1.
what is legal ethics
-It is a branch of moral science which treats of
the duties which an attorney owes to the court,
to his client, to his colleagues in the profession
and to the public as embodied in the
Constitution, Rules of Court, the Code of
Professional Responsibilities, Canons of
Professional Ethics, jurisprudence, moral laws
and special laws.
2. Sources of ethical standards
Primary
a. Bar
i. Canons of Professional Ethics
ii. Code of Professional Responsibility
Secondary
a. Decisions/resolution of the Supreme Court
b. Supreme Court Circulars
c. Order/resolution of other courts
d. IBP Issuances
3. practice of law
-Any activity, in and out of the court, which
requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. To engage
in the practice of law is to perform those acts
which are characteristics of the profession.
(Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210)
Regarding the skills to apply by the corporate
counsel, three factors are apropos:
First System Dynamics. The field of systems
dynamics has been found an effective tool for
new managerial thinking regarding both
planning and pressing immediate problems. An
understanding of the role of feedback loops,
inventory levels, and rates of flow, enable users
to simulate all sorts of systematic problems —
physical, economic, managerial, social, and
psychological. New programming techniques
now make the system dynamics principles more
accessible to managers — including corporate
counsels. (Emphasis supplied)
Second Decision Analysis. This enables users to
make better decisions involving complexity and
uncertainty. In the context of a law department,
it can be used to appraise the settlement value
of litigation, aid in negotiation settlement, and
minimize the cost and risk involved in managing
a portfolio of cases. (Emphasis supplied)
Third Modeling for Negotiation Management.
Computer-based models can be used directly by
parties and mediators in all lands of
negotiations. All integrated set of such tools
provide coherent and effective negotiation
support, including hands-on on instruction in
these techniques. A simulation case of an
international joint venture may be used to
illustrate the point.
*Atty. Monsod's past work experiences as a
lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-
entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of
contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the
rich and the poor — verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement — that he has been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.
4. bar and bench
Bar-Refers to the whole body of attorneys and
body of judges.
Bench-denotes the whole body of counselors,
collectively the members of the legal profession.
5. Amicus Curiae
-The court will invite a lawyer to help shed light
in the case – he is an expert on the field- friend
of court
6. atty.-at-law- that class of persons who are
licensed officers of the courts, empowered to
appear prosecute and defend and upon whom
peculiar duties, responsibilities, and liabilities
are developed by law as a consequence
atty.-in-fact- an agent whose authority is
strictly limited by the instrument appointing
him, though he may do things not mentioned in
his appointment necessary to the performance
of the duties specifically required of him by the
power of attorney appointing him, such
authority being necessarily implied. He is not
necessarily a lawyer.
7. pro se
- is a Latin phrase meaning "for oneself" or "on
one's own behalf". This status is sometimes
known as propria persona (abbreviated to
"pro per"). In England and Wales the
comparable status is that of "litigant in person".
8. counsel de officio- A counsel/attorney de
officio is an attorney appointed by the court to
defend an indigent defendant in a criminal
action.
Counsel de parte- Private counsel of a party,
secured by him, without intervention from the
government.
9. law is a profession not a business
- The practice of law is a profession and not a
business as it is an essential part in the
administration of justice, a profession in pursuit
of which pecuniary reward is considered merely
incidental; it is a pursuit of learned art in the
interest of public service. its basic ideal is to
render public service and secure justice for
those who seek its aid. The gaining of a
livelihood is only a secondary consideration.
10.what constitute practice of law
11.practice under detention
Regarding his continued practice of law, as a
detention prisoner private respondent Javellana
is not allowed to practice his profession as a
necessary consequence of his status as a
detention prisoner. The trial courts order was
clear that private respondent "is not to be
allowed liberty to roam around but is to be held
as a detention prisoner."
As a matter of law, when a person indicted for
an offense is arrested, he is deemed placed
under the custody of the law. He is placed in
actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he may
be bound to answer for the commission of the
offense.[3] He must be detained in jail during
the pendency of the case against him, unless he
is authorized by the court to be released on bail
or on recognizance.[4] Let it be stressed that all
prisoners whether under preventive detention
or serving final sentence can not practice their
profession nor engage in any business or
occupation, or hold office, elective or
appointive, while in detention. This is a
necessary consequence of arrest and detention.
Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda
Avelino T. Javellana
Atty. Deogracias del Rosario
12. private practice- the word private practice of
law implies that one must have presented
himself to be in the active and continued
practice of the legal profession and that his
professional services are available to the public
for a compensation, as a source of his livelihood
or in consideration of his said services.(oca vs
ladaga)
The term, as commonly understood, means "an
individual or organization engaged in the
business of delivering legal services." (Ibid.).
Lawyers who practice alone are often called
"sole practitioners." Groups of lawyers are
called "firms." The firm is usually a partnership
and members of the firm are the partners.
Some firms may be organized as professional
corporations and the members called
shareholders. In either case, the members of
the firm are the experienced attorneys. In most
firms, there are younger or more inexperienced
salaried attorneyscalled "associates."(cayetano
vs monsod)
13.admission to bar
Facts: Atty. Almacen was the counsel of one
Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. They lost in
said civil case but Almacen filed a Motion for
Reconsideration. He notified the opposing party
of said motion but he failed to indicate the time
and place of hearing of said motion. Hence, his
motion was denied. He then appealed but the
Court of Appeals denied his appeal as it agreed
with the trial court with regard to the motion
for reconsideration. Eventually, Almacen filed an
appeal on certiorari before the Supreme Court
which outrightly denied his appeal in a minute
resolution.
This earned the ire of Almacen who called such
minute resolutions as unconstitutional. He then
filed before the Supreme Court a petition to
surrender his lawyer’s certificate of title as he
claimed that it is useless to continue practicing
his profession when members of the high court
are men who are calloused to pleas for justice,
who ignore without reasons their own
applicable decisions and commit culpable
violations of the Constitution with impunity. He
further alleged that due to the minute
resolution, his client was made to pay P120k
without knowing the reasons why and that he
became “one of the sacrificial victims before the
altar of hypocrisy.” He also stated “that justice
as administered by the present members of the
Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf
and dumb.”
The Supreme Court did not immediately act on
Almacen’s petition as the Court wanted to wait
for Almacen to ctually surrender his certificate.
Almacen did not surrender his lawyer’s
certificate though as he now argues that he
chose not to. Almacen then asked that he may
be permitted “to give reasons and cause why no
disciplinary action should be taken against
him . . . in an open and public hearing.” He said
he preferred this considering that the Supreme
Court is “the complainant, prosecutor and
Judge.” Almacen was however unapologetic.
ISSUE: Whether or not Almacen should be
disciplined.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court first clarified that
minute resolutions are needed because the
Supreme Court cannot accept every case or
write full opinion for every petition they reject
otherwise the High Court would be unable to
effectively carry out its constitutional duties.
The proper role of the Supreme Court is to
decide “only those cases which present
questions whose resolutions will have
immediate importance beyond the particular
facts and parties involved.” It should be
remembered that a petition to review the
decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter
of right, but of sound judicial discretion; and so
there is no need to fully explain the court’s
denial. For one thing, the facts and the law are
already mentioned in the Court of Appeals’
opinion.
On Almacen’s attack against the Supreme Court,
the High Court regarded said criticisms as
uncalled for; that such is insolent,
contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and
derogatory. It is true that a lawyer, both as an
officer of the court and as a citizen, has the right
to criticize in properly respectful terms and
through legitimate channels the acts of courts
and judges. His right as a citizen to criticize the
decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful
manner, and the independence of the bar, as
well as of the judiciary, has always been
encouraged by the courts. 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. Intemperate and unfair
criticism is a gross violation of the duty of
respect to courts.
In the case at bar, Almacen’s criticism is
misplaced. As a veteran lawyer, he should have
known that a motion for reconsideration which
failed to notify the opposing party of the time
and place of trial is a mere scrap of paper and
will not be entertained by the court. He has only
himself to blame and he is the reason why his
client lost. Almacen was suspended indefinitely.
In Re: Lanuevo 66 SCRA 254 August 29, 1975
FACTS: This is an administrative proceeding
against Victorio Lanueva who was the Bar
Confidant during the 1971 Bar Examination
emanating from the revelation of one Oscar
Landicho, a bar examinee of the same bar exam,
in his confidential letter that the result of the
bar exam of one of the bar examinee later
identified as Ramon Galang was raised before
the result was released to make him pass the
bar. Acting upon said letter, the court called the
5 bar examiners and the Bar Confident Lanuevo
to submit their sworn statements on the matter.
It appears that each of the 5 bar examiners
were approached by Lanuevo with the
examination booklet asking them to re-evaluate
the grades of the bar examiner explaining that it
is a practice policy in bar exams that he will
review the grades obtained in all subjects by an
examinee and when he finds a candidate to
have extraordinary high grades in other subjects
and low grade in one subject he can bring it to
the examiner for reconsideration to help the
candidate pass. In good faith of trust and
confidence to the authority of Lanuevo, the
examiners re-evaluated the exam of the
candidate and reconsider the grade they give
for each subject matter. Further investigation
also revealed that Ramon Galang was charged
with crime of slight physical injuries in the Mla.
MTC but did not revealed the information in his
application to take the bar examination.
ISSUE: WON Lanuevo has the authority to ask
bar examiners to re-evaluate and re-correct the
examination result of a bar candidate.
RULING: The court ruled that it is evident that
Lanuevo has deceptively staged a plot to
convince each examiner individually to re-
evaluate the grades of Galang in order to help
him pass the bar without prior authorization of
the Court. His duty as a Bar Confident is limited
only as a custodian of the examination
notebooks after they are corrected by the
examiners where he is tasked to tally the
general average of the bar candidate. All
requests for re-evaluation of grades from the
bar exam shall be made by the candidate
themselves. With the facts fully established that
Lanuevo initiated the re-evaluation of the exam
answers of Galang without the authority of the
Court, he has breached the trust and confidence
given to him by the court and was disbarred
with his name stricken out from the rolls of
attorneys. Galang was likewise disbarred for
fraudulently concealing the criminal charges
against him in his application for the bar exam
while under oath constituting perjury. The court
believed that the 5 bar examiners acted in good
faith and thereby absolved from the case but
reminded to perform their duties with due care.
14. can the legislature enact laws to regulate
the practice of law
-No, the admission, suspension, disbarment and
reinstatement of attorney at law in the practice
of the profession and the supervision have been
indisputably a judicial function and
responsibility and remains vested with the
Supreme Court. The Constitution has not
conferred on Congress equal responsibility
which the Constitution recognizes as to be
continuously residing in the Supreme Court.
15. Initial requirements for admission to the
bar
1. Citizenship – must be Filipino citizen
2. Age- at least 21
3. Resident of the Philippines
4. Educational qualifications – secondary
educ. Completed
5. Bachelor’s degree (UNITS IN ENGLISH=
18)
6. Philsat exams passing 45
7. Bachelor of Laws
8. Moral uprightness – no pending case
involving moral turpitude.
9. Bar exam –passed
10. Oath / Signing of Attorney’s roll
16. Philippine Shari’a Bar
ACTS:
MELENDREZ filed with the Office of the Bar
Confidant (OBC) a Petition to disqualify Haron S.
Meling (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar
Examinations and to impose on him the
appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of
the Philippine Shari’a Bar.
-Alleges that Meling did not disclose in his
Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that
he has three (3) pending criminal cases both for
Grave Oral Defamation and for Less Serious
Physical Injuries.
i. Meling allegedly uttered defamatory
words against Melendrez and his wife in front of
media practitioners and other people.
ii. Meling also purportedly attacked and
hit the face of Melendrez’ wife causing the
injuries to the latter.
iii.Alleges that Meling has been using
the title “Attorney” in his communications, as
Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite “attorney” may render a person liable for
the fact that he is not a member of the Bar. indirect contempt of court.
*MELING explains PRACTICE OF LAW IS A HIGH PERSONAL
i. that he did not disclose the criminal PRIVILEGE.
cases because retired Judge Corocoy Moson, Limited to citizens of good moral character, with
their former professor, advised him to settle special educational qualifications, duly
misunderstanding. Believing in good faith that ascertained and certified.
the case would be settled because the said Requirement of good moral character is, in fact,
Judge has moral ascendancy over them, of greater importance so far as the general
considered the three cases that arose from a public and the proper administration of justice
single incident as “closed and terminated.” are concerned, than the possession of legal
ii. Denies the charges and added that learning.
the acts do not involve moral turpitude. Application form of 2002 Bar Examinations
Use of the title “Attorney,” Meling admits that requires the applicant that applicant to aver
some of his communications really contained that he or she “has not been charged with any
the word “Attorney” as they were typed by the act or omission punishable by law, rule or
office clerk. regulation before a fiscal, judge, officer or
administrative body, or indicted for, or accused
Office of Bar Confidant disposed of the charge or convicted by any court or tribunal of, any
of non-disclosure against Meling: offense or crime involving moral turpitude; nor
Meling should have known that only the court is there any pending case or charge against
of competent jurisdiction can dismiss cases, not him/her.”
a retired judge nor a law professor. In fact, the Meling did not reveal that he has three pending
cases filed against Meling are still pending. criminal cases. His deliberate silence constitutes
Even if these cases were already dismissed, he is concealment, done under oath at that.
still required to disclose the same for the Court
to ascertain his good moral character. 17. who may be called an “atty.”
ISSUE:
WON Meling’s act of concealing cases
constitutes dishonesty. YES.
HELD:
PETITION IS GRANTED. MEMBERSHIP IS
SUSPENDED until further orders from the Court,
the suspension to take effect immediately.
Insofar as the Petition seeks to prevent Haron S.
Meling from taking the Lawyer’s Oath and
signing the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the
Philippine Bar, the same is DISMISSED for having
become moot and academic (Meling did not
pass the bar).
Rule 7.01: “A lawyer shall be answerable for
knowingly making a false statement or
suppressing a material fact in connection with
his application for admission to the bar.”
He is aware that he is not a member of the Bar,
there was no valid reason why he signed as
“attorney” whoever may have typed the letters.
i. Unauthorized use of the appellation