession is prohibited.
 By way of exception, they can practice their profession if the Constitution or the law
allows them, but no conflict of interest must exist between their current duties and
the practice of their profession.

 As a general rule, a court will not assume jurisdiction to discipline one of its officers
for misconduct alleged to be committed in his private capacity.
 EXCEPTION: An attorney will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty
in his profession, but also for gross misconduct not connected with his
professional duties, which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of
the privileges, which his license and the law confer upon him.
 A lawyer who holds a government position may not be disciplined as a member of the
bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official.
- However, if the misconduct also constitutes a violation of the CPR or the lawyer’s
oath or is of such character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral
delinquency on his part, such individual may be disciplined as a member of the
bar for such misconduct.
- A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional
obligations.
- The act of the public officer, if LAWFUL, is the act of the public office. But the act
of the public officer, if UNLAWFUL, is not the act of the public office.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Atty. Romeron abused his position as Register of DISBARMENT
Deeds to extort money in exchange for legal
services, which he did not render. The Register of
Collantes v. Deeds, as a lawyer, may be disciplined by the Court
Romeron for malfeasances of public official because such
conduct is a violation of the lawyer’s oath, a source
of obligations, the violation of which is ground for
disciplinary action.
Atty. Ladaga, a Branch Clerk of Court (RTC Makati REPRIMAND +
Branch 133) appeared as pro bono counsel for his STERN
cousin in a criminal case without prior WARNING
OCA v. Ladaga
authorization from the head of his Department.
The Court considered that this was an isolated
court appearance and not private practice of law.
Attys. Fabros and Paas were allegedly involved in FINE of P 10, 000
the alteration/increasing of the votes per
municipality in the 1995 senatorial elections. As
Chair and Vice-Chair of the Provincial Board of
Canvassers-Isabela, they were also negligent in
Pimentel v.
affixing their signatures to discrepant results,
Fabros
which, although they had the opportunity to, they
didn’t verify/check for correctness/accuracy.
Signing signifies certification/vouching for
correctness/accuracy, and they must bear the
consequences for any misstatement or falsehood.

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.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

An issue arose regarding the indictments in this N/A
case—whether one information for the complex
crime of murder and frustrated murder, or for the
complex crime of robbery with multiple homicide
and frustrated homicide, or the existing 5
People v. Pineda
indictments should remain, is proper. According to
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the 5
indictments should remain. In criminal charges,
the finding of the fiscal as to probable cause is
superior to that of the judge’s.
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.
 Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value

in any transaction requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by the
functions of his office.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Atty, San Juan appeared as counsel for New Cesar’s N/A
Bakery (owned by Chinese Filipinos) in NLRC
proceedings (illegal protection of aliens) while
Misamin v. San captain of the Metro Manila Police Force and
Juan coerced Misamin into dropping charges of
violation of Minimum Wage Law. Complaint was
dismissed due to lack of preponderance of
evidence.
Atty, Dasig used her position as OIC of the Legal DISBARMENT
Affairs Department of CHED to demand sums of
money amounting to P 135, 000 as consideration
Vitriolo v. Dasig for favorable action on pending cases. The Code of
Professional Responsibility applies to all lawyers,
not just those in private practice, but also those in
government service.
In assisting the Huyssen family (of the World DISBARMENT
Huyssen v.
Mission of Jesus) in immigrating to the Philippines,
Gutierrez
Atty. Gutierrez demanded USD 20, 000 from them,

supposedly for the abovementioned purpose, but
he didn’t deposit them as he said he did. When they
asked for the money back, he issued worthless
checks in payment and signed vouchers to the
effect that he didn’t have funds sufficient to repay
them.
Atty. Imbang, in violation of his mandate as a PAO DISBARMENT +
lawyer to only serve indigent litigants, accepted RETURN FEES
Ramos v. Imbang
money for private legal services that he did not
render.
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.
 Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not engage in the private
practice of law unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such
practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions (RA 6713, Sec.
7).
 Accepting or having any member of a public officer’s family accept employment in a

private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency
thereof or within one year after its termination shall constitute corrupt practice
against him (RA 3019, Sec. 3).
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Atty. Buffe, a resigned Clerk of Court VI of the RTC FINE of P 10, 000
Branch 81 Romblon, wrote to the Office of the + STERN
Court Administrator regarding Section 7 (b) (2) of WARNING
RA No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees),
which places a limitation on public officials and
Query of Atty. employees during their incumbency, and those
Silverio Buffe already separated from government
employment for a period of one (1) year after
separation, in engaging in the private practice of
their profession. It was discovered that Atty. Buffe
engaged in the practice of law during the
prohibited period in defiance of a law she deemed
unfair.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Atty. Cedo, a former employee of PNB, represented SUSPENSION for
PNB v. Cedo
several of their former clients after leaving the 3 years

employment of PNB with deliberate intent to
devise ways to attract PNB’s clients for his own,
having knowledge of PNB’s legal weaknesses.
PCGG filed a motion to disqualify Mendoza as N/A
counsel for respondents Tan, et. Al alleging that his
former position as Sol-Gen and later as
representatives of the Tan group violates Rule 6.03
PCGG v.
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Sandiganbayan
However, the Court dismissed the petition and held
that Mendoza’s act does not constitute the “matter”
contemplated in the Rule. In addition, the subject
matter of the two cases are different.
Conflict of interest – when:

 There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or
more opposing parties.
 There is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the
attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in
which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation
to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection.
 TEST: WON the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the
lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty.
Intervention - interference that may affect the interests of others.

 It cannot be insubstantial and insignificant.
 The objecive is to avoid any conflict of interest on the part of the employee who may
wittingly or unwittingly use confidential information acquired from his employment,
or use his or her familiarity with court personnel still with the previous office.
 It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express conflicting

consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

CHAPTER II. LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION
 A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is like the court itself, an instrument or agency
to advance the ends of justice. For this reason, any act on his part that obstructs and
impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct and justifies
disciplinary action against him.
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY

AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

The Court nullified the election of national officers N/A
of IBP that was held on June 3, 1989 after
investigation proved that the three candidates for
IBP President spent considerable sums of money to
solicit votes or bribe other lawyers during the
campaign in violation of the mandate of the IBP to
be non-political in character and that there shall be
In re 1989
no lobbying nor campaigning in the choice of
Elections of the
members of the Board of Governors and of the
IBP
House of Delegates, and of the IBP officers,
national, or regional, or chapter. The fundamental
assumption was that officers, delegates and
governors would be chosen on the basis of
professional merit and willingness and ability to
serve.
Atty. Grecia stole two pages of a medical chart as DISBARMENT

evidence in one of his cases and tried to conceal it
Fernandez v. by handing it over to his driver. The Court took
Grecia note of the fact that he was already disbarred once
for conniving with a judge to rip off Chinese
business firms encountered in the latter’s court.
Bar member Soliman Santos Jr. filed a complaint SUSPENSION for
against Atty. Francisco Llamas alleging, among 1 year OR UNTIL
other things, that the latter had not paid his IBP PAYMENT OF
dues despite practicing law until in the year 1995 DUES, whichever
Santos Jr. v.
to 1997, and misrepresenting himself by using his is LATER
Llamas
old PTR number and IBP membership number.
Llamas said that he believed in good faith that he
was exempt from the IBP dues since he was
primarily a senior citizen farmer and only engaged

in a limited practice of law. The Court considered
this as mitigating.
Atty. Arevalo, Jr. requested to be exempted from N/A
the payment of IBP dues (1977-2005) in the
amount of P12,035, reasoning that the IBP can’t
assess his dues during the time when he was
employed in the Philippine Civil Service and when
he migrated to and worked in the U.S until his
Letter of Atty. retirement. He said the Civil Service law prohibits
Arevalo the practice of one’s profession while in
government service and that he also can’t be
assessed for the years when he was abroad.*
However, IBP and later, the Court, said that he
cannot be exempted given the fact that he
continues to be a member of the IBP and ordered
that he pay his dues.
A lawyer was forced to resign or surrender his N/A
license to practice law in the state of California in
order to evade the recommended three (3) year Although the
suspension. He misappropriated funds while judgment of the
practicing in California. foreign court
merely
constitutes
prima facie
evidence of
unethical acts,
the
recommendation
by the hearing
officer of the
Velez v. de Vera State Bar of
California does
not constitute
prima facie
evidence of
unethical
behavior by Atty.
de Vera.
Complainant
must prove by
substantial
evidence the
facts upon which
the
recommendation

by the hearing
officer was
based. If he is
successful in this,
he must then
prove that these
acts are likewise
unethical under
Philippine law.
CASE FACTS DOCTRINE

Atty. Vinluan requested a special meeting 2 days The actuations of
before the scheduled election while President Vinluan‘s group
Bautista was away. This meeting violated Sec 43 in defying the
Art VI of the By Laws, which provides that it is the lawful authority
President who shall call and preside over the of the IBP
meeting. He should have followed Sec 23 Art VI President
which states that the board may take action Bautista, due to
without a meeting by resolution signed by at least his
5 governors. However, he ignored procedure. overwhelming
Basically it’s a coup against the outgoing President desire to propel
Bautista. his fraternity
2009 IBP brother, Soriano
Elections to the next
presidency of the
IBP, is strongly
condemned and
strictly
prohibited by
the IBP By Laws
and Bar
Integration Rule
and is gross
professional
misconduct.
Read:
RA 6397
Rule 139-A, Section 9. Membership dues.

Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such annual dues as the Board of
Governors shall determine with the approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed sum
equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the collection from each Chapter shall be set
aside as a Welfare Fund for disabled members of the Chapter and the compulsory
heirs of deceased members thereof.

Rule 139-A, Section 10. Effect of non-payment of dues.
Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this Rule, default in the payment of annual
dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar,
and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the
name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.
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.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Severino Martinez filed a disbarment case against DISBARMENT +
Telesforo Diao on the ground that he had falsely RETURN
represented himself when he submitted his LAWYER’S
application in taking the Bar examinations by DIPLOMA
In re Diao saying that he had the requisite academic
qualifications. The Court found that Diao was not
qualified to take the Bar Exams because he failed to
take the prescribed courses of legal studies in the
proper manner.
Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the bar
of any person known by him to be unqualified in respect to character,
education, or other relevant attribute.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in
a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

While the respondent was about to take the bar, he INDEFINITE
and complainant had an affair. However, unknown SUSPENSION
to the the latter Castillo was married and was later
confronted by his wife to end the relationship. The
said illicit affair resulted in the pregnancy of
Zaguirre v.
Zaguirre who later on gave birth to a baby girl.
Castillo
Upon prompting by some officemates, an affidavit
was made by Castillo acknowledging his paternity
of the child. He later on renounced this claim saying
he only did it to help release the complainant from
embarrassment.
Nicolas Sabandal wants to take his oath as member N/A
of the Bar. His previous requests to take it were
Tan v. Sabandal
ruled upon unfavorably. But when the Court
decided to finally grant his petition, several

complainant opposed it in view of his questionable
actions in the past. The Court also found out that
there was a pending case against him for procuring
a title of a parcel of land under his name (while
being employed in a government agency) which
cannot be alienated. The said case was instituted
against him while he was submitting to the Court
motions to take his oath. According to the Court,
this does not speak well of his moral character.
Also, the fact that he did not inform the Court about
the case in his motions constitutes dishonesty, so
he was not allowed to take his lawyer’s oath.
Petitioner filed for disbarment against her DISBARMENT
husband for cohabiting with a certain Elena Peña,
Tapucar v. which constitutes continuing grossly immoral
Tapucar conduct under scandalous circumstances. He had
already been charged four times for being an
unbecoming officer of the court.
Guevara filed a Complaint for Disbarment against DISBARMENT
Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala on the
Guevara v. Eala grounds of grossly immoral conduct and violation
of lawyer’s oath due to the latter’s extramarital
affair with complainant’s wife.
Advincula sought the legal advice of Atty. REPRIMAND +
Macabata. In one of their meetings to discuss the STERN
case, Atty. Macabata kissed Advincula lightly on the WARNING
lips as she was alighting from his car. She
Advincula v.
expressed her anger through text, to which the
Macabata
lawyer apologized. The Court said the act was not
grossly immoral and perceived the act as a mere
gesture of friendship and camaraderie or form of
greeting, casual and customary.
Atty. Florendo cheated with his client’s wife but got SUSPENSION for
his client and their respective spouses to sign an 6 months
Tiong v.
affidavit saying no one will cheat again and no one
Florendo
will pursue legal action. Court said the waiver has
no effect on disbarment proceedings.
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY,

FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES,
AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
 Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act
honorably, fairly and candidly towards each other and otherwise conduct themselves
without reproach at all times.

 The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their brethren.
This esteem cannot be purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained by artifice or
contrivance. It is born of sharp contexts and thrives despite conflicting interest. It
emanates solely from integrity, character, brains and skills in the honorable
performance of professional duty.
 Proper decorum is to be observed and maintained during court proceedings.
 The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is Essential to the
preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments,
orders, and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the due administration of
justice
Direct Contempt
 When: A person is guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court or
judge as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including:
i. Disrespect toward the court or judge,
j. Offensive personalities toward others, or
k. Refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or
deposition when lawfully required to do so.
 Can be punished summarily and without hearing:
- If superior court:
o Fine not exceeding P2,000, or
o Imprisonment not exceeding 10 days, or
o BOTH.
- If inferior court:
o Fine not exceeding P200, or
o Imprisonment not exceeding 1 day, or
o BOTH.
Indirect Contempt
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Atty. Bugarin was cited in contempt of court for FINE of P 2000
Bugarin v. making disrespectful remarks to the judge in
Espanol connection with his presentation and entry of
evidence in the proceedings.
Xu, through herein complainant Atty. Reyes, filed a SUSPENSION for
Complaint for estafa against Pan, who was 2 years
represented by respondent Atty. Chiong for a
business venture that went awry. Thereafter,
Reyes v. Chiong
respondent filed a Civil Complaint for the collection
of a sum of money and damages as well as for the
dissolution of a business venture against
complainant, Xu and Prosecutor Salanga. The Court

held that there was no need to implead
complainant and Prosecutor Salanga, since they
had never participated in the business transactions
between Pan and Xu. Verily, the suit was filed to
harass complainant and Prosecutor Salanga.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which
is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
 Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be

dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of
intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial
forum.
 Lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, dignity and civility. The bickering and
the hostility of their clients should not affect their conduct and rapport with each
other as professionals and members of the bar.
- A great part of their comfort, as well as of their success at the bar, depends upon
their relations with their professional brethren.
- Since they deal constantly with each other, they must treat one another with trust
and respect.
 The aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according to law,
not to harass them.
 Lawyers should use dignified language in their pleadings despite the adversarial
nature of the legal system.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Atty. Castro used vulgar language in transacting FINE of P 10, 000
Dallong- with an RTC Clerk of Court regarding a Decision he
Galiciano v. wished to acquire. In determining the fine to be
Castro imposed, Court considered his public apology
mitigating.
Pefianco, moved by his moral righteousness, FINE of P 1000 +
meddled in a matter in which he had no right by REPRIMAND
Alcantara v. criticizing a PAO lawyer for his handling of a
Pefianco murder case. When Alcantara, the head of the
Office, asked him to leave, he started hurling
invectives and tried to attack him.
Atty. Bonifacio Barandon filed a complaint- SUSPENSION for
Barandos, Jr. v. affidavit with the IBP-Commission on Bar 1 year
Ferrer Discipline, seeking for disciplinary action against
Atty. Edwin Ferrer on the ground of using abusive,

defensive, and improper language in the latter’s
reply in civil case as plaintiff’s counsel.
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the
professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any
lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
 A lawyer should not steal another lawyer’s client nor induce the latter to retain him
by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his services.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Atty. Camacho, was the counsel of several SUSPENSION for
dismissed students of AMA Computer College in a 3 months
civil case before the Quezon City RTC. The
Camacho v.
respondent, Atty. Pangulayan represented the
Pangulayan
school and negotiated “re-admission agreements”
with the dismissed students without first
communicating the negotiations to Camacho.
CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN

THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
Read:
Law Student Practice Rule (Rule 138-A)
 The canons and ethics of the profession enjoin a lawyer not to permit his professional
services or his name to be used in aid of, or to make possible the unauthorized
practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate.
- The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client, and the bar from the
incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to
the disciplinary control of the Court.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Andres Culanag misrepresented himself as Atty. IMPRISONMENT
Spouses Suarez Filemon Manangan. In reality, he isn’t even allowed for 3 months
v. Salazar to practice law in the Philippines, so the Court cited
him in indirect contempt of court.
Donna Marie Aguirre filed a petition for denial of DENIED
admission to the bar against Edwin Rana who ADMISSION to
Aguirre v. Rana
engaged in the practice of law even though he the Philippine
wasn’t a lawyer/lawyering without a license. Bar
Atty. Ladaga, a Branch Clerk of Court (RTC Makati REPRIMAND +
OCA v. Ladaga Branch 133) appeared as pro bono counsel for his STERN
WARNING

cousin in a criminal case without prior
authorization from the head of his Department.
Alauya filed the termination of his contract with REPRIMAND
E.B. Villarosa & Partners co., which he entered into
with the help of petitioner Alawi, who was his
Alawi v. Alauya
schoolmate because Alauya believed that Alawi
was misrepresenting himself as a lawyer when in
actuality he was only a counselor of the Shari’a Bar.
Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of
the Bar in good standing.
Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services
with persons not licensed to practice law, except:
a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that,
upon the latter’s death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to
his estate or to persons specified in the agreement; or
b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a
deceased lawyer; or
c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement
plan, even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profitable sharing
arrangement.
 A lawyer is proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for legal
services rendered with a person not licensed to practice law.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Halili gave a parcel of land to the Union as IMPRISONMENT
settlement. The latter, through Atty. Pineda, filed a until compliance
motion with LA Valenzuela requesting for with Court order
authority to sell the land, and this was granted. The
sale pushed through without a valid court
Halili v. CIR
authorization. Atty. Espinas, the original counsel,
questioned the validity of the sale, and the Court
ordered Atty. Pineda and the Union to deposit the
money with the NLRC and cited them in indirect
contempt upon their failure to do so.
Terrado neglected a legal matter entrusted to him SUSPENDED for
Lijuaico v. (recover a deposit of P180,000) despite receipt of 6 months +
Terrado payment representing attorney’s fees (for Return 70, 000
P70,000). within 30 days

CHAPTER III. THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO

THE COURT.
 The lawyer's fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and
orderly administration of justice. It must be done within the confines of reason and
common sense.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

The siblings of the respondent’s wife filed a DISBARMENT
complaint against Atty. Torres for committing
perjury, forging the complainant’s signature on
Ting Dumali v.
official documents, making gross
Torres
misrepresentation and false testimony for his
client in a case involving several properties in
Malabon.
In an ejectment suit before MTC Manila Br. 10, CENSURE +
petitioners were ordered to vacate the premises WARNING
and ordered to surrender the property to the
Masinsin v. private respondent. Petitioners attempted to have
Albano the decision nullified 4 times by filing in different
courts. The Court dismissed their petition and
noted that they were deliberately delaying the
inevitable execution of the MTC decision.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any
in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Canon 32, Canons of Professional Ethics. The lawyer's duty in its last analysis. No client
corporate or individual, however, powerful nor any cause, civil or political, however
important, is entitled to receive nor should any lawyer render any service or advice
involving disloyalty to the laws whose ministers we are, or disrespect of the judicial office,
which we are bound to uphold, or corruption of any person or persons exercising a public
office or private trust, or deception or betrayal of the public. When rendering any such
improper service or advice, the lawyer invites and merits stern and just condemnation.
Correspondingly, he advances the honor of his profession and the best interests of his
client when he renders service or gives advice tending to impress upon the client and his
undertaking exact compliance with the strictest principles of moral law. He must also
observe and advice his client to observe the statute law, though until a statute shall have
been construed and interpreted by competent adjudication he is free and is entitled to
advise as to its validity and as to what he conscientiously believes to be its just meaning
and extent. But above all a lawyer will find his highest honor in a deserved reputation for
fidelity to private trust and to public duty, as an honest man and as a patriotic and loyal
citizen.

 A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He should bear in mind that as an officer of the
court his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of
the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusion. The courts,
on the other hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers
appearing and pleading before them.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Attys. Batuegas and Llantino filed a motion for bail SUSPENSION for
on December 13, 2000 alleging that their client had 6 months
Young v.
voluntarily surrendered in person in authority, but
Batuegas
the certificate of detention in the NBI showed that
the latter surrendered on the 14th of December.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the

contents of paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text
of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered
inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been
proved.
 In citing this Court's decisions and rulings, it is the bounden duty of courts, judges and
lawyers to reproduce or copy the same word-for-word and punctuation mark-for-
punctuation mark.
- Only from this Tribunal's decisions and rulings do all other courts, as well as
lawyers and litigants, take their bearings.
- Ever present is the danger that if not faithfully and exactly quoted, the decisions
and rulings of this Court may lose their proper and correct meaning, to the
detriment of other courts, lawyers and the public who may thereby be misled.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

The petitioners alleged that the respondents N/A
should be cited in contempt for wrongfully copying
and using in their petition for certiorari the
Insular Life decision laid down by the Court. The Supreme
Employees Co. v. Court ruled however, that the misquotation is
Insular Life merely a result of clerical oversight. The
Association respondents' counsels have the prima facie right to
rely on the quotation as it appears in the Court’s
decision, to copy it verbatim, and to incorporate it
in their brief.
Petitioners want to compel respondent judge via N/A but ordered
mandamus to dismiss their case because of the City to show cause
Hipos, Sr. v. Bay Prosecutor’s motion to withdraw the informations why he shouldn’t
filed against them. The Court found that the be disciplined for
pleadings of the petitioners contained plenty of his conduct in

misquotations and misrepresentations of Supreme relation to the
Court decisions, with the words conveniently misrepresentatio
switched around or omitted to work in their favor. n and
misquotation of
court decisions.
Allegations of plagiarism made by Attys. Harry REPRIMAND
Roque and Romel Bagares against Justice Mariano
Del Castillo in his ponencia in the case of Vinuya v.
Re: Letter of UP Executive Secretary spurred the publication of a
Law Faculty statement by faculty members of the UP College of
Law, headed by Dean Marvic Leonen, on the said
allegations and calling for the resignation of Justice
Del Castillo.
The Court here denied the MR on the Court’s N/A
In the Matter of
decisions in favor of Justice Del Castillo on
charges of
plagiarism charges in his ponencia for Vinuya vs
Plagiarism
Romulo. The court denied the motion for lack of
against J. Del
merit, since plagiarism is not as strictly held in the
Castillo
Judiciary as in the academe.
Atty. Lozano was found guilty of misusing N/A
constitutional provisions in order to impute
former Retired CJ Hilario Davide and Retired
Justice Alicia Austria-Martinez in an impeachment
complaint. He was indefinitely suspended in June
In re Lozanoes 2010. After several letter-petitions, the Court
reinstated him in this Resolution, with the
expectation that he shall now avoid going to the
extreme of employing contortions and misusing
legal provisions and principles to justify his
positions.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse
them to defeat the ends of justice.
Section 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:

(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
 A lawyer should not be carried away in espousing his client’s cause. As an officer of
the court, he should not misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice.

CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT
DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST
ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
 It is the duty of a lawyer, as an officer of the court, to uphold the dignity and authority
of the courts.
- Litigants and counsels, particularly the latter because of their position and
avowed duty to the courts, cannot be allowed to publicly ridicule, demean and
disrespect a judge, and the court that he represents.
- Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of the judicial institution; without
this guarantee, the institution would be resting on very shaky foundations.
 Court orders are to be respected not because the judges who issue them should be
respected, but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to
the judicial branch of the Government.
- This is absolutely essential if our Government is to be a government of laws and
not of men.
- Respect must be had not because of the incumbents to the positions, but because
of the authority that vests in them.
- Disrespect to judicial incumbents is disrespect to that branch of the Government
to which they belong, as well as to the State, which has instituted the judicial
system.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Sotto made imputations of incompetence against N/A – SHOW
In re Sotto the SC and said that the only way to remedy such is CAUSE
to replace all its members.
George Carlos and his counsel Antonio Guerrero N/A
filed a petition for certiorari regarding the direct
contempt of court ordered by Judge Villamor after
they the former filed an action for damages against
respondent judge for “knowingly rendering an
unjust judgment” in a criminal case that Judge
Guerrero v. Villamor dismissed. The Court held that first of all,
Villamor since the contemptuous language was not done
before the court where Judge Villamor was
presiding judge, Villamor could not charge the
petitioners with direct contempt of court. Also, the
strong language used by petitioners were not
contemptuous, but reflective only of the degree of
moral anguish suffered by the petitioner.
Bueno hired Rañeses to represent her in a civil DISBARMENT
case, charging him of negligence. Aside from being
Bueno v. Rañeses
paid a retainer fee and appearance fees,
respondent asked for various sums to bribe the

judges. However, he didn’t submit the required
comment and the memorandum during the
hearing and didn’t inform her of the development
of the case. He neither attended the IBP hearings
nor replied to the charges.
Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.
Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing

language or behavior before the Courts.
 A lawyer is entitled to voice his criticism within the context of the constitutional
guarantee of freedom of speech, which must be exercised responsibly. Freedom is not
freedom from responsibility, but freedom with responsibility.
 The lawyer has a right, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, to criticize in
properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and
judges.
- Courts and judges are not sacrosanct. They should and expect critical evaluation
of their performance.
- But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and
shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.
 The lawyer's duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is essential to the
orderly administration of justice. Hence, in the – assertion of their clients' rights,
lawyers – even those gifted with superior intellect are enjoined to rein up their
tempers.
 Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts.
Such is a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action.
 Unnecessary language, which jeopardizes high esteem in the courts, or creates or

promotes distrust in judicial administration, is proscribed.
 An objecting or complaining lawyer cannot act in a manner that puts the courts in a
bad light and bring the justice system into disrepute.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

This is about Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen's "Petition INDEFINITE
to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title," filed on SUSPENSION
In re Almacen September 25, 1967, in protest against what he
therein asserts is "a great injustice committed
against his client by this Supreme Court."

Atty. Sabino Padilla, counsel of Socorro Soriano, N/A
was charged with direct contempt of Court by Naga
trial court for moving for extension the scheduled
pre-trials for several times and for failure to appear
Soriano and
in the agreed extended date of pre-trial conference.
Padilla v. CA
He was served with the notice of the charge of
direct contempt but he didn’t appear in Court thus
judgment was promulgated against him. All
charges were dismissed on appeal.
This case is about the administrative complaint SUSPENSION for
filed by Judge Ubaldino A. Lacurom against Attys. 2 years
Ellis Jacoba and Olivia Velasco Jacoba for the use of (Husband
highly offensive language in the motion for Jacoba)/2
Lacurom v.
reconsideration filed by Jacoba and signed by months (Wife
Jacoba
Velasco-Jacoba for the reversal of the MTC’s Jacoba) + STERN
decision in favor of Jacobo’s client Veneracion WARNING
regarding a civil case of unlawful detainer against
a certain Barrientos. Both were held in contempt.
Atty. Battung was cited in contempt for yelling at a SUSPENSION for
Baculi v. Battung judge while arguing/presenting his Motion in 1 year
court.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by
the record or have no materiality to the case.
 A lawyer who forges a court decision and represents it as that of a court of law is
guilty of the gravest misconduct and deserves the supreme penalty of disbarment.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Atty. Pe falsified the the decision rendered by Judge DISBARMENT
Rafael Penuela in Special Proceedings Case No. 084
in favor of Shirley Quioyo. When the Solicitor of UK
requested the RTC where the said case was
Embido v. Pe, Jr.
purportedly decided, the court discovered that the
decision submitted to the UK court was falsified
(the real Special Proceedings Case No. 084 was
totally different).
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper
authorities only.
 Article VIII, section 6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court
administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding
Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk.

- By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges'
and court personnel's compliance with all laws, and take the proper
administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof.
- No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running
afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.
 Where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee arises from their
administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer
the same to this Court for determination whether said Judge or court employee had
acted within the scope of their administrative duties.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Respondent Abiera filed a case in the Ombudsman N/A
alleging that petitioner falsified his certificate of
service for January (stating all civil and criminal
cases were decided, when there were in fact there
Maceda v. was still no decision in 15 cases), as well as for 17
Vasquez other months. The Ombudsman denied petitioners
motions to refer to the SC and reconsideration. The
SC ruled that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction
over the case, and should have deferred action to
the SC.
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT

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

(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;
ART. III, Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases
before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
Read:
P.D. 1829 (Obstruction of Justice)
 Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the
administration of justice. Any conduct, which tends to delay, impede or obstruct the
administration of justice, contravenes such lawyer’s duty.
Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately
prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will
adduce and the order of its preferences. He should also be ready with the
original documents for comparison with the copies.

Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.
Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a
judgement or misuse Court processes.
 While lawyers owe fidelity to the cause of their client, they must never abuse their
right of recourse to the courts by arguing a case that has repeatedly been rejected.
Neither should they use their knowledge of the law as an instrument to harass a party
or to misuse judicial processes.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

. Principe is facing a disbarment case after claiming N/A
40% of the selling price from an expropriation case
where he appeared as a legal counsel. He filed such
Malonzo v.
petition and motion to intervene which delayed the
Principe
compromise agreement between NAPOCOR and
the lot owners. The case was dismissed because the
Court held that he was entitled to such fees.
Atty. Venida was very late in filing his complete SUSPENSION for
comment (3 years late) in a disbarment case filed 1 year + STERN
against him. He reasoned it was because of heavy WARNING
workload and that he lost all his files from a strong
Saa v. IBP-CBD
typhoon. Although the disbarment case was
ultimately dismissed for lack of evidence, the court
finds Atty. Venida’s conduct of being late
unacceptable.
Revilla delayed the execution of judgment by SUSPENSION for
committing internal falsehood, filing several 6 months
Plus Builders,
motions and TROs, and allowing non-lawyers to
Inc. v. Revilla, Jr.
engage in unauthorized practice as partners in a
firm in good faith and for humanitarian reasons.
Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a break or
recess in the trial, while the witness is still under examination.
Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent

himself or to impersonate another.
Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor
needlessly inconvenience him.

Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except:
a) On formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an
instrument, and the like, or
b) On substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends
of justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial of the
case to another counsel.
 Although the law does not forbid an attorney to be a witness and at the same time an
attorney in a cause, the courts prefer that counsel should not testify as a witness
unless it is necessary, and that they should withdraw from the active management of
the case.
 When a lawyer is a witness for his client, except as to merely formal matters, such as
the attestation or custody of an instrument and the like, he should leave the trial of
the case to other counsel. Except when essential to the ends of justice, a lawyer should
avoid testifying in court in behalf of his client.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

One of the attorneys for the plaintiff testified that N/A
PNB v. Uy Teng the defendant renounced his right to redeem the
Piao parcel of land because a friend of the defendant
was interested in buying it.
CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE

AND REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE,
OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT
 It is their duty as officers of the court to properly apprise their clients on matters of
decorum and proper attitude toward courts of justice, and to labor leaders of the
importance of a continuing educational program for their members.
 There are serious risks posed to the fair administration of justice by live TV and radio
broadcasts, especially when emotions are running high on the issues stirred by a case.
However, present is the necessity of keeping audio-visual recordings of the
proceedings of celebrated cases, for public information and exhibition, after passions
have subsided.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Contempt charges were filed against unions N/A
conducting pickets in front of the Supreme Court
Nestle Phil. v.
Building. The Court concluded that the acts were
Sanchez
contemptuous but accepted their apology and
dismissed the same. The Court warns, however,

that it will not hesitate in future similar situations
to punish for contempt those who attempt to
pressure the Court into acting one way or the other
in any case pending before it.
Statements published in a newspaper and FINE of P 20, 000
attributed to Atty. De Vera were found to be
contemptuous for influencing and threatening the
In re de Vera
Court to decide in a certain way in an ongoing case.
Such statements do not fall within the protection of
free speech. He was held in indirect contempt.
In this motion for reconsideration, the Secretary of N/A
Justice stresses the right of the people and the
press to allow for a live media broadcast of
Estrada’s plunder cases before the Sandiganbayan.
The court denies this motion with finality but
Perez v. Estrada orders an audio-visual recording of the trial for
documentary purposes subject to certain
conditions. Only later will they be available for
public showing, after the Sandiganbayan shall have
promulgated its decision in every case to which the
recording pertains.
Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to,
nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges.
 The rule instructs lawyers to refrain from any impropriety tending to influence, or
from any act giving the appearance of influencing, the court.
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding
a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
 The power of the media to form or influence public opinion cannot be

underestimated.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Fiscal Francisco Salva conducted a reinvestigation PUBLIC
of the killing of Manuel Monroy after information REPRIMAND +
from the Constabulary implicating individuals PUBLIC
different from those convicted came to light. The CENSURE
Court ruled that while such reinvestigation was
Cruz v. Salva
valid, even if the original case was pending on
appeal, the manner by which Salva conducted the
investigation, allowing it to be attended by
sensationalism, publicity and fanfare, was
punishable.

Despite the pendency of civil cases against him and SUSPENSION for
the issuance of a status quo order 3 years
restraining/enjoining further publishing,
televising, and broadcasting of any relative matter
Foodsphere, Inc. to the complaint of CDO (Foodsphere, Inc.), Atty.
v. Mauricio Mauricio continued with his attacks against
Foodsphere and its products, following an incident
(of which he wasn’t part) where worms were
founds inside a can of liver spread produced by
Foodsphere.
Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another branch
or agency of the government in the normal course of judicial proceedings.
 The Supreme Court is supreme — the third great department of government

entrusted exclusively with the judicial power to adjudicate with finality all
justiciable disputes, public and private. No other department or agency may pass
upon its judgments or declare them 'unjust' (separation of powers).
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Marceliano Castellano was counsel for one FINE of P 10,
Khalyxto Magsalang. He filed for certiorari before 000/IMPRISON
the Supreme Court in the case of Magsalang v. MENT for 10
People but failed to comply with requirements set days for failure
Maglasang v. by the Court regarding petitions sent by mail. The to pay +
People Court denied the petition for certiorari. Aggrieved WARNING +
Castellano wrote a letter-complaint to the Office of SUSPENSION for
the President claiming, in colourful language, that 6 months
the Court dismissed the case of his client unjustly.
He was cited in contempt.

CHAPTER IV. THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT
 Formality is not an essential element of the employment of an attorney.

- The contract may be express or implied and it is sufficient that the advice and
assistance of the attorney is sought and received, in matters pertinent to his
profession.
- An acceptance of the relation is implied on the part of the attorney from his
acting in behalf of his client in pursuance of a request by the latter.
Retaining Fee - a preliminary fee given to an attorney or counsel to insure and secure his
future services, and induce him to act for the client.
- It is intended to remunerate counsel for being deprived, by being retained by one
party, of the opportunity of rendering services to the other and of receiving pay
from him, and the payment of such fee, in the absence of an express understanding
to the contrary, is neither made nor received in payment of the services
contemplated.
- Its payment has no relation to the obligation of the client to pay his attorney for the
services which he has retained him to perform.
CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THE NEEDY.
Duties of an Attorney (Rule 138, Sec. 20):

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.

Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account
of the latter’s race, sex, creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion
regarding the guilt of said person.
Read:
BM 2012 (Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service)
Rule on mandatory legal aid service –
Purpose: Enhance the duty of lawyers to society as agents of social change and to the courts
as officers thereof by helping improve access to justice by the less privileged members of
society and expedite the resolution of cases involving them to aid the efficient and effective
administration of justice especially in cases involving indigent and pauper litigants
Scope: Free legal aid services in all cases (whether, civil, criminal or administrative)
involving indigent and pauper litigants where the assistance of a lawyer is needed. It shall
also govern the duty of other members of the legal profession to support the legal aid
program of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Summary: Every practicing lawyer is required to render a minimum of sixty (60) hours of
free legal aid services to indigent litigants in a year. Said 60 hours shall be spread within a
period of twelve (12) months, with a minimum of five (5) hours of free legal aid services each
month. However, where it is necessary for the practicing lawyer to render legal aid service
for more than five (5) hours in one month, the excess hours may be credited to the said
lawyer for the succeeding periods.
Rule 138, 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.
Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient cause,
an appointment as counsel de oficio or as amicus curiae, or a request from the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapters for rendition of free legal
aid.
Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent

client unless:
a) He is in no position to carry out the work effectively or competently;
b) He labors under a conflict of interest between him and the prospective client
or between a present client and the prospective client;

Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his
professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his
relations with paying clients.
Laws on indigent litigants:

1. Republic Act No. 6033: This law requires that all courts shall give preference to the
hearing and/or disposition of criminal cases where an indigent is involved either as
the offended party or accused. The trial in these cases shall commence within three
days from date of arraignment and no postponement of the hearings shall be granted
except on the ground of illness of the accused or other similar justifiable grounds. City
and provincial fiscals and courts shall forthwith conduct the preliminary
investigation of a criminal case involving an indigent within three days after its filing
and shall terminate the same within two weeks. An indigent who is the offended
party, respondent or an accused in a criminal case and who desires to avail of the
preference granted under this Act shall file a sworn statemen9t of the fact of his being
indigent and the said sworn statement shall be sufficient basis for the court or fiscal
to give preference to the trial and disposition of such criminal case. Any willful or
malicious refusal on the part of any fiscal or judge to carry out the provisions of this
Act shall constitute sufficient ground for disciplinary action which may include
suspension or removal.
2. Republic Act No. 6044: Any indigent litigant may, upon motion, ask the Court for
adequate travel allowance to enable him and his indigent witnesses to attendant the
hearing of a criminal case commenced by his complaint or filed against him. The
allowance shall cover actual transportation expenses by the cheapest means from his
place of residence to the court and back. When the hearing of the case requires the
presence of the indigent litigant and/or his indigent witnesses in court the whole day
or for two or more consecutive days, allowances may, in the discretion of the Court,
also cover reasonable expenses for meal and lodging. If the court determines that the
petition for transportation allowance is meritorious, said court shall immediately
issue an order directing the provincial, city or municipal treasurer to pay the indigent
litigant the travel allowance out of any funds in his possession and proceed without
delay to the trial of the case. The provincial, city or municipal treasurer shall hold any
such payments as cash items until reimbursed by the national government. All
payments of travel allowances made by provincial, city and municipal treasurer
under this Act as of October 31 each year, shall be transmitted to the Commissioner
of the Budget not later than November 30 each year for inclusion in the annual
General Appropriations Act. The necessary sum is hereby authorized to be
appropriated out of the funds in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

3. Republic Act No. 6035: A stenographer who has attended a hearing before an
investigating fiscal or trial judge or hearing commissioner of any quasi-judicial body
or administrative tribunal and has officially taken notes of the proceeding thereof
shall, upon written request of an indigent or low income litigant, his counsel or duly
authorized representative in the case concerned, give within a reasonable period to
be determined by the fiscal, judge, commissioner or tribunal hearing the case, a free
certified transcript of notes take by him on the case. A litigant who desires to avail
himself of the privilege granted under Section one hereof shall, at the investigation,
hearing, or trial, establish his status as an indigent or low income litigant and the
investigating fiscal or judge or commissioner or tribunal hearing the case shall
resolve the same in the same proceeding. Any stenographer who, after due hearing in
accordance with the pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 2260, as amended, has
been found to have violated the provisions of Section one of this Act or has
unreasonable delayed the giving of a free certified transcript of notes to an indigent
or low income litigant shall be subject to the following disciplinary actions: (a)
suspension from office for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days upon finding of
guilt for the first time; (b) suspension from office for not less than thirty (30) days
and not more than sixty (60) days upon finding of guilt for the second time; and (c)
removal from office upon finding of guilt for the third time. This Act shall apply to all
indigent or low income litigants who, at the time of its approval, have pending cases
in any fiscal office, court, or quasi-judicial body or administrative tribunal. The
Department of Justice shall prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary
to carry out the purposes of this Act, and the Department Head concerned shall
provide the necessary supplies and authorize the use of government equipment by
the stenographers concerned.
Rule120, Section 6. Duty of court to inform accused of his right to counsel.

Before arraignment, the court shall inform the accused of his right to counsel and
ask him if he desires to have one. Unless the accused is allowed to defend himself
in person or has employed a counsel of his choice, the court must assign a counsel
de oficio to defend him.
Rule 120, Section 7. Appointment of counsel de oficio.
The court, considering the gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the questions
that may arise, shall appoint as counsel de oficio only such members of the bar in
good standing who, by reason of their experience and ability, can competently
defend the accused. But in localities where such members of the bar are not
available, the court may appoint any person, resident of the province and of good
repute for probity and ability, to defend the accused.
Rule 120, Section 8. Time for counsel de oficio to prepare for arraignment.
Whenever a counsel de oficio is appointed by the court to defend the accused at the
arraignment, he shall be given a reasonable time to consult with the accused as to
his plea before proceeding with the arraignment.

Rule 124, Section 2. Appointment of counsel de oficio for the accused.
If it appears from the record of the case as transmitted that (a) the accused is
confined in prison, (b) is without counsel de parte on appeal, or (c) has signed the
notice of appeal himself, the clerk of court of the Court of Appeals shall designate a
counsel de oficio.
An appellant who is not confined in prison may, upon request, be assigned a counsel
de oficio within ten (10) days from receipt of the notice to file brief and he
establishes his right thereto.
Presidential Decree No. 543, Section 1. Designation of Municipal Judges and lawyers in
any branch of the government service, as counsel de oficio. In places where there are no
available practicing lawyers, the District Judge or Circuit Criminal Court Judge shall
designate a municipal judge or a lawyer employed in any branch, subdivision or
instrumentality of the government within the province, as counsel de oficio for an indigent
person who is facing a criminal charge before his court, and the services of such counsel de
oficio shall be duly compensated by the Government in accordance with Section thirty-two,
Rule One Hundred Thirty Eight of the Rules of Court.
If the criminal case wherein the services of a counsel de oficio are needed is pending before
a City or municipal court, the city or municipal judge concerned shall immediately
recommend to the nearest District Judge the appointment of a counsel de oficio, and the
District Judge shall forthwith appoint one in accordance with the preceding paragraph.
For purposes of this Decree an indigent person is anyone who has no visible means of
support or whose income does not exceed P300 per month or whose income even in excess
of P300 is insufficient for the subsistence of his family, which fact shall be determined by
the Judge in whose court the case is pending, taking into account the number of the
members of his family dependent upon him for subsistence.
SEC. 16-D. Exemption from Fees and Costs of the Suit.

The clients of the PAO shall exempt from payment of docket and other fees
incidental to instituting an action in court and other quasi-judicial bodies, as an
original proceeding or on appeal.
"The costs of the suit, attorney's fees and contingent fees imposed upon the
adversary of the PAO clients after a successful litigation shall be deposited in the
National Treasury as trust fund and shall be disbursed for special allowances of
authorized officials and lawyers of the PAO."

Read:
RA 6036
CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND

LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
Rule 15.01 - A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as

soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another
client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective
client.
 A lawyer engaged as counsel for a corporation cannot represent members of the same
corporation’s board of directors in a derivative suit brought against them. To do so
would be tantamount to representing conflicting interests
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Atty. Salunat is the counsel of PPSTA. However, ADMONISHMEN
when members of said PPSTA filed a suit against its T + WARNING
Hornilla v. Board of Directors, Atty. Salunat represented said
Salunat Board against the members. The court considered
this as a violation of the ban against conflicting
interests.
Leticia Gonzales won a civil case in which she was FINE of P 2000 +
represented by the Cabucana, Cabucana, De STERN
Guzman, and Cabucana Law Office. Gonzales filed WARNING
an administrative complaint and criminal cases
against Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco and his wife for
Gonzales v. failure to implement the writ of execution and
Cabucana threats made against her. Atty. Marcelino
Cabucana, Jr., member of the law firm and brother
of Atty. Edmar Cabucana, agreed to become the
lawyer for the Gatchecos in the administrative and
criminal cases. This caused Gonzales to file a
disbarment case against him.
Complainant engaged services of the lawyer in SUSPENSION for
forming the SBHI Corporation. Lawyer also 6 months
appeared as counsel for the SBHI Corporation
De Guzman v. de when the shares of the complainant was declared
Dios delinquent and was sold at an auction. The
respondent lawyer became a member of the Board
of Directors while complainant was completely
ousted from the corporation.

Respondent offered his services to the suspects, SUSPENSION for
Perez v. de la
who did not know that he was representing the 3 years
Torre
victim’s family.
Atty. Baguio represented two parties in two REPRIMAND
Heirs of Falame different cases. However, the party he represented
v. Baguio in the first case became the party he was opposing
in the second case.
Petitioner filed a disbarment complaint against SUSPENSION for
respondent for representing her and subsequently 1 year
Grinon v.
her common-law husband’s real wife in the sale of
Sabitsana, Jr.
a piece of land owned by said husband who was
deceased.
Rule 15.02 - A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication in

respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.
 If a client were made to choose between legal representation without effective

communication and disclosure and legal representation with all his secrets revealed
then he might be compelled, in some instances, to either opt to stay away from the
judicial system or to lose the right to counsel (against right to counsel).
 If the price of disclosure is too high, or if it amounts to self-incrimination, then the

flow of information would be curtailed thereby rendering the right practically
nugatory (against right to be presumed innocent).
 An effective lawyer-client relationship is largely dependent upon the degree of

confidence, which exists between lawyer and client, which in turn requires a
situation, which encourages a dynamic and fruitful exchange, and flow of information.
- In order to attain effective representation, the lawyer must invoke the privilege
not as a matter of option but as a matter of duty and professional responsibility.
 The privilege is not confined to verbal or written communications made by the client
to his attorney but extends as well to information communicated by the client to the
attorney by other means.
 A lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of
this client.
- The court has a right to know that the client whose privileged information is
sought to be protected is flesh and blood.
- The privilege begins to exist only after the attorney-client relationship has been
established. The attorney-client privilege does not attach until there is a client.
- The privilege generally pertains to the subject matter of the relationship.
- Due process considerations require that the opposing party should, as a general
rule, know his adversary.
- EXCEPTIONS:

o Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that
revealing the client's name would implicate that client in the very
activity for which he sought the lawyer's advice;
o Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability;
o Where the government's lawyers have no case against an attorney's
client unless, by revealing the client's name, the said name would
furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary
to convict an individual of a crime.
 The third exception does not apply to clients seeking the advice
of a lawyer for the commission of a crime (future crime).
 However, it applies to those clients who think they have
committed a crime and consults a lawyer about it (past crime).
 In order that a communication between a lawyer and his client may be privileged, it
must be for a lawful purpose or in furtherance of a lawful end. The existence of an
unlawful purpose prevents the privilege from attaching.
 The rule of confidentiality under the lawyer-client relationship is not a valid ground
to dismiss a complaint against a party. It is merely a ground for disqualification of a
witness, such as, when a lawyer is under compulsion to answer as witness on
confidential communication.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

PCGG was compelling the petitioners to divulge N/A
information regarding corporations alleged to
have been involved in the case involving ill-gotten
wealth against Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. by naming
Regala v.
them as co-defendants. Petitioners were part of
Sandiganbayan
ACCRA Law Firm who assisted in the legal matters
of the companies named. The Court ruled that the
information within the ambit of attorney-client
privilege.
People v.
Sandiganbayan
Following petitioner’s death, a motion to dismiss N/A
was filed by his counsel. The Sandiganbayan,
however, denied the petition on the ground that in
contrast with the petitioner lawyers in Regala, the
Castillo v. petitioner in this case is one of the co- accused and
Sandiganbayan hence, cannot be excluded as party- defendant.
Moreover, lawyer- client privilege does not apply
because the case involved fraudulent and criminal
transactions. The Supreme Court ruled that the
doctrine enunciated in Regala is applicable in this

case and that petitioner should be excluded as
party- defendant.
Batas Mauricio filed this MR to counter Dalisay’s SUSPENDED for
complaint against him for his failure to render legal 6 months
services for her despite the P56,000 she’d already
Dalisay v.
given Mauricio. He filed criminal charges against
Mauricio
her falsification of documents and false testimony
for allegedly offering tampered evidence, which
were dismissed by the Court.
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
 Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to
avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers.
 Acting in good faith and with honest intention will not render the prohibition
inoperative.
- While there may be instances where lawyers cannot decline representation they
cannot be made to labor under conflict of interest between a present client and a
prospective one.
- Such prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and good taste as the
nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and confidence of the highest
degree.
 At a certain stage of the controversy, before it reaches the court, a lawyer may
represent conflicting interests with the consent of the parties.
 Absence of attorney-client relationship is a defense against the charge of conflict of

interest.
- However, the termination of attorney-client relation provides no justification for
a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former
client.
- Even after the severance of the relation, a lawyer should not do anything, which
will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which he previously
represented him nor should he disclose or use any of the client’s confidences
acquired in the previous relation.
Rule 15.04 - A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as
mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Dee seeks reconsideration of the decision finding N/A
Dee v. CA
him liable to pay Atty. Mutuc fees for legal services

rendered after contracted Atty. Mutuc because his
brother Dewey Dee had amassed gambling debts at
Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas, which allegedly had
Mafia ties, and he feared for his brother’s life.
However, it was found that Dewey Dee merely
signed the chits for Ramon Sy, who was actually
responsible for the debts. Mutuc was successful in
clearing Dewey’s debts, but then Donald Dee
refused to pay for the services rendered, saying
that Mutuc did it as a family friend and because he
was also working for Caesar’s Palace. The Court
ruled in Mutuc’s favor, dismissing the petition.
Rule 15.05 - A lawyer when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest
opinion on the merits and probable results of the client’s case, neither
overstating nor understating the prospects of the case.
Rule 15.06 - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any
public official, tribunal or legislative body.
 Lawyers should not make bold assurances to their clients.

- A lawyer who guarantees the successful outcome of a litigation will exert heavy
pressure and employ any means to win the case at all costs. But when the case is
lost, he will blame the courts, placing them under a cloud of suspicion.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Because Atty. Villanueva revealed the name of the FINE of P 5000
ponente in a pending case and impliedly
guaranteed to Mercado that the outcome of the
case would be in his favor, Mercado wrote a letter
Mercado v.
to the Chief Justice that lashed at his integrity as
Security Bank
well as insinuating bribery in the Supreme Court
when his petition was denied. The Court found
Mercado and Atty. Villanueva guilty of indirect
contempt of court.
Rule 15.07 - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws
and principles of fairness.
Rule 15.08 - A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation

concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether he
is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.
 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.

- Business transactions between an attorney and his client are disfavored and
discouraged by the policy of the law.
- 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 attorney’s favor.
 The lawyer is mandated to inform the client whether the former is acting as a lawyer
or in another capacity.
- This duty is a must in those occupations related to the practice of law.
- The reason is that certain ethical considerations governing the attorney-client
relationship may be operative in one and not in the other.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Jose Nakpil entered into a trust agreement with SUSPENSION for
respondent – the respondent would buy the 1 year
property in Moran for Jose until the latter could
buy it back. When Jose died, respondent acted both
as the accountant and the legal counsel of Imelda
Nakpil v. Valdez Nakpil in the intestate proceedings. The Court
ruled that respondent represented conflicting
interests when respondent’s law firm acted as
counsel in the intestate proceedings against the
claims prepared by his accounting firm regarding
the Moran property.
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND

PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Article 1491, Civil Code: The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a
public or judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another:
1. The guardian, the property of the person or persons who may be under his
guardianship;
2. Agents, the property whose administration or sale may have been intrusted to
them, unless the consent of the principal has been given;
3. Executors and administrators, the property of the estate under administration;
4. Public officers and employees, the property of the State or of any subdivision
thereof, or of any government-owned or controlled corporation, or institution, the
administration of which has been intrusted to them; this provision shall apply to
judges and government experts who, in any manner whatsoever, take part in the
sale;
5. Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and
other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the
property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within

whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this
prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers,
with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in
which they may take part by virtue of their profession;
6. Any others specially disqualified by law. (1459a)
 A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for money or malice
and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients.
 He is obligated to report promptly the money of his client that has come into his
possession. He should not commingle it with his private property or use it for his
personal purposes without his client’s consent. He should maintain a reputation for
honesty and fidelity to private trust.
 A lawyer’s compensation for professional services rendered is subject to the

supervision of the court, not just to guarantee that the fees he charges and receives
remain reasonable and commensurate with the services rendered, but also to
maintain the dignity and integrity of the legal profession to which he belongs.
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client.
 The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal processes and
the courts but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing
with clients and the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary
relationship.
 The relationship of attorney and client has always been rightly regarded as one of
special trust and confidence. An attorney must exercise the utmost good faith and
fairness in all his relationship vis-à-vis his client.
 The "highly fiduciary" and "confidential relation" of attorney and client requires that
the attorney should promptly account for all funds and property received or held by
him for the client's benefit, and failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct.
CASE FACTS PENALTY
Respondent promised complainant that Mr. Daen, DISBARMENT +
their attorney-in-fact (AIF), and also a detention RETURN SUM
Berbano v.
prisoner in Muntinlupa, will be released after they PAID (P 64, 000)
Barcelona
have paid him a sum of money, through the
assistance of a Justice in the Supreme Court.
Atty. Melo failed to remit rental collection of her DISBARMENT
Licuanan v. Melo tenant to her client in a previous ejectment case
suit.

Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from
his own and those of others kept by him.
 A lawyer who takes advantage of his client’s financial plight to acquire the latter’s
properties for his own benefit is destructive of the confidence of the public in the
fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.
CASE FACTS PENALTY
Nazaria Hernandez engaged the services of Atty. Go DISBARMENT
to pay off her creditors. Due to her trust in her
lawyer, and out of fear of her properties getting
foreclosed, she executed deeds of sale without
Hernandez v. Go consideration in favor of Atty. Go (upon his
persuasion). However, Hernandez later found out
that Go didn’t sell her properties to pay off her
debts. Rather, he effectively sold it to himself, and
used his own funds to pay Hernandez’s creditors.
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due
or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so
much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements,
giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the
same extent on all judgements and executions he has secured for his client as
provided for in the Rules of Court.
 Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is held

in trust and must be immediately turned over to them.
 A lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally appropriate his client’s money for himself by
the mere fact alone that the client owes him attorney’s fees.
- A client’s failure to pay is not an excuse for a lawyer’s delivery of the amount
intended for the former.
- The failure of an attorney to return the client’s money upon demand gives rise to
the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use.
 Under rule 16.03 of CPR, a lawyer has a lien for fees on moneys in his hands
collected for his client.
- But the fact alone, does not relieve him of his duty to promptly account for the
moneys received; his failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct.

CASE FACTS PENALTY
Complainant charged respondent with the crime of DISBARMENT
estafa for having misappropriated P32, 000, part of
which was intended to be deposited in her
husband’s bank account while the sum of P2,000
Businos v. was supposedly for a bond required in a civil case.
Ricafort Respondent returned the money during the trial
which led to the dismissal to the estafa case, but the
administrative case was pursued. He also did not
comply with the Court resolutions requiring him to
comment on the charge against him.
Samahan”—an organization composed of DISBARMENT
“informal settlers” in QC—filed a case to order the
execution a deed of conveyance of the land in favor
of them. The CFI of Quezon City, however,
Quilban v. dismissed the case. To prosecute the appeal before
Robinol CA, the Samahan members hired Atty. Santiago R.
Robinol. However, Samahan discovered that Atty.
Robinol did not turn over the payment, as required
by CA. Thus, majority of Samahan decided to
change counsel.
Atty. Ponciano Hernandez was hired by Francisco SUSPENDED for
Rayos as his lawyer against NAPOCOR for a civil 6 months
suit for damages. Due to the unexpected release of
water of Angat Dam by NAPOCOR, casualties
occurred some of which were the destruction of
Rayos v.
Rayos’ properties and deaths of his family
Hernandez
members. Rayos was able to claim P 1-M worth of
payment for damages from NAPOCOR but Atty.
Hernandez withheld the money alleging that it is
the guarantee for the payment of his attorney’s
fees.
Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s
interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice.
Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of
justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling
for the client.
 The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client.
- EXCEPTION: when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses
for a matter that he is handling for the client, such as filing fees, stenographer’s
fees for transcript of stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond,
etc.

 The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyer’s independence of mind so that the free
exercise of his judgment may not be adversely affected.
- If the lawyer lends money to the client in connection with the client’s case, the
lawyer in effect acquires an interest in the subject matter of the case or an
additional stake in its outcome.
- This may lead the lawyer to take care of his interest in the verdict to the prejudice
of the client.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Atty. Quiocho failed to transfer under his client’s SUSPENSION for
name the title of a property sold by the Barnachea’s 1 year + STERN
Barnachea v.
sister (Lutgarda) and the failure to return the WARNING +
Quicho
amount of P41,280.00 which served as payment RETURN FEES
for the services of Atty. Quiocho.
CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT

AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED
IN HIM.
 The fidelity lawyers owe their clients is traditionally characterized as "undivided."

Lawyers must represent their clients and serve their needs without interference or
impairment from any conflicting interest.
 Utmost fidelity is demanded once counsel agrees to take the cudgels for his client’s
cause.
 When a lawyer takes a client's cause, he thereby covenants that he will exert all effort
for its prosecution until its final conclusion. The failure to exercise due diligence or
the abandonment of a client's cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust, which
the client had reposed on him.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Atty. Humberto V. Potenciano was charged for INDEFINITE
deceiving, misrepresenting, mishandling and not SUSPENSION +
Cantiller v.
fully representing the cause of herein petitioner’s RETURN FEES
Potenciano
sister ejectment case which resulted to the latter’s PAID
loss of the property.
The District Court of Guam informed the Supreme N/A, but
Court of the suspension of Atty. Leon Maquera indefinitely
from the practice of law in Guam for 2 years. It was suspended for
In re Maquera alleged he acquired his client’s property as non-payment of
payment for his legal services, then sold it and as a IBP dues
consequence obtained an unreasonably high fee
for handling his client’s case.

Solatan agreed to pay the judgment debts of his SUSPENSION for
sister in order for him arrange a new lease contract 1 year
in the apartment he was staying in. However, he
Solatan v.
was not able to pay the full amount, and his
Inocentes
properties were levied. Atty. Camano negotiated
with Solatan for release of levied properties, but
did not return a gas stove that belonged to Solatan.
Respondent attorney is the counsel for REPRIMAND +
complainant in a civil case. He failed to file STERN
memorandum despite repeated reminders by the WARNING +
court and complainant. He then entered into an RETURN MONEY
agreement with opposing counsel not to file said ORDER
Somosot v.
memorandum, so the case was submitted for
Pontevedra
decision. He also received money order from
complainant’s daughter for the filing of
memorandum, but since the period had lapsed, he
didn’t take any action. He failed to return said
money order despite demands of complainant.
Heirs of Angalan engaged the services of Atty. DISBARMENT
Delante to recover their property from the Spouses
Eustaquio. The heirs and the Spouses entered an
Angalan v. amicable settlement, in which, they will pay the
Delante spouses 30k to recover their property. Since they
have no money, Delante advanced the payment.
Later, the heirs found that the title was transferred
to Delante’s name.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE

AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or
should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such
service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel
a lawyer who is competent on the matter.
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.
 A lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warmth and zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and
ability, to the end that nothing can be taken or withheld from his client except in
accordance with the law.
 A client is entitled to the benefit of all remedies and defenses authorized by law, and
is expected to rely on his lawyer to avail of these remedies or defenses.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection there with shall render him liable.
 Utmost fidelity is demanded once counsel agrees to take the cudgels for his client’s
cause.
- A lawyer should accept only as many cases as he can efficiently handle in order to
sufficiently protect his clients’ interests.
- It is not enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification to handle the legal
matter; he must also give adequate attention to his legal work.
 The failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention makes such lawyer
unworthy of the trust reposed in him by his client and makes him answerable not just
to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Coronel was negligent in handling his client’s case SUSPENDED for
due to health reasons and heavy workload. Court 6 months
Legarda v. CA expected more from him, especially as he was a law
school dean, and his negligent conduct was
occurring more frequently.
Endaya sought the services of Atty Oca from the SUSPENSION for
Public Atty’s office in a unlawful detainer suit. Atty. 2 months
Oca failed to submit pleadings, affidavits and
position papers to aid Endaya’s cause. Endaya
Endaya v. OCA
subsequently lost the case, resulting in the eviction
of his family from their house, leading Endaya to
believe that such loss may be attributed to the
negligence of Atty Oca.
Atty. Obima failed to inform Carandang that he lost SUSPENSION for
Carandang v.
the said case and therefore lost the opportunity to 1 year
Obmina
appeal the decision.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and
shall respond within a reasonable time to client’s request for information.
 As an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform her client of whatever
information she may have acquired which it is important that the client should have
knowledge of. Keeping the client informed of the developments of the case will
minimize misunderstanding and [loss] of trust and confidence in the attorney.
 Regardless of their personal views, lawyers must present every remedy or defense
within the authority of the law in support of that cause.

CASE FACTS PENALTY
Complainants filed a case against Atty. Arcangel for N/A
professional nonfeasance in relation to the pension
Blanza v. claims he’d volunteered to help them with. The
Arcangel Court held that the delay in the progress of the
claims was partly due to the complainants’ failure
to pay the costs.
Abay and Atty. Montesino disagreed on the legal SUSPENSION for
course to be taken regarding the appealed case. 6 months
Atty. Montesino strongly advised Abay to abandon
Abay v.
the appeal and to consider the other available
Montesino
remedies. Abay, on the other hand, wanted to
pursue it. Without informing Abay, Atty. Montesino
abandoned the appeal.
CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL

WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or
threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper
advantage in any case or proceeding.
ROC, RULE 138, SEC 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:
(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.
Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the
course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal,
shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall
terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of
Court.
Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure on
handling the case.

CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND REASONABLE
FEES.
RA 5185, SEC. 6. Prohibition Against Practice.

A member of the Provincial Board or City or Municipal Council shall not appear as
counsel before any court in any civil case wherein the province, city or
municipality, as the case may be, is the adverse party: Provided, however, That no
member of the Provincial Board shall so appear except in behalf of his province in
any civil case wherein any city in the province is the adverse party whose voters
are en-franchised to vote for provincial officials, nor shall such member of the
Provincial Board or City or Municipal Council appear as counsel for the accused in
any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of said province, city or
municipality is accused of an offense committed in relation to the latter's office,
nor shall he collect any fee for his appearance in any administrative proceedings
before provincial, city or municipal agencies of the province, city or municipality,
as the case may be, of which he is an elected official.
The provisions of this Section shall likewise apply to provincial governors and
city and municipal mayors.
ROC, RULE 138, SEC 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.
ROC, RULE 138, SEC 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.
Rule 120, Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity.

The following persons cannot be witnesses:
(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of

perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating
them truthfully.
 A lawyer shall be entitled to have reasonable compensation for his services.

Two concepts of attorney’s fees:
1. As an item of damages provided under Art. 2208 of the Civil Code:
- The award is made in favor of the litigant, not of his counsel; and
- The litigant, not his counsel, is the judgment creditor who may enforce the
judgment for attorney’s fees by execution.
2. As an item based on a contract for professional services:
- The reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services
rendered to the latter.
- Counsel is the creditor and the client is the debtor.
Claiming of Fees
 The right to recover attorney’s fees is but an incident of the case in which the services
of counsel have been rendered.
- The remedy for recovering attorney's fees as an incident of the main action may
be availed of only when something is due to the client.
- The issue over attorney’s fee only arises when something has been recovered
from which the fee is to be paid.
- If the main case from which the claims for their fees may arise has not yet become
final, the determination should be held in abeyance. In such a case, confirmation
of attorney’s fees is deemed premature.
 A much higher compensation is allowed as contingent fees because of the risk that
the lawyer may get nothing if the suit fails.
 A charging lien attaches only to judgments for money and executions in pursuance of
such judgment, and does not attach to the property in litigation.
- An enforceable charging lien, duly recorded, is within the jurisdiction of the court
trying the main case and this jurisdiction subsists until when the lien is settled.
- A client cannot defeat an attorney's right to his charging lien by dismissing the
case, terminating the services of his counsel, waiving his cause or interest in favor
of the adverse party or compromising his action.
o This does not apply when the termination of the case is at the instance of
the opposing party.
 Counsel's claim for attorney's fees may be asserted either in the very action in which
the services in question have been rendered, or in a separate action.
 If the claim for attorney’s fees is asserted in the very action in which the services in
question have been rendered, the Court may:
- Pass upon said claim, even if its amount were less than the minimum prescribed
by law for the jurisdiction of said court.

o Upon the theory that the right to recover is but an incident of the case.
o On the assumption that the court trying the case is already familiar with
the nature and extent of the lawyer’s services. The rule against multiplicity
of suits will in effect be subserved.
 In the absence of an express agreement, an attorney is not entitled to a percentage of

the amount recovered by his client.
- However, a lawyer, who rendered legal services, is still entitled to a reasonable
compensation if there was an implied agreement and under the innominate
contract of facio lit des. Such will be determined on a quantum meruit basis.
- An agreement for the payment of attorney’s fees can be express or implied.
Fixing of Fees
Fees are paid on a:
1. Contingent basis – wherein terms between the attorney and client are controlling,
subject to judicial control.
2. Quantum meruit basis – wherein the Court determines the reasonable worth of the
attorney’s services.
 Contingent fees are not prohibited by law. However, the fees are subject to the
supervision of a court, as to its reasonableness (i.e. judicial control).
- As courts have power to fix the fee as between attorney and client, it must
necessarily have the right to say whether a stipulation of attorney’s fees is valid.
- They are subject to the supervision and close scrutiny of the court in order to
protect clients from unjust charges.
- It is invalid when such a fee structure, when considered in conjunction with the
circumstances of the case, shows that:
o An unfair advantage was taken of the client;
o Legal fraud and imposition was perpetrated upon her; and
o The fee was grossly excessive and unconscionable.
 The issue of the reasonableness of attorney's fees is a question of fact.

 Attorney’s fees are unconscionable if they affront one’s sense of justice, decency
or reasonableness.
 The decree of unconscionability or unreasonableness of a stipulated amount in a
contingent fee contract will not preclude recovery. It merely justifies the fixing by
the court of a reasonable compensation for the lawyer's services.
 Elements to be considered when fixing of fees on the basis of quantum meruit:

1. The importance of the subject matter in controversy;
2. The extent of the services rendered; and
3. The professional standing of the lawyer.
- These are aside from the several other considerations laid down by the Court in a
number of decisions.

- Determination of all these factors would indispensably require nothing less than
a full-blown trial.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Atty. Quirante filed a motion in the trial court for N/A
the confirmation of his attorney’s fees, pending
the petition for review filed by PHILAMGEN that
Quirante v. IAC may or may not ultimately result in the granting
to the Casasola family (his client) of the total
amount of damages. Court ruled that the
confirmation is premature.
Atty. de Dumo claimed as contingent fee 60% of SUSPENDED for
the total amount due from defendant debtors (of 6 months and
Tancheco v. de
his client – an old, sickly, and “penniless” woman). WARNED
Dumo
The Court found the amount to be grossly
excessive and unconscionable.
The Court found Atty. Coloma to be entitled 1/3 of No disciplinary
all the properties and damages won for his client, action
Albano v. Albano. In this case, the complainants were in bad
Coloma faith for impugning the written agreement for the
payment of attorney’s fees, which were in fact
genuine.
Atty. Alfariz and Associates filed a motion to enter N/A
its charging lien in the civil cases involving
properties of Metrobank, their client. The Court
Metropolitan
decided a charging lien could not be enforced
Bank v. CA
against Metrobank, as there was no judgment for
the payment of money rendered in their client’s
favor.
Rule 20.01 - A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining

his fees:
a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;
b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
c) The importance of the subject matter;
d) The skill demanded;
e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance
of the proffered case;
f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of
the IBP chapter to which he belongs;
g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to
the client form the service;
h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;

i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established;
and
j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Attys. Roxas and Pastor received 44% of the just N/A – No bad
compensation paid by NHA to the Zuzuarreguis, faith. Also,
Roxas v. de pursuant to a letter-agreement. There was no full- contingent fees
Zuzuarregui blown hearing in the expropriation case, as it are not
ended in a compromise agreement. The Court prohibited by
found the amount to be unconscionable. law anyway.
Masmud agreed to pay Atty. Go on a contingent N/A
basis – 20% of money claims, plus 10% in case of
appeal. Masmud eventually refused to give full
payment, as she maintains that Art. 111 of Labor
Masmud v. NLRC
Code should govern Atty. Go’s compensation. The
Court reminded her of the two concepts of
attorney’s fees and ruled that the contract should
be observed.
Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in cases of referral, with the consent of the client, be
entitled to a division of fees in proportion to work performed and
responsibility assumed.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Atty. Peña secured a written authorization from N/A, but
Urban Bank to evict and relocate sub-tenants. DISBARRED
After he manages to relocate them, he claimed for following a
10% (P28M) of the purchase fee pursuant to an related case
oral agreement. The Court found the amount to be wherein Peña
Urban Bank v. unconscionable, as the written authorization obtained
Peña merely proved the existence of agency but not of confidential
any agreement regarding professional fees. The court records,
service rendered did not also require any legal and wrongly
training. accusing J.
Carpio of
bribery.
Rule 20.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and consent of the
client, accept any fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or forwarding
allowance or other compensation whatsoever related to his professional
employment from anyone other than the client.

ROC, RULE 138, SEC 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:
(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.
Rule 20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his
compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition,
injustice of fraud.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Corpus engaged the services of his close friend Atty. David and
Atty. David, without a written agreement for Judge Tecson –
professional fees. After Corpus won his case, Atty. GUILTY OF
David claimed for payment but Corpus refused CONTEMPT and
Corpus v. CA saying his services were offered and rendered REPRIMANDED,
gratuitously. The Court ruled in favor of Atty. and WARNED
David but held him in contempt after pursuing the
execution of payment while the case was still
pending.
CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND

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

(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.
Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. — The following

persons cannot be witnesses:
(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of
perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them
truthfully.
Art. 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance.

The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and suspension shall be
imposed upon any public officer, or officer of the law, who, in dereliction of the
duties of his office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for the
punishment of violators of the law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses.
 The mere relation of attorney and client ought to preclude the attorney from
accepting the opposite party's retainer in the same litigation regardless of what
information was received by him from his first client.

 If a person, in respect to his business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults with his
attorney in his professional capacity with the view to obtaining professional advice
or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation,
then the professional employment must be regarded as established.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

This is a case to disqualify Atty. Francisco for acting N/A, but Motion
as counsel for the defendants on the ground that for
the plaintiff had consulted with him about her case, Disqualification
on which occasion, it was alleged, "she turned over granted
Hilado v. David the papers" to Attorney Francisco, and the latter
sent her a written opinion. Atty. Francisco
admitted that she met the plaintiff but denied that
an attorney-client relationship was formed
between them.
Atty. Silapan, a tenant in Genato’s building who was SUSPENSION for
also handling some of the latter’s cases, borrowed 6 months
money from Genato to help pay for a new car. In
relation to the loan, a postdated check was issued
by respondent for the interest and his house and
lot was mortgaged to the complainant without
surrendering the title. Respondent failed to pay the
amortization on the car (which was registered in
Genato v. Silapan
complainant’s name), and the check he issued
bounced, so Genato filed a BP 22 criminal case and
a mortgage foreclosure civil case against Atty.
Silapan. In the civil case, Silapan made allegations
pertaining to Genato’s illegal business practices
and pending criminal cases, which led to Genato’s
present complaint for violation of the attorney-
client privilege.
Rule 21.01 - A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client
except:
a) When authorized by the client after acquianting him of the consequences of
the disclosure;
b) When required by law;
c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or
associates or by judicial action.
Rule 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information
acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use he same to his own
advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full knowledge of the
circumstances consents thereto.

Rule 21.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the written consent of his client, give
information from his files to an outside agency seeking such information for
auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data processing, or any similar
purpose.
Rule 21.04 - A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to partners
or associates thereof unless prohibited by the client.
Rule 21.05 - A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be required to prevent
those whose services are utilized by him, from disclosing or using confidences
or secrets of the client.
Rule 21.06 - A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation about a client’s affairs
even with members of his family.
Rule 21.07 - A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been consulted about a
particular case except to avoid possible conflict of interest.
CANON 22 - A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR

GOOD CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE
CIRTUMSTANCES.
Rule 22.01 -A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases:
a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in
connection with the matter he is handling;
b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these
canons and rules;
c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest
of the client;
d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for
him to carry out the employment effectively;
e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to
comply with the retainer agreement;
f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and
g) Other similar cases.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

The case deals with the contention of Atty. Unson N/A, but Atty.
that he did not receive the notice and copy of the Unson ordered to
Domingo v. appellate court's judgment sent to him by pay treble costs
Aquino registered mail, but the estate's attorneys in the
intestate proceedings pending in the lower court
were verbally informed by respondent's counsel of

the judgment rendered on appeal by the appellate
court. In addition, it dealt with who the counsel for
petitioners really was because confusion had
arisen from the changing of the judicial
administratrix of the estate. The Court ruled that
Atty. Unson remained the counsel on record, there
being no evidence to the contrary.
Montano hired Atty. Dealca but failed to pay the REPRIMAND
remaining 3,500 of the 15,000 peso attorney’s fees
agreed upon, which was not yet due. Because of
this, Dealca withdrew his services. The Court found
Montano v. IBP
his conduct unbecoming of a lawyer, because he
withdrew just because of Montano’s failure to pay,
which was not deliberate, and the amount of
money owed is measly.
Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer

lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is
entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the
matter, including all information necessary for the proper handling of the
matter.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Respondent, son of the spouses Figueras, assumed N/A
the administration of the joint estates of the
spouses upon their death. On the other hand,
petitioner was appointed as co-administrator
relying on the alleged Last Will and Testament of
Alegria (his aunt). The will was later discovered as
fake; hence, petitioner was convicted of estafa and
was removed as co-administrator. Obando, later,
filed a petition to nullify the sale of two parcels of
Obano v.
land executed by respondent without court
Figueras
authority. The RTC dismissed the case due to his
lack of legal standing. The Court affirmed the
decision and held that the motion to dismiss filed
by the respondents and the dismissal made by the
trial court was proper – no issue regarding the
counsel of record; the filing of the motion to
dismiss is allowed even after the lapse of the
reglementary period; and he has no legal capacity
to pursue the case.

SPECIFIC RULES OF PRACTICE
Read:
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
B.M. 1755
Rule 139-B
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Sps. Santuyo claims that their Deed of Sale was If he is
notarized by Atty. Hidalgo. However, the latter commissioned,
denies such claim but does not refute the he is
possibility that one of the secretaries of his former SUSPENDED for
law office, without his knowledge, was responsible TWO (2) YEARS
for the said notarization. The Court found him from the
Spouses Santuyo guilty of negligence in his performance of duties of commission of a
v. Hidalgo notary public. notary public. If
he is not, he is
DISQUALIFIED
for TWO (2)
YEARS from an
appointment as
notary public.
Ariola knowingly notarized a spurious SPA  DISBARMENT
Sicat v. Ariola party requesting its execution was already dead.
There were also allegations of forum shopping.
Atty. Rubia notarized a document and antedated it SUSPENSION for
to exculpate a client from an offense. She got found 1 month
out because of the conflicting document numbers
Mondejar v. and her Professional Tax Numbers. Her claim that
Rubia she could subsequently make changes in a
document while retaining the original date when it
was actually executed also goes against one of the
Rules in Notarial Practice.
Manuel Lee challenged the “spurious will” SUSPENSION for
notarized by Atty. Tambago allegedly subscribed 1 year +
by his father, Vicente Lee Sr., and allegedly PERPETUAL
witnessed by a Cayetano Noynay and Loreto Grajo. DISQUALIFICATI
Complainant pointed out that the testator’s ON AS NOTARY
signature affixed in the will was different from that PUBLIC
Lee v. Tambago
of another document with the testator’s specimen
signature, that the residence certificate of the
testator was old and therefore, could not be used
for the will, that the addresses of the witnesses
were missing and that there was no copy of the said
will in the NCAA files.

CASE FACTS PENALTY
Atty. Gutierrez borrowed money from Yuchico on N/A
various instances. However, he kept defaulting in
Yuchico v.
his payment of loan. IBP-CBD recommended that
Gutierrez
he be disbarred. However, SC said that there is no
‘multiple’ disbarment in our jurisdiction.
Maniago filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. N/A
De Dios for allegedly appearing as counsel of a
certain Miyata when De Dios has been suspended
Maniago v. De by the court for a previous complaint against her.
Dios The SC clarified the matter that it deemed De Dios
to have finished her 6-month suspension but still
referred the matter to the Office of the Bar
Confidant for further clarification.
Guidelines in the lifting of a suspension order of a lawyer from practice of law:
1. After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law,
the Court shall render a decision imposing the penalty;
2. Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory upon
receipt thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to file a motion for
reconsideration thereof. The denial of said motion shall render the decision final and
executory;
3. Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn
Statement with the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein that
he or she has desisted from the practice of law and has not appeared in any court
during the period of his or her suspension;
4. Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the IBP and
to the Executive Judge of the courts where respondent has pending cases handled by
him or her, and/or where he or she has appeared as counsel;
5. The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondent’s compliance with
the order of suspension;
6. Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under oath shall
be a ground for the imposition of a more severe punishment, or disbarment, as may
be warranted.
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Edmundo L. Maccarubo was disbarred for having N/A
contracted bigamous marriage. In the case, he filed
a petition for extraordinary mercy to be reinstated
Macarrubo v.
as a member of the Philippine Bar. The Supreme
Macarrubo
Court granted the petition since the petitioner was
able to satisfy the guidelines in requesting for
judicial clemency.

PART II
NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT OF THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY
A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, Effective June 1, 2004
CANON 1
INDEPENDENCE
CASE FACTS PENALTY

The respondent judge directed the issuance of a FINE of P 20 000
warrant of arrest against the accused, fixing at the + STERN
same time the bail for accused Calo, Jr. and Allocod. WARNING
Said judge had connections with the accused and
directed the raffling of the case without prior
Libarios v.
hearing, which should have been done prior to the
Dabalos
bail, and given the association between the
respondent judge and the accused, he should have
refrained from fixing the bail of said accused and
from concluding that the evidence against him was
merely "circumstantial".
Lucila Tan was the complainant in two criminal SUSPENSION for
cases, pending before the sala of Judge Maxwel 4 months
Rosete. Before the cases were decided, respondent WITHOUT
judge sent a member of his staff to talk to SALARY AND
complainant. They met at Sangkalan Restaurant in OTHER
QC. The staff member told her that respondent was BENEFITS
Tan v. Rosete
asking for P150,000 in exchange for the non-
dismissal of the cases. She was shown copies of
respondent judge’s Decisions in the cases, both still
unsigned, dismissing the complaints. Complainant
did not accede to respondent’s demand so the
cases were dismissed by Judge Rosete.
Judge Corpuz-Macandog of RTC Caloocan City DISMISSAL from
stands charged in 6 separate complaints of various service with
misconduct in the performance of her official FORFEITURE of
Ramirez v.
duties. In one of the charges against her, she all retirement
Corpus-
admitted having decided a case after being benefits and pay
Macandog
pressured by a government official. and with
PREJUDICE to
reinstatement

CANON 2
INTEGRITY
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Mrs. Marcos wrote to the Chief Justice regarding DISMISSAL from
the alleged misconduct of her husband, Judge service
Marcos who allegedly had a mistress and did not
provide enough support for his family. Although a
letter for withdrawal was later submitted and OCA
In re Complaint
recommended dismissal of the complaint, the Chief
of Marcos
Justice found out that Judge Marcos indeed had a
against J. Marcos
mistress (Mae Tacaldo) at a Fun Run, and ordered
reinvestigation. The evidence proved that Judge
Marcos had indeed been living with his mistress for
quite some time and had also not been providing
adequate support for his true family.
Judge Bersamira delayed the disposition of 3 FINE of P 10 000
criminal cases against the accused Agana, son of + REPRIMAND +
Dela Cruz v.
the congresswoman of Bohol. He was also seen STERN
Bersamira
exhibiting partiality by socializing with Agana, his WARNING
mother, and his counsel.
There were allegations of bribery in a case where 1. Associate
the CA was asked to decide whether the SEC had Justice Roxas:
jurisdiction over the board elections of Meralco, DISMISSAL
which GSIS alleged were rigged to deny GSIS of from the
winning majority control. Justices Roxas and Reyes service, with
was allegedly compromised by Meralco. Justice FORFEITURE
Sabio was approached by both Meralco and the of all benefits,
government to decide in their favor. except
accrued leave
credits if any,
with
Re Letter of Pres.
prejudice to
J. Vasquez, Jr.
his re-
employment
in any branch
or service of
the
government
including
government-
owned and
controlled
corporations

2. Associate
Justice Sabio,
Jr:
SUSPENSION
for two (2)
months
without pay
+ STERN
WARNING
3. Presiding
Justice
Vasquez, Jr:
SEVERE
REPRIMAND
+ STERN
WARNING
4. Associate
Justice Reyes:
REPRIMAND
+ STERN
WARNING
5. Associate
Justice
Dimaranan-
Vidal:
ADMONISHM
ENT
Louis Biraogo was able to take hold of the INDEFINITE

unpromulgated ponencia of Justice Reyes in the SUSPENSION
case of Limkaichong. Limkaichang is a member of from the Bar +
the House of Representatives whose membership FINE of P500
was being questioned by Biraogo. While the case 000 to be
In re Undated was still pending, without having any promulgated charged against
Letter of Biraogo decision yet, Biraogo had a press conference to retirement
publicize his acquisition of the ponencia of Justice benefits
Reyes insinuating that the Court, unlawfully and
with proper motives withheld the promulgation of
the ponencia. The SC found that the leak was
caused by the Office of Justice Reyes

CANON 3
IMPARTIALITY
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Henry Lagarto y Petilla and Ernesto Cordero y N/A
Maristela were found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Rape with Homicide and
People v.
sentenced with the penalty of reclusion perpetua
Veneracion
because of his religious convictions/for religious
reasons despite the law clearly imposing the
penalty of Death for such crime.
CANON 4
PROPRIETY
CASE FACTS PENALTY

There was a feud between the Marces and Caas REPRIMAND +
families. Judge Arcangel, a friend of the Caas family, WARNING
attempted to intervene in various points of the
Marcos, Sr. v.
dispute, i.e. by requesting warrants and by causing
Arcangel
the arrests of members of the Marces family, as
well as by attending mediation conferences and by
attempting to influence the proceedings.
CANON 5
EQUALITY
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Judge Pacuribot subjected the complainants, bothDISMISSAL from
his subordinates, to his unwelcome sexual service +
advances and acts of lasciviousness. Over long Ordered to cease
periods of time, he persistently solicited sexual
and desist from
favors from them. When they refused, he made rendering any
their working conditions unbearable. There was order or decision
Tan v. Pacuribot also an allegation that his rape of another woman
or from
had borne a child. continuing any
proceedings +
Required to
show cause why
he should not be
disbarred
Judge Rufino had administrative complaint filed FINE of P 5000
Guanzon v.
against him by petitioners for use of foul, or
Rufon
obscene and discriminatory language,

discrimination against women lawyers and
litigants and unethical conduct. The judge told the
client, “Next time you see your husband, open your
arms and legs”.
CANON 6
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
CASE FACTS PENALTY

Respondent judge was reprimanded after the REPRIMAND
undue delay in deciding a case filed before him.
Although he signed the decision well within the 30-
day period prescribed by law, he should file the
Castro v. Malazo
same to the Clerk of Court. He deliberately failed to
do such because he wanted the other related case
to be simultaneously released with the first case
mentioned.
Florentino Floro was appointed a judge despite RELIEVED from
two SC Clinic reports calling him mentally and his duties and
psychologically unfit for the position. After eight SEPARATED
months in his position, charges were levied by the from the service
OCA, alleging infractions which betray his due to his
supposed mental unfitness. mentally
OCA v. J. Floro
disabling
condition. Floro
FINED PhP
40,000 for seven
of the charges
against him

Leg Prof Notes

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Leg Prof Notes

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

LAW 120 THE LEGAL PROFESSION

A. Supervision and Control

1 | Block E (DJ JD)

 Bar integration is constitutional.

2 | Block E (DJ JD)

CASE FACTS DOCTRINE

Section 1, Rule 138 of ROC. Who may practice law.

3 | Block E (DJ JD)

Three principal types of professional activity:

The following cannot practice law in the Philippines:

4 | Block E (DJ JD)

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW

For ALL applicants (Sec. 2, Rule 138 of ROC) –

5 | Block E (DJ JD)

Prescribed courses to be completed in a law school or university:

For Lawyers who are US citizens (Sec. 3, Rule 138 of ROC) –

For Applicants from other Jurisdictions (Sec. 4, Rule 138 of ROC) –

Section 6, Rule 138 of ROC. Pre-Law.

6 | Block E (DJ JD)

No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has satisfactorily

ART. XII, SEC 14.

7 | Block E (DJ JD)

Filing of Proof of Qualifications –

Notice of Applications for Admission –

8 | Block E (DJ JD)

 No candidate shall endeavor to influence any member of the committee.

Passing average (an examinne must obtain):

During examination, examinees cannot:

9 | Block E (DJ JD)

CASE FACTS DOCTRINE

10 | Block E (DJ JD)

D. Good Moral Character as a Prerequisite to Bar Admission

 The requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to

CASE FACTS DOCTRINE

11 | Block E (DJ JD)

 A law student may appear without compensation in any civil, criminal or

Conditions for Student Practice –

 A law student is prohibited from appearing as counsel without the supervision of an

CASE FACTS DOCTRINE

F. Non-Lawyers Authorized to Appear in Courts/Quasi-Judicial Agencies

Section 33. Standing in court of person authorized to appear for Government.

12 | Block E (DJ JD)

Act. 2259 (Cadastral Act), Section 9.

Art. 222. Appearances and Fees.

13 | Block E (DJ JD)

DARAB, Rule VIII, SECTION 1. Appearance.

Non-lawyers authorized to appear:

14 | Block E (DJ JD)

I, ______________, of ______(place of birth)_______, do solemnly swear that I will maintain

15 | Block E (DJ JD)

Two related powers of the Supreme Court in disbarment cases:

16 | Block E (DJ JD)

17 | Block E (DJ JD)

 The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound

 In disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar, only clear preponderance of

18 | Block E (DJ JD)

 An absolute pardon, compared to a conditional one, operates to wipe out the

CASE FACTS PENALTY

19 | Block E (DJ JD)

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

 It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of

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

Grossly immoral – so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as

20 | Block E (DJ JD)

I, ______, of (place of birth)_, do solemnly swear that I will maintain