Reviewer

in Legal and Judicial Ethics

Updated as of December 13, 2021
Prof. Victoria V. Loanzon


PART ONE – LEGAL ETHICS
I –The Attorney’s Oath

Q. Write the Attorney’s Oath

A. “I, ________________ do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein;
I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;
I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, neither give aid nor
consent to the same;
I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my
knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and
I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help
me God.” (Rules of Court, Form 28)
Q. What are the primary duties imposed by the Lawyer's Oath upon every member of the Bar? [2006]
A: The duties of the lawyer under his oath are:
a. Maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, support its Constitution and obey the laws as
well as legal orders of duly constituted authorities;
b. Do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court;
c. Not to wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit or give aid nor consent
to the same;
d. Delay no man for money or malice; and
e. To conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity
as well to the court as to his clients (Rule .138, Sec. 3 Rules of Court).”

Q. What is the four-fold duty of a lawyer?
A. The four-fold duty of a lawyer involves his duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and clients.

Q. What is the practice of law?
A. The practice of law is the act of performing “any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application
of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.” (Paguia v. Office of the President, 621 SCRA
600)

Q. What is the privilege of the practice of law?
A. The practice of law is a mere privilege and not a right. The admission of lawyers and the rules governing
the practice of law is a constitutional mandate given to the Supreme Court. (Section 5 (5), Article VIII,
Constitution)
The elements of the legal profession are: organization, learning, and the spirit of public service.
Cayetano v. Monsod (G. R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991, 201 SCRA 210): The practice of law is not
limited to appearances in court as a litigator but also the work of a corporate lawyer in preparation of
documents and the giving of legal advice.
Paguia v. Office of the President (621 SCRA 600): A lawyer suspended from the practice of law is precluded
from applying his knowledge of law in and out of court while undergoing his suspension. A suspended lawyer
cannot even appear on behalf of a relative as a “friend” because he would inevitably apply his knowledge of
the law.

Q. What is included in the practice of law?
A. The practice of law includes: the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special
proceedings; conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds; and the giving of all legal advice
to clients.

Q. A group of businessmen decided to incorporate a stock corporation with the primary objective of
giving legal guidance to their clients who regularly invest in publicly listed companies. They intend to
hire at least 25 lawyers who will perform the work. Can the practice of law be exercised through a stock
corporation?
A. No, the practice of law cannot be exercised through a stock corporation. The registration of a stock
company which will engage in the practice of law cannot be countenanced. The practice of law is not a
business and lawyers cannot form stock corporations to practice the profession. It is likewise prohibited for
lawyers to allow non-lawyers to practice law nor are lawyers allowed to share their legal fees with non-
lawyers. (Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc., Bar Matter No. 550, June 17, 1993)

1|Page
Q. How may one pursue the practice of law?
A. The practice of law as a profession may only be exercised by natural persons, who are lawyers, either as
solo practitioners or in partnership with other lawyers.

Q. What are the primary characteristics which distinguish the legal profession from business?
A. The primary characteristics which distinguish the legal profession from business are:
1. The practice of law involves a duty of public service of which the emolument is a by-product and one may
obtain eminence without making much money.
2. The practice of law creates a relation as an officer of the court whose primary role is to assist in the
administration of justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability.
3. The practice of law creates a relation with clients with the highest fiduciary degree.
4. The practice of law creates a relation with other lawyers which requires candor, fairness and decency
avoiding any kind of encroachment upon other’s practice.

Q. What is the nature of a law partnership?
A. A partnership in the practice of law is a mere relationship or association of lawyers with the sole purpose
of rendering legal services. It is not a legal entity and is not even a taxpayer and any lawyer in the partnership
is considered a solo practitioner who is the tax payer. (Tan v. Del Rosario, Jr., 237 SCRA324)

Q. What is the rule of use of Firm Name?
A. A law firm may continue to use the names of its deceased partners provided that there is a symbol
employed to indicate that the partner is already dead. Normally a crucifix is used after the name of a deceased
partner.
In the Petition For Authority To Continue Use Of The Firm Name "Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, HERNANDEZ &
CASTILLO" AND IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF THE FIRM
NAME "OZAETA, ROMULO, DE LEON, MABANTA & REYES." [G.R. NO. X92-1. JULY 30, 1979], the Court held
that: “It is of the essence of a profession that it is practiced in a spirit of public service.’ A ‘trade x x x aims
primarily at personal gain; a profession at the exercise of powers beneficial to mankind.’ x x x. But the
member of a profession does not regard himself as in competition with his professional brethren. He is not
bartering his services as is the artisan nor exchanging the products of his skill and learning as the farmer sells
wheat or corn. x x x The best service of the professional man is often rendered for no equivalent or for a
trifling equivalent and it is his pride to do what he does in a way worthy of his profession even if done with no
expectation of reward. This spirit of public service in which the profession of law is and ought to be exercised
is a prerequisite of sound administration of justice according to law. The other two elements of a profession,
namely, organization and pursuit of a learned art have their justification in that they secure and maintain that
spirit.”
In ADRIANO E. DACANAY v. BAKER & MCKENZIE (A.C. NO. 2131 MAY 10, 1985), the S.C. held that Baker &
McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court). As
pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a
representation that being associated with the firm they could "render legal services of the highest quality to
multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment"

Q. A disbarment case was filed against Atty. Balauitan. The basis of the complaint was a Deed of Sale
executed between the lawyer and the complainant. Atty. Balauitan moved for the dismissal of the case
arguing that the matter does not involve any lawyer-client relationship. Is his legal argument tenable?
A. The argument of Atty. Balauitan is not tenable. A lawyer cannot have a dichotomy between his private life
and his professional responsibility as a lawyer. He can be disbarred even if there is no lawyer-client
relationship between him and a complainant in a disbarment case. If the transaction involves the sale of a
portion of his real property where there is no lawyer-client relationship, he can still be liable for failure to
perform his obligation under the contract. (Gacias v. Balauitan, 507 SCRA 8, 2006)

Q. Can an individual practicing before the Shai’ra court affix the prefix “Atty.” before his name?
A. No, an individual practicing before the Shai’ra court cannot affix the prefix “ATTY.” before his name unless
he is a lawyer. While the Supreme Court administers the examinations for one to practice before the Shari’ a
court, anyone admitted is not allowed to use the prefix “Atty.” unless he is also a member of the Philippine
bar. Shari’ a courts have limited jurisdiction particularly on matters related to personal, family and property
law consistent with the provisions of the Constitution and national laws. (Alawi v. Alauya, A.M. SDC-97-2-P,
February 24, 1997)

II. Qualifications for Admission to the Practice of Law
Q. What is the object of the bar examinations? Explain. [2009]
Answer: The primary object of the bar examinations is to ensure that the person seeking admission to the
bar has proficiency in substantive and procedural law; and possesses ethical standards as may be deemed
necessary for the due performance of the duties of a lawyer.

2|Page
Q. What are the requirements for admission to the practice of law?
A. Sec. 2, Rule138 of the Rules of Court provides for the following qualifications for admission to the practice
of law: One must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least 21 years of age, must be a resident of the Philippines,
must have obtained his law degree in a local school (refer to B.M.1153), and one must possess good moral
character.
Proof of good moral character requires a certification of a lawyer in good standing who personally knows the
bar candidate that the latter is fit to be admitted to the practice of law. It also includes a certification that one
does not have any pending charges or have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
If the bar candidate has a pending administrative and/or criminal case, he must attach a certification of the
status of each pending case.

Q. Mr. Roberto Lo was born in Australia of Filipino parents. After he completed his college degree in
Business Administration in Sydney, Australia, he enrolled in one of the universities in Metro Manila to
obtain his law degree. He successfully graduated with a Doctor in Jurisprudence degree and is now
processing his documents to be able to take his bar examinations. Can he qualify to take the bar
examinations? Justify your answer.
A. Yes, Mr. Roberto law can qualify to take the bar examinations. Under the 1987 Constitution, Roberto Lo is
considered a natural-born Filipino since both his parents remained Filipino citizens at the time of his birth.
He also completed his law degree from a local school in Metro Manila.

Q. Can a Filipino citizen be allowed to take the bar when he obtained his law degree from Columbia
University in New York?
A. Every person intending to be admitted to the practice of law in the Philippines must meet all the
qualifications under Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138. (In Re: Application of Adriano M. Hernandez, July 27,
1993)
In Bar Matter No. 1153 (Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Proposing Reforms in the Bar Examinations
through Amendments to Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, March 9, 2010), the Supreme Court once again
allowed Filipino graduates of foreign law schools to take the Philippine Bar, subject to certain conditions, and
amended Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Section 5 of the Rule now provides that before being admitted to the examination, all applicants for admission
to the bar shall satisfactorily show that they have successfully completed all the prescribed courses for the
degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree in a law school or university officially recognized by the
Philippine Government or by the proper authority in the foreign jurisdiction where the degree has been
granted.

Q. Christian San Juan passed the bar with a passing grade of 80.50%. He was not allowed to take his
oath because Cristina Garcia, his childhood sweetheart with whom he has a child without benefit of
marriage, filed a timely motion to exclude him from the oath taking ceremonies. Was Cristina justified
in preventing San Juan from taking his Attorney’s Oath? Why?
A. Yes, Cristina was justified in enjoining San Juan to take his Oath as a lawyer because he does not possess
good moral character which is a requirement for admission to the bar.
Barba v. Pedro, 61SCRA 484, 1974: A bar passer who sired a child with a public school teacher was not
allowed to take his oath for lack of good moral character but was allowed to do so after 18 years based on
testimonials of his reformation when he worked as a community social development worker after passing the
bar.

Q. Santiago Go was conditionally allowed to take the bar examinations because he indicated in his
application for admission that there are only two pending civil cases against him at that time and no
criminal charges were filed against him at the time of his application for admission to the practice of
law. Santiago Go successfully passed the bar examinations and landed 5th in said examinations. Before
taking his oath, Leticia Sia asked the Supreme Court not to allow Go to take his oath because she actually
filed a rape case against him which case remains pending but which information Go withheld in his
application. Will her request be given due course?
A. Yes, the Supreme Court can withhold the oath-taking of Santiago Go. If it can be established that the bar
passer does not possess good moral character, he will not be allowed to take his oath.
Zaguirre v. Castillo, A.C. No. 4921, March 6, 2003: Good moral character is required for admission to law
and misrepresentation about his true legal status will be a ground for a bar passer to be suspended
indefinitely upon passing the bar.

Q. Is possession of good moral character required only for admission to the practice of law?
A. Maintenance of good moral character is required to retain continued membership in the bar.
NEW JURISPRUDENCE
1. Catherine Villarente v. Atty. Benigno Villarente, Jr., A.C. No. 8866 (Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3385),
September 15, 2020
- DISBARRED
3|Page
It is expected that every lawyer, being an officer of the Court, must not only be in fact of good moral character,
but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral
standards of the community. Specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the Court is required not only to
refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping mistresses, but also to conduct himself in such a way as to
avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards.
Acts constituting immoral conduct –
(1) On September 23, 2013, under A.C. No. 10017, the Court suspended respondent lawyer for one year
with a stern warning that should evidence surface again that his alleged conduct be proven grossly
immoral, the matter will be dealt with more severely.
(2) Despite his suspension, retired Judge Villarente continued to live with his mistress and had another
child with her.
2. Ceniza v. Ceniza, A.C. No. 8335, April 10, 2019
- DISBARRED
- GUILTY of gross immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The abandonment by an attorney of his legitimate family to cohabit with a married woman constitutes gross
immorality that wan-ants his disbarment.
Acts constituting immoral conduct –
(1) Respondent had prior suspension of six months imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman as it is
morally reprehensible for a married man or woman to maintain intimate relations with another
person of the opposite sex other than his or her spouse.
(2) Respondent had regular and extended visits to the house of Anna Fe Binoya.
(3) Respondent frequently stayed overnight at the house of Anna Fe Binoya.

4. AAA v. Atty. Antonio delos Reyes, A.C. No. 10021, September 18, 2018
- DISBARRED from the practice of law.
- GUILTY of gross immoral conduct and violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
Acts demonstrating moral depravity –
(1) Atty. De Los Reyes is guilty of "sextortion" which is the abuse of his position or authority to obtain sexual
favors from his subordinate.
(2) Constant threat that she get will fired or she gets demoted or she will get a deduction in her pay if she
does not consent to his sexual advances.

Mecaral v. Velasquez, A.C. No 8392, June 29, 2010: The Supreme Court disbarred a lawyer who founded a
religious cult and made his secretary a sex slave.
Cordon v. Balicanta, Adm. Case No. 2797, October 4, 2002, 390 SCRA 299, 2002: The S.C. disbarred a
lawyer who used his knowledge of the law to commit fraud against his client by forming a corporation out of
the estate of the deceased husband of the complainant. The lawyer made himself the sole signatory of said
company which allowed him to mortgage several properties of the corporation which were eventually
foreclosed by the creditor bank.
Arellano University, Inc. v. Mijares III, 605 SCRA 93, 2009: The S.C. disbarred a lawyer who admitted in his
Affidavit in the disbarment case against him that he asked for “facilitation fee” to bribe the Vice Mayor of
Manila in the course of his engagement as counsel. The S.C. referred the case to the Ombudsman against the
Vice Mayor and the lawyer for the crime of bribery. The Court held that a lawyer’s professional fee does not
include “facilitation fee.”

Q. State, with a brief explanation, whether the lawyer concerned may be sanctioned for the conduct
stated below: [2008]
“[xxx]
f. An unwed female lawyer carrying on a clandestine affair with her unwed male hairdresser.
[xxx]
A: She may not be sanctioned. In Soberano v. Villanueva (6 SCRA 891 [1962]), the Supreme Court held that
intimacy between a man and a woman who are of age and are not disqualified from marrying each other is
‘neither so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act nor so unprincipled as to warrant disbarment or
disciplinary action against the man as a member of the Bar.’
Note: This was reiterated by Justice Flerida Ruth Romero in the case of Patricia Figueroa v. Simeon Barranco
[SBC Case No. 519 July 31, 1997]. Barranco was allowed to take his oath after more than 25 years.
Q. Cliff and Greta were law school sweethearts. Cliff became a lawyer, but Greta dropped out. One day,
Cliff asked Greta to sign a marriage contract. The following day, Cliff showed Greta the document
already signed by an alleged solemnizing officer and two witnesses. Cliff then told Greta that they were
already married, and Greta consented to go on a honeymoon. Thereafter, the couple cohabited and
begot a child. Two years later, Cliff left Greta and married a Venezuelan beauty. Incensed, Greta filed a
disbarment complaint against Cliff. Will the case prosper? Explain. [2009]

4|Page
A: The disbarment case will prosper. In the case of Cabrera v. Agustin (106 Phil. 256 [1959), the Court
disbarred a lawyer who deceived a woman to believe that they were already married after they had signed
an application for a marriage license. He took advantage of her belief to satisfy his lust, until she bore him a
child. He was considered by the Supreme Court to be lacking in integrity and good moral character to remain
a member of the bar.

Q. What is the coverage of the annual bar examinations?
A. The coverage of the annual bar examinations under Sec. 9, Rule 138, Rules of Court include: Political Law,
Labor and Social Legislation, Civil Law, Taxation, Mercantile Law, Criminal Law, Remedial Law and Legal and
Judicial Ethics and Practical Exercises.

Q. What is the essence of bar examinations?
A. The essence of bar examinations is anchored on public interest. Public policy demands that any person
seeking admission to the bar in the Philippines be required to furnish satisfactory proof of his knowledge of
the law and ethical standards and of his possession of such degree of learning and proficiency in law as may
be deemed necessary for the due performance of the duties of lawyer.

Q. Candido completed his law degree in December 2021. He wanted to become a lawyer, but he realized
that it was too late for him to take the January 2022 bar examinations. Can he file a petition to the
Supreme Court to be allowed to take his special bar examinations?
A. No, Candido cannot file a petition to the Supreme Court to be allowed to take his special bar examinations.
The Supreme Court administers the bar examinations only once a year.

Q. Fernando, a Filipino citizen, completed his study of law in Spain and was allowed to practice law in
Spain. He sought permission from the Supreme Court that he be allowed to be admitted to Philippine
bar. In his petition he invoked the provisions of the Treaty on Academic Degrees and Professions
between the Philippines and Spain. How will you rule on the petition of Fernando?
A. I will deny Fernando’s petition. While Fernando has remained a Filipino citizen, he cannot invoke the
provisions of the treaty which is founded on reciprocity of the nationals of each country and the grant of the
privilege is always subject to the domestic laws of both countries. He must complete the requirements for
admission to practice and show proof of his qualifications. (In Re: Garcia, 2 SCRA 985)

Q. Define the following:
1. Attorneys-at Law: the class of persons who are by license, officers of the court, empowered to appear,
prosecute and defend, and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are developed by law as
a consequence. (Cul v. Cul, 120 Phil. 729)
2. Attorney-in-Fact: an agent whose authority is strictly limited by the instrument appointing him. His
authority is provided in a special power of attorney or a general power of attorney or letter of authority. An
attorney-in-fact is not necessarily a lawyer.
3. Counsel de oficio: a counsel, appointed or assigned by the court, from among such members of the bar in
good standing who, by reason of their experience and ability may adequately defend the accused. The person
need not be a member of the bar if no lawyer is available in a given locality. (Sec. 7, Rule 116, Rules of Court)
A counsel de oficio is appointed to defend an indigent in a criminal action (Sections 3, 4, and 5, Rule 116; Sec.
32, Rule 138); or to represent a destitute party in a case (Sec.31, Rule 138).
4. Attorney Ad Hoc: a person named and appointed by the court to defend an absentee defendant in a suit in
which the appointment is made.
5. Attorney of Record: a member of the bar appointed by a client to represent in cause of a court and upon
whom service of papers may be made.
6. Of Counsel: a member of the bar who is associated with a law office but does not normally appear as
counsel of record of cases handled by the law office.
7. Lead Counsel: a member of the bar who charged with the principal management and direction of a party-
litigant.
8. House Counsel: a member of the bar who acts as attorney for a business company as an employee of such
company and renders legal advice on matters necessary in the ordinary course of its business.
9. Amicus Curiae: a friend of the court. A person with strong interest in or views on the subject matter of the
action. One who is considered as an experience and impartial attorney to help in the disposition of issues
submitted to the Court. (Sec. 36, Rule 138)
10. Amicus Curiae par Excellence: bar associations who appear in court as amici curiae or friends of the
court. Like an individual amicus curiae, amicus curiae par excellence do not represent any party to the case but
act as consultant in a doubtful issue for resolution of the court. They do not receive any compensation for
their legal services to the court.
11. Counsel de parte: a lawyer retained by a party litigant, usually, for a fee, to prosecute or defend his cause
in court. The term implies freedom of choice either on the part of the lawyer to accept the employment or on
the part of the litigant to continue or terminate the retainer at any time.
12. Pro bono Counsel: a lawyer who renders legal services without charging any professional fees but does
not shoulder the costs of litigation on behalf of his client.
5|Page
13. Advocate: a lawyer who pleads on behalf of a third party.
14. Barrister: In England, a person entitled to practice law as an advocate or counsel in superior courts.
15. Solicitor: In England, a person prosecuting or defending suits in a Court of Chancery. A Court of Chancery
is a court which administers equity and proceeding according to the forms and principles of equity.
16. Proctor: In England, an attorney in the admiralty and ecclesiastical courts whose duties and business
correspond exactly to those of an attorney-at-law or solicitor in a Chancery.

Q. What is barratry?
A. Barratry is the offense of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels in suits. It is frowned upon as it is
against public policy.

Q. What is ambulance chasing?
A. Ambulance chasing is a practice which originated in New York, where through a lawyer or his agent, cases
are literally solicited in hospitals or in police precincts. The evils sought to be prevented by this practice are:
fomenting litigation; subornation of perjury; mulcting of innocent persons upon manufactured causes of
action; defrauding injured parties.

III. Appearance of Non-Lawyers
Law Student Practice Rule
Q. What is the student practice rule [under Rule 138-A, as amended]? [2009] - For 2022 if a similar
question is asked, it must be answered based on the new rule.
A: A salient feature of the Revised Rule is that a law student must now be certified for two levels to be able to
engage in the limited practice of law.
All activities of any certified law student under the Clinical Legal Education Program must be supervised by a
lawyer in good standing.
Student Practice Rule under Rule 138 –A as amended by A.M. No. 19-03-24-SC, June 25, 2019
Section 9. Duties of Law Schools.
(a) Develop and adopt a Clinical Legal Education Program;
(b) Develop and establish at least one law clinic in its school;
(c) Endorse qualified students for certification as law student practitioner under this Rule.
Such endorsement shall constitute as a certification that the dean or authorized representative knows that
the applicant is a student enrolled in the Clinical Legal Education Course, possesses good moral character,
and has met the requirements of Section 3 of this Rule; and
(d) Ensure compliance by law student practitioners and supervising lawyers with the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Section 10. Qualification of Supervising Lawyers. – A supervising lawyer under this Rule shall be a
member of the bar in good standing.
Section 11. Duties of Supervising Lawyers. – The following are the duties of a supervising lawyer:
(a) Supervise such number of certified law student practitioners as far as practicable.
(b) Personally appear with the law student practitioner in all cases pending before the second-level courts
and in all other cases the supervising lawyer determines that his or her presence is required.
(c) Assume personal responsibility for any work performed by the certified law student practitioner while
under his or her supervision.
(d) Assist and advise the certified law student practitioner in the activities authorized by these rules and
review such activities with the certified law student practitioner, all to the extent required for the proper
practical training of the certified law student practitioner and the protection of the client.
(e)Read, approve, and personally sign any pleadings, briefs or other similar documents prepared by the
certified law student practitioner prior to the filing thereof, and read and approve any documents which
shall be prepared by the certified law student practitioner for execution by the eligible party; and
(f) Provide the level of supervision to the certified law student practitioner required by these rules.

Section 3. Eligibility Requirements of Law Student Practitioners. –

(a) Level 1 certification, for law students who have successfully completed their first-year law courses;
and/or
(b) Level 2 certification, for law students currently enrolled for the second semester of their third-year law
courses, Provided however, where a student fails to complete all their third-year law courses, the Level 2
certification shall be deemed automatically revoked. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 4. Practice Areas of Law Student Practitioners.
For Level 1 certification
(1) Interview prospective clients.
(2) Give legal advice to the client;
(3) Negotiate for and on behalf of the client;
(4) Draft legal documents such as affidavits, compromise agreements, contracts, demand letter, position
papers, and the like;
(5) Represent eligible parties before quasi-judicial or administrative bodies;
6|Page
(6) Provide public legal orientation; and
(7) Assist in public interest advocacies for policy formulation and implementation.
Section 4. Practice Areas of Law Student Practitioners.
For Level 2 certification
(1) Perform all activities under Level 1 Certification;
(2) Assist in the taking of depositions and/or preparing judicial affidavits of witnesses;
(3) Appear on behalf of the client at any stage of the proceedings or trial, before any court, quasi-judicial or
administrative body;
(4) In criminal cases, subject to the provisions of Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, to appear on behalf
of a government agency in the prosecution of criminal actions; and
(5) In appealed cases, to prepare the pleadings required in the case.

Section 5. Certification Application Requirements.
The law student must submit a duly accomplished application form under oath in three (3) copies,
accompanied by proof of payment of the necessary legal and filing fees.
The law school, through the dean or the authorized representative, shall submit to the Office of the Executive
Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) having jurisdiction over the territory where the law school is located,
the duly accomplished application form together with an endorsement under oath.
Section 6. Duties of Law Student Practitioners.
(a) Observe the provisions of Section 24(b), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court;
(b) Be prohibited from using information acquired in one’s capacity as a law student practitioner for
personal or commercial gain;
(c) Perform the duties and responsibilities to the best of one’s abilities as a law student practitioner; and
(d) Strictly observe the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Section 8. Law Student Practitioner’s Oath/Affirmation.
"I, (name), having been granted a certificate of law student practice by the Supreme Court under Rule 138-A
of the Rules of Court, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;
I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent
to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a certified law student
practitioner according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts
as to the parties I represent; and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. [So help me God]."

> In Bar Matter No.730 dated June 10, 1998, the Supreme Court required that law student practice before the
Regional Trial Court must be under the direct supervision and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines.

Q. May a party appear as his own counsel in a criminal or in a civil case? Explain. [2009]
A: Yes, a party may appear as his own counsel in civil cases.
Section 34 of Rule 138 provides: “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.” [emphasis supplied]
Q. Debbie, topnotcher of their class, is now on her 4th year law studies and has enrolled in the legal aid
clinic of the law school. She was assigned to handle a domestic violence and support case filed by their
client against her husband. During the hearing, the clinic's supervising attorney introduced Debbie to
the Branch Clerk of Court and then left to oversee another intern. During the proceedings, opposing
counsel objected to the appearance of Debbie because she is not yet a lawyer. Decide. (Actual 2012 MCQ
bar question)
(A)Debbie can proceed because the law student practice rule allows a student who has finished 3rd
year of the regular course to appear without compensation before a trial court.
(B) Debbie can proceed since she is appearing only during the trial and did not sign the pleadings.
(C) Debbie cannot proceed without the presence of their clinic's supervising attorney.
(D) Debbie has proven her capability to handle the case and opposing counsel is objecting only now
because he might lose to a law student [2012]
A. Correct Choice - (C) Debbie cannot proceed without the presence of their clinic's supervising attorney.
Legal Basis: Rule 138-A, SEC. 2. Appearance. – “The appearance of the law student authorized by 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. All pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be
signed by the supervising attorney for and on behalf of the legal clinic.” [emphasis supplied]

7|Page

Q. Under what circumstances can non-lawyers represent parties?
A. Under the present practice, non-lawyers may appear in the following:
1. Non-lawyers and law students with Level 1 Certification may appear in first level courts.
2. Law students with Level 2 Certification under the revised rules on law student practice may now appear in
regional trial courts under the supervision of a lawyer in good standing.
3. Non-lawyers may appear in quasi-judicial and administrative tribunals subject to compliance of the rules of
procedure of the tribunals.

Q. When may lawyers not appear in proceedings which are contested by adverse parties?
A. Lawyers not appear in proceedings before the Lupong Tagapamayapa unless the lawyer is the complainant
or the respondent. Lawyers are also prohibited from representing parties in court ordered mediation.

Q. What are the sanctions for practice or appearance without authority?
A. The following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Lawyers without authority may be found guilty of Contempt of Court (Sec. 1, Rule 71)
Note: Acts constituting contempt include: Misbehavior as an officer of the court, disobedience or resistance to
a lawful order of the court, abuse or unlawful interference with judicial proceedings, obstruction in the
administration of justice, misleading the court or making false allegations, criticisms, insults or veiled threats
against the court, aiding in the unauthorized practice of law, unlawful retention of clients, advising a client to
commit a contemptuous act, publications which tend to impede, obstruct, embarrass or influence courts may
degrade the court; disrespectful pleadings.
2. Persons who are not lawyers may be found guilty of Indirect Contempt (Sec. 3 (e), Rule 71)
Ciocon-Reer v. Lubao, 674 SCRA 13: The Court found Karaan guilty of indirect contempt. Karaan would
always appear in court and he even files pleadings without indicating any Roll of Attorney No., PTR, MCLE and
IBP O.R.No. After investigation, OCA found out that the 71 year old Karaan was not in fact a lawyer. He was
fined P10,000.00 without imprisonment.

Q: What are the remedies against unauthorized practice?
A: The available remedies against unauthorized practice are:
(1) Petition for Injunction
(2) Declaratory Relief
(3) Contempt of Court
(4) Disqualification and complaints for disbarment
(5) Criminal complaint for estafa against the person who falsely represented himself as a lawyer to the damage of
another.

IV. Public Officials and Practice of Law

Q. Are government lawyers covered by the Code of Professional Responsibility (“CPR”)?
A. Yes, government lawyers covered by the Code of Professional Responsibility. CANON 6 of the CPR
provides:“These Canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their tasks.”
(Rules 6.01-6.03, Code of Professional Responsibility).

Q. Can a Senator who is also a member of the bar be subject of disciplinary powers of the S.C. during his
term of office?
A: Where no parliamentary privilege granted under the Constitution exists, a member of the Senate who is
also a member of the bar may be subject to the disciplinary powers of the Supreme Court. Section 5(5) of
Article VIII of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the sole authority to discipline the members of the
bar. Disbarment proceedings are sui generis and the Court, may its discretion, proceed with the investigation.
The proceedings are strictly confidential in nature so the member of Congress can still attend to his
congressional duties without fear that the proceedings will be discussed in public.

Q. Can a member of Congress who is also a member of the bar be held liable for libel for utterances made
during a press conference?
A. Yes, a member of Congress who is also a member of the bar cannot invoke parliamentary immunity for
utterances made outside the plenary hall of Congress. He will be held accountable under the relevant
provisions of the Revised Penal Code.

Q. Can a member of Congress who is also a member of the bar be a subject of an order of suspension
issued by the Sandiganbayan for work done while he was a mayor?
A: Yes, a member of Congress who is also a member of the bar can be a subject of an order of suspension for
work done as a mayor. The order of suspension is not a penalty but is issued to protect the integrity of the
evidence against him.

8|Page
Q. Can a member of Congress who is also a member of the bar refuse service of sentence by final
conviction for the crime of rape on the defense that the constituents who voted for him are denied
representation?
A: No, a member of Congress who is a member of the bar convicted of the crime of rape, a crime which is
penalized by more than 6 years of imprisonment, must serve his sentence as soon as his conviction becomes
final and executory.

Q. What is the one-year ban rule on government lawyers?
A: The one-year ban rule on government lawyers provides that former government attorneys are prohibited
or disqualified from the representing any interest adverse to the government within the one-year period
when they were separated from service.

Q. Who are the public officials not allowed to practice law?
A. The following public officials not allowed to engage in the practice of law during their tenure of office:
Under the Constitution: The President, Vice President, all members of the Constitutional Commissions,
members of the judiciary, members of the cabinet, their deputies and assistants.
Under Civil Service Rules: government lawyers in government departments/offices/bureaus, in
government owned and controlled corporations, government financial institutions and those with local
government units
Under Special Laws: Governors and Mayors (Local Government Code); Solicitors and trial lawyers of the
Office of the Solicitor General, lawyers of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, Government
prosecutors under the DOJ and the Office of the Special Prosecutor under the Office of the Ombudsman

Q. What is the concept of limited practice of law among public officers?
A. The concept of limited practice of law among public officers provides that with prior written authorization
of the heads of office, some government lawyers may be authorized to practice law provided they will not
represent any party who has an adverse claim against the government.
In Lorenzana v. Fajardo ( 462 SCRA 1, 2005), the Court held that a lawyer is guilty of violating the Civil
Service rule on double compensation when he accepted an appointment as a lawyer of the Urban Affairs
Office of the City of Manila and a member of the PLEB of Quezon City.

Q. Who are the lawyers who represent the government?
A. The lawyers tasked to represent government are OSG, OGCC, lawyers in regular departments, bureaus,
offices, lawyers in the government financial institutions, lawyers in government owned and controlled
corporations, lawyers who serve the government’s interest under special contracts/or engagements, lawyers
under the local government units.

Q. Who are the lawyers who represent the interest of the state in criminal cases?
A. Government lawyers tasked to prosecute and represent the interest of the state are the Public Prosecutors
from the DOJ and the Office of the Special Prosecutor under the Office of the Ombudsman.

Q. Who are the government lawyers who represent indigent litigants?
A. Lawyers who work with the Public Attorneys’ Office represent the indigent litigants.

Q. Can the Supreme Court motu proprio discipline lawyers?
A. Yes, the Supreme Court may motu proprio discipline lawyers.
In People of the Philippines v. The Hon. Juanito C. Castaneda, Jr., et al. (G.R. No. 208290, December 11,
2013), the Court motu proprio sanctioned the Bureau of Customs lawyers. The CTA in conformity with the
Run After the Smugglers (RATS) Group of the Revenue Collection Monitoring Group (RCMG) of the BOC tried
the private respondents for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, as amended. The
government lost the case.
S.C. said that it could not countenance the following patent violations of the government prosecutors: failure
of the prosecution failed to present certified true copies of the documentary evidence under Section 7, Rule
130 and Section 127, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court and the petition for certiorari was filed beyond the
reglamentary period. This stance taken by the lawyers in government service rouses the Court’s vigilance
against inefficiency in the administration of justice and the presumption that the case was doomed by design
from the start was doomed by design from the start. Verily, the lawyers representing the offices under the
executive branch should be reminded that they still remain as officers of the court from whom a high sense of
competence and fervor is expected. The Court reminded the lawyers in the BOC that the canons embodied in
the Code of Professional Responsibility equally apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of
their official tasks.

Q. May a labor arbiter apply a principle in corporation law to support his decision in a labor dispute?
A. Yes, a labor arbiter may apply a principle in corporation law to support his decision in a labor dispute. In
YOLANDA A. ANDRES, MINETTE A. MERCADO, AND ELITO P. ANDRES v.ATTY. SALIMATHAR V. NAMBI (A.C.
No. 7158, March 09, 2015), the Court held that a Labor Arbiter may apply the principle of piercing the
9|Page
corporate veil in resolving a labor case filed by the employees who successfully proved that their employers
avoided their legal obligation to pay their claims by forming a new company. The Court held that the labor
arbiter had legal basis to pierce the corporate veil to serve the ends of justice. He was, however, reprimanded
for not complying with the lawful orders of the IBP and the Court.

Q: F lodged a complaint for qualified theft against M before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor.
Prosecutor A, the investigating prosecutor, forwarded the case records recommending the prosecution
of M to Prosecutor B, the Provincial Prosecutor, for approval and signature. However, the resolution of
the case was delayed because finding investigation it was established that B removed the case records
from the office and brought them to his residence, where they were kept in his custody. Can Provincial
Prosecutor B be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a
government official?
A: Yes, Prosecutor B can be disciplined by the Supreme Court because the Code of Professional Responsibility
applies to government lawyers. Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be
disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government
official. However, he may be disciplined by the Court as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also
constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. Here, Barcelona violated Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the CPR which is
particularly directed to lawyers in the government service, enjoining them from using one's public position
to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private interests to interfere with
public duties. Private interest is not limited to direct interest, but extends to advancing the interest of
relatives. (FACTURAN V. BARCELONA, A.C. NO. 11069, JUNE 8, 2016, J. PERLAS-BERNABE)

VI. Suspension, disbarment and discipline of lawyers (Rule 139-B, Rule of Court)

Q. What is the nature and characteristics of disciplinary actions against lawyers?
A: A disbarment proceeding is sui generis in nature. It requires only a preponderance of evidence to establish
the violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. It is imprescriptible. The
complainant need not be the injured party. It can even be filed through a person covered by a Special Power
of Attorney. All matters related to the proceedings are strictly confidential. Once filed, it must be fully
investigated and not subject to dismissal because every case is clothe with public interest.
Bengco v. Bernardo, 672 SCRA 352 (2012): S.C. said that administrative cases against lawyers do not
prescribe. Despite the considerable lapse of time between the commission of the infraction and the time of
filing, there is need to determine the administrative liability of lawyers.
Catalan, Jr. v. Silvosa, 677 SCRA 352(2012): A lawyer cannot escape “the disciplining arm of the Court”
despite any delay in the filing of an administrative case against a lawyer.


Rules on Disbarment (Rule 139-B)
Initiation of a Complaint
By the Supreme Court motu propio
By the IBP Board of Governors motu propio
Upon referral by the S.C.
Upon referral by the IBP Chapter Board
Upon verified complaint by any person

IBP Board of Governors

Chairman, CBD

REPORT
Commissioner
May uphold the findings

May reverse the findings

May amend the findings
10 | P a g e

Every decision must be based on

facts, reasons, in writing


No motion for Reconsideration before the Commissioner.

Motion for Reconsideration before the Board of Governor is allowed.
Decision of IBP Board of Governors is reviewed by the Supreme Court.


Q. Describe the proceedings before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines.
A. The initial stage of any disciplinary proceeding is its referral of the Board of Governors to the Commission
on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The following steps are observed:

The complaint is referred to the Investigating Commissioner.

The Investigating Commissioner presides over the disbarment proceedings allowing complainant to prove his
allegations and for the lawyer to establish his defense.
After evaluation, the Investigating Commissioner submits his findings and recommendation to the Chairman
of the Commission on Bar Discipline (“CBD”).
No Motion for Reconsideration is allowed before the Investigating Commissioner
The Chairman of the CBD submits the report of the Investigating Commissioner to the Board of Governors.
In a meeting called for the purpose, the Board of Governors evaluates the report and renders its own
resolution.
Motion for Reconsideration before the Board of Governors is allowed.
The decision of the Board of Governors (reviewed by SC) must be in writing supported by facts and evidence
presented during the hearing and the applicable provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Q. Who may initiate disbarment proceedings?
A.The S.C. held that a complainant need not suffer any injury to institute a disbarment case and will have the
personality to file the disbarment case. It may even be filed by a person covered by a Special Power of
Attorney.
In Heck v. Judge Santos, the Court held that “[a]ny interested person or the court motu propio may initiate
disciplinary proceedings.” The right to institute disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor is it
necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings
being sui generis, the procedural requirement observed in ordinary civil proceedings that only the real party-
in-interest must initiate the suit will not apply. (cited in NESTOR FIGUERAS AND BIENVENIDO VICTORIA, JR.
v. ATTY. DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ, A.C. No. 9116, March 12, 2014)

Q. Can a lawyer move for dismissal of a disciplinary case against him on the ground that the
complainants are not the injured party to the case?
A. No, a lawyer cannot move for dismissal of a disciplinary case against him on the ground that the
complainants are not the injured party to the case. The Court has consistently held that the practice of law is
imbued with public interest and institution of complaints against lawyers is not predicated on a lawyer-client
relationship alone. It is sufficient that the complainant is able to establish the culpability of the erring lawyer
through preponderance of evidence.

Q. Can a disbarment case be dismissed upon motion of the complainant?
A. No, a disbarment case cannot be dismissed upon motion of the complainant.
In SPOUSES ROGELIO AMATORIO AND AIDA AMATORIO v. ATTY. FRANCISCO DY YAP AND ATTY. WHELMA
F. SITON-YAP (A.C. No. 5914, March 11, 2015), the Court said that it cannot simply yield to complainants’
change of heart by refuting their own statements against the respondents and praying that the complaint for
disbarment they filed be dismissed. It bears emphasizing that any misconduct on the part of the lawyer not
only hurts the client’s cause but is even more disparaging on the integrity of the legal profession itself. Thus,
for tarnishing the reputation of the profession, a lawyer may still be disciplined notwithstanding the
complainant’s pardon or withdrawal from the case for as long as there is evidence to support any finding of
culpability. A case for suspension or disbarment may proceed “regardless of interest or lack of interest of the
complainants, if the facts proven so warrant.” It follows that the withdrawal of the complainant from the case,
or even the filing of an affidavit of desistance, does not conclude the administrative case against an erring
lawyer.

Q. Can a lawyer move for dismissal of the disbarment case against him based on prejudicial question?
A. No, a disbarment proceeding being sui generis can proceed independently of any criminal action instituted
against the lawyer.
ANTONINA S. SOSA v. ATTY. MANUEL V. MENDOZA, A.C. No. 8776, March 22, 2015: This is a complaint for the
disbarment/suspension of Atty. Manuel V. Mendoza (Atty. Mendoza) filed on October 22, 2010 by Antonina S. Sosa
(Ms. Sosa), for violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility arising from non-payment of debt.

11 | P a g e
The Court said that a proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not a civil action where the complainant is
a plaintiff, and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest
and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public
welfare. For violation of Rule 1.01, the lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for one year.

Q. Can a lawyer set up the defense of double jeopardy in a disbarment case against him?
A. No, the defense of double jeopardy cannot be invoked in a disbarment proceeding.
Garrido v. Garrido, 611 SCRA 508 (21010): S.C. reiterated the rule that “laws dealing with double jeopardy or
with procedure . . . do not apply in the determination of lawyer’s qualifications or fitness for membership in
the Bar. . .” The S.C. said first, that for admission a candidate must meet all the requirements because the
practice of law is a component of the administration of justice and involves service to the public; and second,
admission qualifications are also required for the continued enjoyment of the privilege to practice and lack of
qualifications is a matter of public concern and S.C. may inquire into them.

Q. What is the effect of conviction upon the practice of law of a lawyer?
A. In Catalan, Jr. v. Silvosa, (677 SCRA 352, 2012), the Court held that a lawyer convicted of direct bribery can
be a subject of disbarment proceedings. Direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude. The defense that
his conviction was not in his capacity as a lawyer but as a public officer betrays the unmistakable lack of
integrity in his character.
In In Re: Atty. Rodolfo D.Pactolin (670 SCRA 366, 2112), the Court held that the conviction of Atty. Pactolin
before the Sandiganbayan for the crime of Falsification of Public Document is contrary to justice, honesty and
good morals. This is a crime involving moral turpitude. Even if the IBP recommended dismissal of the case,
S.C. disbarred him because “disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a
crime involving moral turpitude.”

Q. Can a judge who has been dismissed from the judiciary still be a subject of a disbarment proceeding?
A. Yes, a judge who has been dismissed from the judiciary still be a subject of a disbarment proceeding.
In OCA v. Liangco (662 SCRA 103, December 10, 2011), the Court held that the dismissal of a judge from
service will not preclude the filing of a disbarment case against him before the IBP. The disbarment was
based on the same grounds for his dismissal: gross misconduct and inexcusable ignorance. He failed to make
a distinction between a Resolution and an Ordinance and that as judge, he cannot render an Opinion but
rather he must receive evidence and make a decision after termination of trial. It will be the IBP which will
investigate a judge who has retired from the judiciary and not the Supreme Court.

Q. What is the proof required to establish the culpability of a lawyer in a disbarment proceeding?
A. In disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar, only clear preponderance of evidence is required
to establish liability. 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. The Court has required that a complainant has the onus of proving the
charges against respondent by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence.

Q. Does the lawyer have the burden of proof in a disbarment case?
A. No, the lawyer does not have the burden of proof in a disbarment case.
Joven and Reynaldo C. Rasing v. Atty. Pablo R. Cruz and Frankie O. Magsalin III, A.C. No. 7686, July 31,
2013.The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings always rests on the shoulders of the
complainant. The Court exercises its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes the complaint
by clearly preponderant evidence that warrants the imposition of the harsh penalty. In this case,
complainants failed to discharge their burden of proving that respondents ordered their secretary to stamp a
much later date instead of the actual date of receipt for the purpose of extending the ten-day period within
which to file a Motion for Reconsideration under the NLRC Rules of Procedure. Such claim is merely anchored
on speculation and conjecture and not backed by any clear preponderant evidence necessary to justify the
imposition of administrative penalty on a member of the Bar.
Atty. Alan F. Paguia v. Atty. Manuel T. Molina, A.C. No. 9881, June 4, 2014: The S.C. said in when it comes to
administrative cases against lawyers, two things are to be considered: quantum of proof, which requires
clearly preponderant evidence; and burden of proof, which is on the complainant. Here, the complaint was
without factual basis. Even if Atty. Molina did provide his clients legal advice, he still cannot be held
administratively liable without any showing that his act was attended with bad faith or malice. The default
rule is presumption of good faith.

Q. What is the effect of the withdrawal of a disbarment case?

A. Adelia V. Quiachon v. Atty. Joseph Ador A. Ramos, A.C. No. 9317, June 4, 2014: The S.C. held that the
withdrawal of a disbarment case against a lawyer does not terminate or abate the jurisdiction of the IBP and
of the Court to continue an administrative proceeding against a lawyer-respondent as a member of the
Philippine Bar. The complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to the case, but a witness who
brought the matter to the attention of the Court. In this case, Atty. Ramos violated Canon Rules 18.03 and

12 | P a g e
18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus, the appropriate penalty should be imposed despite the
desistance of complainant or the withdrawal of the charges

Q: May a lawyer be subject of a disbarment proceeding ex parte?
A: Yes, a lawyer may be subjected to disbarment proceeding ex parte provided he has been notified of the
administrative complaint and yet he continues to submit his pleading to refute the allegations. (Stemerick v.
Atty. Mas)

Q. What are the grounds for suspension (Disbarment)?
A. Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court provides the following grounds for the suspension or disbarment of a
member of the bar: deceit or any gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of crime involving
moral turpitude, violation of lawyer’s Oath, wilful disobedience of any lawful order, or corruptly or wilfully
appearing as an attorney for a party in a case without authority, malpractice which includes practice of
soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers..
Rose Bunagan-Bansig v. Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera, A.C. No. 5581, January 14, 2014: The Court ordered
Celera disbarred for contracting a second marriage when his first marriage with Complainant was still
subsisting. The Supreme Court held that for purposes of the disbarment proceeding, the Marriage Certificates
bearing the name of Atty. Celera are competent and convincing evidence to prove that he committed bigamy,
which renders him unfit to continue as a member of the Bar. Atty. Celera exhibited a deplorable lack of that
degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred
institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage while his first marriage is
subsisting constituted grossly immoral conduct and is grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Revised Rules of Court.
Edgardo Areola v. Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza, A.C. No. 10135, January 15, 2014: This case involves a PAO
who advised her clients –“Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso
noon.”Thus, a complaint was lodged against her for violation of the attorney’s oath, deceit, malpractice or
other gross misconduct in office under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. S. C. held that Atty.
Mendoza made irresponsible advices to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. It is the mandate of Rule 1.02 that “a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.” Rule 15.07 states that “a lawyer
shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness.” However, while her
remark was inappropriate and unbecoming, her comment was not disparaging and reproachful so as to cause
dishonor and disgrace to the Judiciary. Thus, she was only reprimanded and sternly warned.
DR. DOMICIANO F. VILLAHERMOSA, SR. v. ATTY. ISIDRO L.CARACOL, A.C. No. 7325, January 21,
2015,VILLARAMA, JR., J. The Rules of Court under Rule 138, Section 21 provides for a presumption of a
lawyer’s appearance on behalf of his client, hence: “SEC. 21. Authority of attorney to appear. – An attorney is
presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears, and no written power of
attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client, but the presiding judge may, on motion
of either party and on reasonable grounds therefor being shown, require any attorney who assumes the right
to appear in a case to produce or prove the authority under which he appears, and to disclose, whenever
pertinent to any issue, the name of the person who employed him, and may thereupon make such order as
justice requires. An attorney wilfully appearing in court for a person without being employed, unless by leave
of the court, may be punished for contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official
transactions.”
An attorney-client relationship terminates upon death of either client or the lawyer. Thus, a lawyer must be
more circumspect in his demeanor and attitude towards the public in general as agents of the judicial system.

TERESITA B. ENRIQUEZ, v. ATTY. TRINA DE VERA, A.C. No. 8330, March 16, 2015, Leonen, J. An
administrative complaint for disbarment or suspension was filed by complainant Teresita B. Enriquez against
Atty. Trina De Vera. The Court found Atty. Trina De Vera committed serious misconduct and should be held
administratively liable for the issuance and dishonor of several post-dated checks. She was suspended from
the practice of law for one year.
Professional Services, Inc. v. Atty. Socrates R. Rivera, A.C. No. 11241. November 3, 2020, Per Curiam:
Complainant alleged that Rivera defrauded the company of Pl4,358,477.15. As counsel of the company, he
was allowed to draw out cash advances to attend to the civil cases of the company. It was established that he
pocketed the money under the pretext that he spent them for filing fees and other related expenses. He was
disbarred by the Court for violation of his fiduciary duty to Professional Services, Inc.

Palalan Carp Farmers Multi-Purpose Coop represented by Beverly Domo v. Atty. Elmer dela Rosa, A.C. No.
12008, August 14, 2019: Atty.Dela Rosa had proven himself disloyal to his client ─ exploitative,
untrustworthy, and a double-dealer. The client did not know who the buyer was when the land had been sold.
He acted to protect the buyer’s interest, and likely, his own interest as well.

Q. What are the guidelines in lifting of the order of suspension of the lawyer?

13 | P a g e
A. MANIEGO v. DE DIOS, 617 SCRA 142 (2010): The Court held that after the period of suspension, the
resumption to practice is not automatic. The Court issued the following guidelines for the reinstatement of a
suspended lawyer:
1. After a finding that the respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the Court shall
render a decision rendering 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 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 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; and
6. Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the respondent under oath shall be a ground for
imposition of a more severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be warranted.
To summarize:
(i) File a Sworn Statement with the Office of the Bar confidant that the respondent lawyer has served the
period of suspension stating that he/she desisted from the practice of law and never appeared in any court
during the period of suspension.
(ii) Copies of the Sworn Statement must be furnished the chapter of which the respondent lawyer is a
member and the Executive Judges of the Regional Trial Courts and first level courts where respondent lawyer
has pending cases.
(iii)If satisfied, the Court will lift the order of suspension and reinstate the erring lawyer

Q. What is the effect of an adverse disciplinary action instituted abroad against a Filipino lawyer?
A. A decision in a disciplinary action against a Filipino lawyer practicing abroad may also be a basis for a
disbarment proceeding against the same lawyer in the Philippines.
Velez v. De Vera, 496 SCRA 345 (2006): A finding of fact by the California State Bar can be a basis of an
administrative complaint against a Filipino lawyer before the IBP.

Q. Can the penalty of a lawyer be mitigated by virtue of relationship?
A. Yes, the penalty of a lawyer undergoing an administrative case can be mitigated by virtue of relationship.
ALVIN S. FELICIANO v. ATTY. CARMELITA BAUTISTA-LOZADA,A.C. No. 7593, March 11, 2015: On
December 13, 2005, the Court en banc promulgated a Resolution in A.C. No. 6656 entitled “Bobie Rose V. Frias
vs. Atty. Carmencita Bautista Lozada” suspending Atty. Lozada for two years for violation of Rules 15.03 and
16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
During her period of suspension, she represented her husband where complainant Feliciano was a party. The
Supreme Court said it recognizes the fact that it is part of the Filipino culture that amid an adversity, families
will always look out and extend a helping hand to a family member, more so, in this case, to a spouse. Thus,
considering that Atty. Lozada's actuation was prompted by her affection to her husband and that in essence,
she was not representing a client but rather a spouse, we deem it proper to mitigate the severeness of her
penalty.

Reinstatement after Disbarment
Readmission to the Bar and Resumption to Practice Law
Q. Can a bar passer convicted of a homicide still be admitted to the practice of law?
A. Yes, a bar passer convicted of a homicide can still be admitted to the practice of law.
IN RE: OATH TAKING OF ARGOSINO, B.M. 712, July 13, 1995 and En Banc Resolution dated March 19, 1997. A
lawyer who was involved in the fatal death of a neophyte in the initiation rites of his fraternity was finally
allowed to take his oath after he showed several proofs of testimonial of good character.

Q. Can a disbarred lawyer be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys?
A. Yes, a disbarred lawyer can still be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys.
RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS (ATTY. DANILO DE GUZMAN), 586 SCRA 372: A lawyer who leaked the bar
questions in Mercantile Law prepared by a founding partner in his law firm was reinstated upon proof of
good moral character during his period of suspension.

MACARUBBO v. MACARUBBO, A.M. 6148, January 22, 2013: Macarubbo was disbarred for contracting three
marriages. While the disbarment case was pending, Macarrubo resorted to filing separate civil actions to
annul two of said marriages. Eight years after his disbarment, he filed a Petition for Extraordinary Mercy for
reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys. In granting his Petition, the Court considered the following guidelines
set forth in Re: Letter of Augustus C. Diaz, MTC Branch 37, Appealing for Clemency (533 SCRA 534,
2010):
14 | P a g e
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited to
certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the IBP, judges or judges’ associations and
prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an
administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-
reformation.
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of penalty to ensure a period of reform.
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he has still productive years ahead of him that
can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.
4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution
to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as
well as potential for public service.
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency
The Court concluded with a reminder that to enjoy continued member in the legal profession, one
must be a person of good moral character.

Q. Can a former Filipino lawyer resume his practice of law in the Philippines?
A. Yes, a former Filipino can still resume his practice of law in the Philippines.
In RE: PETITION TO RE-ACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES (EPIFANIO B.
MUNESES), 677 SCRA 364 (2012): The S.C. said that a Filipino lawyer who has been naturalized in another
country does not automatically enjoy the right to resume his practice of law when returns to the Philippines.
It held that under the Rules of Admission to the Philippine bar, one must be a Filipino citizen. Thus, when he
assumed another citizenship, he ipso facto lost his Filipino citizenship. The returning Filipino lawyer must
repatriate himself under the provisions of R.A. 9225. Said law says that “all Philippine citizens who
become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under
the conditions of (R.A. 9225).”
R.A. 9225 provides that if a person intends to practice the legal profession in the Philippines and he
reacquires his Filipino citizenship pursuant to its provisions’ (he shall apply with the proper authority for
a license or permit to engage in such practice.”

Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law of Benjamin M. Dacanay, 540 SCRA 424: To reacquire, the
authority to resume his practice of law, the repatriated Filipino must:
1. Update and pay in full his annual membership dues in the IBP;
2. Pay his professional tax;
3. Complete his 36 credit hours of MCLE to refresh him of his knowledge of Philippine laws, rules of practice,
recent jurisprudence and update him of recent legal developments (MCLE will be from the time he was absent
in the Philippines up to the time he resumes his practice);and
4. Retake his oath which will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an
officer of the Court, but also to renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.

Resumption to Practice of a Balikbayan Lawyer
Requisites - Updating and full payment of all IBP membership dues; Payment of Professional Tax;
Completion of MCLE credit units; and Retaking of the Lawyer’s Oath

VII. Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer
A. Duty to Society
1. Respect for law and legal processes
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and
legal processes. (Rules 1.01-1.04)
Q. What does respect for rule of law include?
A. The lawyer must at all times in the protection of the rights of client ensure compliance with the law
governing the issues of the pending case.
FERNANDO W. CHU v. ATTY. JOSE C. GUICO, JR., A.C. No. 10573, January 13, 2015, PER CURIAM: Fernando
W. Chu invokes the Court’s disciplinary authority in resolving this disbarment complaint against his former
lawyer, respondent Atty. Jose C. Guico, Jr., whom he has accused of gross misconduct. Atty. Guico was
disbarred for having had violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
demanding and receiving P580,000.00 from Chu which constituted an act of extortion and misrepresentation
that caused dishonor to and contempt for the legal profession.

RULE 1.02. A LAWYER SHALL NOT COUNSEL DEFIANCE OF THE LAW.
Q. Atty. NC advised client, GC, that instead of resorting to extrajudicial partition of the estate, they should
just directly register the properties of the estate to the heirs. Is the advice of Atty. NC correct?
A: No, Atty. NC’s advice is not correct. A lawyer who proposes to his client a recourse or remedy that is
contrary to law, public policy, public order and public morals, or that lessens the public confidence in the
legal system is guilty of gross misconduct, and should be suspended from the practice of law, or even
disbarred. (Gabriela Coronel v. Atty. Nelson A. Cunanan, A.C. No. 6738, 12 August 2015)

15 | P a g e
Q. What are the standards of morality required of a lawyer?
A. The standards of morality required of a lawyer would include his uprightness as a member of society and
as an officer of the court.
MELVYN G. GARCIA v. ATTY. RAUL H. SESBREÑO, A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457, February 03, 2015, PER
CURIAM: Two complaints for disbarment were filed by Dr. Melvyn G. Garcia (Garcia) against Atty. Raul H.
Sesbreño. The two cases, docketed as A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457, were consolidated in the Court’s
Resolution dated 30 September 2014. The IBP-CBD consolidated A.C. No. 7973 with CBD Case No. 08-2273.
The parties agreed on the sole issue to be resolved: whether moral turpitude is involved in a conviction for
homicide. The Court held in the affirmative and ordered Sesbreno disbarred.

DR. ELMAR O. PEREZ v. ATTY. TRISTAN A. CATINDIG AND ATTY. KAREN E. BAYDO, A.C. No. 5816, March 10,
2015, PER CURIAM: Complainant charged the two lawyers with gross immoral conduct. Atty. Catindig was
disbarred for contracting a second marriage with the complainant while his first marriage was still subsisting.
The charge against Atty. Baydo was dismissed for lack of evidence.

TIONG v. FLORENDO, 662 SCR A 1, Perlas-Bernabe (2011): The S.C. held that a lawyer’s “act of having an affair
with his client’s wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital
vow of fidelity.” His illicit relationship with the wife of his client showed that he violated Canon 17 of the CPR
for abuse of the trust and confidence reposed in him. An Affidavit of Desistance or any other sworn statement
with the same effect will not excuse the lawyer because any disciplinary proceeding is clothed with public
interest.

Garrido v. Garrido, 611 SCRA 508 (2010): A charge of immorality was brought before the lawyer for having
contracted three marriages. He left his first wife to pursue his study of law. He contracted his second marriage
upon misrepresentation that he is single. He engaged in an extra marital affair with a lawyer whom he
eventually married in Hongkong while his second marriage was subsisting. Such conduct betrayed his moral
depravity for which he was disbarred. The lady lawyer was eventually disbarred for knowing that Garrido
had other two subsisting marriages when she had her romantic relationship with him even before she
became a lawyer.

Q. What constitutes deceitful conduct on the part of the lawyer?
A. Deceitful conduct would involve acts of the lawyer which tend to bring dishonor to the legal profession.
The test is 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.

Brennisen v. Contawi, 670 SCRA 358(2012): The S.C. disbarred a lawyer who acted “with deceit when,
through the use of a falsified document, he effected the unauthorized mortgage and sale of his client’s
property for his personal benefit.
Bueno v. Raneses, 687 SCRA 711(2012): The S.C. disbarred a lawyer who practically asked the client to sell
everything for the sake of winning the case, only to end up not really doing anything. By asking money from
his client for a purportedly bribery to the judge to win a case, the lawyer tarnished the image of the judiciary
and put a black mark in the legal profession as well.

Natividad P. Navarro and Hilda S. Presbitero v. Atty. Ivan M. Solidum, Jr., A.C. No. 9872, January 28, 2014:
The Court held that Atty. Solidum, Jr. violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Conduct, as
used in the Rule, is not confined to the performance of a lawyer’s professional duties. The test is 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. Atty. Solidum, Jr. was held guilty of engaging in
dishonest and deceitful conduct, both in his professional capacity with respect to his client, Presbitero, and in
his private capacity with respect to complainant Navarro. Both Presbitero and Navarro allowed Atty.
Solidum, Jr. to draft the terms of the loan agreements. Atty. Solidum, Jr. drafted the subject documents with
full knowledge that the interest rates were exorbitant. Taking advantage of the provisions in the instruments,
he later assailed the validity of the same agreements which he personally prepared. He issued checks that
were drawn from his son’s account whose name was similar to his without informing complainants. Further,
the records do not indicate any undertaking on his part to pay the loans he obtained from complainants. The
fiduciary nature of the relationship between the counsel and his client imposes on the lawyer the duty to
account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client. Atty. Solidum, Jr. failed to fulfil
this duty.

2. Efficient and convenient legal services
CANON 2 - A lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficient and convenient manner compatible
with the independence, integrity and effectiveness of the profession. [Rules 2.01-2.04]
Q. A businessman is looking for a new retainer. He approached you and asked for your schedule of fees
or charges. He informed you of the professional fees he is presently paying his retainer, which is

16 | P a g e
actually lower than your rates. He said that if your rates are lower, he would engage your services. Will
you lower your rates in order to get the client? Explain [2005]
A. No, I will not lower my professional fees to hired as counsel.
Rule 2.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall not charge rates lower than
those customarily prescribed unless circumstances so warrant." This prevents lawyers in engaging in
"cutthroat competition" because the practice of law is a noble profession and not a trade. Moreover, if he
agrees, he would be encroaching on the employment of a fellow lawyer, which is prohibited by Rule 8.02 of
the Code.

Q. When is a lawyer guilty of encroaching on another lawyer’s practice?
A. A lawyer who solicits and causes the transfer of representation of existing clients of another lawyer is
guilty of encroaching on the practice of another lawyer.
Lisangan v. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009: A lawyer who allowed his paralegal/secretary to
solicit the clients of a fellow lawyer with a promise of financial assistance was suspended by the S.C. and
reminded lawyers that their calling cards must only contain their name, fields of practice, contact details and
nothing more. The prohibition applies to the non-legal staff in order to curb any abuse of the privilege of the
law.
Q. Atty. Nelson recently passed the Bar and wanted to specialize in marine labor law. He gave out calling
cards with his name, address and telephone number in front, and the following words at the back: "We
provide legal assistance to overseas seamen who are repatriated due to accident, illness, injury, or
death. We also offer FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE."" Does this constitute ethical misconduct? [2012]
A: (C) Yes, the act of Atty. Nelson constitutes unethical conduct.
Reason: The phrase used in the calling card was visibly employed to entice clients. Money was dangled to
lure clients away from their original lawyer, thereby taking advantage of their financial distress and
emotional vulnerability. This crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserved no place in
the legal profession. In a decided case, the Supreme Court suspended the lawyer for one year for similar
actuation. [Linsangan v. Tolentino, 598 SCRA 133(2009)]

3. True, honest, fair, dignified and objective information on legal services
CANON 3 – A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only the true, honest, fair, dignified and
objective information or statement of facts. (Rules 3.01-3.04)
Q: Cite examples which are considered permissible ways to make a lawyer’s services known.
A: A lawyer may make his services known without violating the Code Professional Responsibility in the
following manner:
1. Publication in reputable law lists of brief biographical and honest informative data;
2. Use of an ordinary professional business card indicating only one’s name, office address and
contact details;
3. Announcements of specialization and availability of service in legal journal for lawyers;
4. Announcement of vacancy and Invitation to public office requiring lawyers;
5. Offering free legal service to indigents through radio broadcasts or printed matter;
6. Announcement of opening of a law firm, changes of personnel, firm name or office address;
7. Listing in a telephone directory; and
8. Posting of an official website of a law firm indicating the directory of its lawyers and fields of
expertise.
Q. Atty. Anunciante is engaged in the practice of law and has a regular, live, weekly TV program where
he gives advice to and answers questions from the audience and program viewers concerning U.S.
immigration problems. Occasionally, advertisements inviting viewers to watch his TV program are
shown outside his regular program schedule. Because of the popularity of his TV program, the number
of his law practice clients increased tremendously. The TV program of Atty. Anunciante is __________.
[2013]
A: (B) Objectionable because the work involves indirect advertising or solicitation of business.
Reason: Canon 3 provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair,
dignified, and objective information or statements of facts. What the lawyer is doing is indirect advertising
which is not fair to the others in the legal profession nor is it dignified. He reduces the Legal Profession to a
form of entertainment, rather than an instrument of justice. This also violates Canon 7 for staining the legal
profession as entertainment rather than the integrity and dignity it deserves.

Q. Can a lawyer be held liable for the allegations set forth in a pleading which has been verified by his
client?
A. No, a lawyer cannot be held liable for the allegations set forth in a pleading which has been verified by his
client.

17 | P a g e
De Leon v. Castelo, 639 SCRA 237 (2011): The S.C. held that “with the cloak of privilege, lawyers can freely and
courageously speak for their clients, verbally or in writing, in the course of judicial and quasi-judicial
proceedings, without running the risk of incurring criminal prosecution or actions for damages.” Once the
client, attests to the preparation of a pleading, the lawyer cannot be held liable on the disclosures of his client.

4. Participation in the improvement and reforms in the legal system
CANON 4 – A lawyer shall participate in the development of the legal system by initiating or supporting
efforts in law reforms and in the improvement of the administration of justice.
A lawyer is encouraged to participate in the formulation of amendments in the Rules of Court to improve the
administration of justice.
A lawyer may attend congressional hearings involving changes in substantive laws; creation of new courts; and
redefining jurisdiction of trial and appellate courts.

5. Participation in legal education program and other related activities
CANON 5 – A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education
programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law
students and assist in disseminating the law and jurisprudence.
A lawyer is expected to comply with the requirements of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education and to
participate in the activities of the IBP and other legal professional organizations.
Purpose: MCLE, what it is; who enforces the MCLE

Q. What is the composition of constitution of the MCLE Board?
A. The MCLE Board is composed of a retired justice of the Supreme Court is the Chairman, with the following
as members: an incumbent dean of a recognized law school, a representative from a designated law center,
the Chancellor of the Philippine Judicial Academy and the President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Q. What are the requirements to complete the MCLE?
A. The completion of MCLE would include 36-unit requirement with the corresponding units: 6 for Legal
Ethics; 6 for prescribed courses as approved by the MCLE Board, 4 for trail and pre-trial techniques, 4 for
legal writing and oral advocacy, 5 for alternative dispute resolution, 2 for international law and conventions
and 9 for updates on substantive and procedural laws.

Q. What is the period of compliance for one’s MCLE?
A. A lawyer has a period of three years to fully comply with his MCLE 36-unit requirement.

Q. Who are exempted from the MCLE requirement?
A. The following public officers are exempted from the MCLE requirement: President, Vice President,
Members of the Senate and House of Representatives, Members of the Constitutional Commissions,
Governors, Mayors, incumbent and retired members of the judiciary, Cabinet Secretaries and their
undersecretaries, OSG lawyers, OGCC lawyers, Ombudsman and all Deputies of the Ombudsman, Professor
and Reviewers of law for a period of ten years.

Q. What the penalties for non-compliance?
A. The penalties for non-compliance of the MCLE would include the imposition of fines. A lawyer is given a
60-day period to comply with his/her MCLE deficiencies. Continued non-compliance is a violation of Canon 1
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and can affect his standing as a member of the bar.

Q. Atty. Oldie, 80 years old, refuses to pay his IBP dues. He argues he is a senior citizen and semi-retired
from the practice of law. Therefore, he should be exempt from paying IBP dues. For the same reasons,
Atty. Oldie also insists that he should be exempt from the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE) requirements. Should he be exempt? [2006]
A. Atty. Oldie is not exempt from the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirement. The MCLE is
required of all members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. As long as a person is a member of the IBP,
he should comply with the MCLE requirement.
To be exempt, he should file a request informing the MCLE Committee that he is retiring from his practice of
law.

B. Duty to the Legal Profession
1. Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Rule 139-A): A lawyer cannot be a full-fledged member of the
bar, he has not signed the Roll of Attorneys after taking his Oath as a lawyer.

Q. When does one become a full-fledged attorney?
A. In re: Petition of Atty. Medado to sign Roll of Attorneys, B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013: Petitioner
Medado passed the bar examinations in 1979. He took the Attorney’s Oath thereafter, and was scheduled to

18 | P a g e
sign the Roll of Attorneys, but failed to do so. It was only in 2005 that he realized that he did not sign the Roll
after being asked his Roll number when he attended his MCLE. Thirty (30) years after passing the bar,
Medado filed a Petition to allow him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. The Supreme Court held that while an
honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the legal consequences of his acts as it negates
malice or evil motive, a mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is
presumed to know the law and its consequences. Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law
transgresses Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such Canon also applies to law students and
bar candidates. Medado was imposed a penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to sign one (1) year after
receipt of the Court’s Resolution.

Q. What is the Integrated Bar of the Philippines?
A. Purposes of the IBP: To elevate the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of
justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.
Elective Officers: President, Executive Vice President and concurrently a Governor of a Region (chosen by the
Board of Governors who will succeed the national President), Board of Governors from: Northern Luzon,
Central Luzon, Greater Manila, Southern Luzon, Bicolandia, Eastern Visayas, Western Visayas, Eastern
Mindanao and Western Mindanao.
Other officers: The IBP shall have a Secretary, Treasurer and such other officers as well as employees the
President may appoint with the consent of the Board of Governors under such terms and conditions specified
in the appointment of each officer and/or employee.
Membership and Dues: Non-payment of dues may subject the lawyer to disciplinary action including
removal of the name of the delinquent lawyer from the Roll of Attorneys. (Sec. 9, Rule 139-A)LIFETIME DUE:
P25,000 after 10 years of practice of law and ANNUAL DUE: P1,000
In the Matter of Brewing Controversies in the IBP Elections(A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC, A.C. No. 8292, April 2013):
Lawyers seeking positions in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines must respect the rotational rule. The
rotational rule is adopted to allow equal opportunity for all lawyers in different regions to have access to
positions of leadership in the IBP. The S.C. also reminded IBP officers that they should not use the Court as
“referee” for their intramurals.

Q. State, with a brief explanation, whether the lawyer concerned may be sanctioned for the conduct
stated below.
[xxx] g. Not paying the annual IBP dues. [2008]
A: The payment of membership dues is essential to allow the IBP to successfully conduct its activities.
Default in payment of IBP dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership to the Integrated
Bar, and default to make such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the delinquent
member from the Roll of Attorneys (In Re Atty. Marcial Edillon, 84 SCRA 554 [1978]).

NEW JURISPRUDENCE – Encouraging Adversarial Climate
1. Fortune Medicare v. Atty. Richard Lee
- DISBARRED from the practice of law
- GUILTY of violation of Rule 1.01, Rule 7.03, Canon 7, and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
As a lawyer, respondent should have been aware that there are legal remedies available to him in order to
protect his rights and to secure his judgment award from being a mere paper judgment. He, however, opted to
employ deceit and chicanery to get what he believed he deserved. His action fosters an environment where
the rule of law is disregarded and emboldens the public to resort to extralegal means to obtain what they
desire.
2. Rev. Fr. Jose P. Zafra III v. Atty. Renato B. Pagatpatan, A.C. No, 12457, April 2, 2019
- DISBARRED from the practice of law for making a mockery of Supreme Court’s authority by defying this
Court's suspension order for over eleven years.
- GUILTY OF SIMPLE MISCONDUCT and fined him PHP5,000 for unethical behavior over his letter to the
Bishop of the Diocese of Tandang, Surigao Del Sur against Fr. Zafra.
Acts encouraging adversarial climate -
1. Letter of Pagatpatan to the Bishop of Tandag was meant to stir up controversies,
2. Pagatpatan thrived in litigation practice for 11 years without serving the Supreme
Court’s order of suspension issued in 2005.
3. Bello-Henares v. Atty. Roberto “Argee” Guevarra, A.C. No. 11394, December 01, 2016, Perlas-
Bernabe, J.
- SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
- GUILTY of violation of Rules 7.03, 8.01, and 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Excerpts of Atty. Argee Guevarra’s posts:
I am out to get Puwitic Justice here! Kiss My Client's Ass, Belo. Senator Adel Tamano don't kiss Belo's
ass. Guys and girls, nagiisip na akong tumakbo sa Hanghalan 2010 to Kick some ass!!! I will launch a
national campaign against Plastic Politicians No guns, No goons, No gold - IN GUTS I TRUST!

19 | P a g e
 You will go down in Medical History as a QUACK DOCTOR!!!! QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK. CNN,
FOX NEWS, BLOOMBERG, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, L.A. TIMES c/o my partner in the U.S., Atty. Trixie Cruz-
Angeles :) (September 22 at 11:18pm)
Haaaaay, style-bulok at style-duwag talaga. Lalakarin ng Reyna ng Kaplastikan at Reyna ng Payola
ang kaso... si Imelda Marcos nga sued me for
P300 million pesos and ended up apologizing to me, si Belo pa kaya? (September 15 at 12:08pm)
BOYCOTT BELO! FLAWLESS RECKLESS! BELAT ESSENTIALS! (September 23 at 12:17am)
4. Spouses Manalo v. Atty. Ernesto Villagarcia, A.C. No. 8210, August 08, 2016, Perlas-Bernabe, J –
- Suspended for one month for violating Canon 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- 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.
Acts considered as adversarial in nature –
1. Respondent sent them a demand letter which contained not only threatening but also libelous
utterances.
2. Sent a copy of said demand letter to other third parties which maligned their reputation and caused
them sleepless nights.

2. THE LAWYER AS A NOTARY PUBLIC (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, effective August 1, 2004, as amended)
Q. What are the purposes of the Notarial Rules?
A. Promote, serve and protect public interest; to simplify, clarify and modernize the rules governing notaries
public; and to foster ethical conduct among notaries public.
Please take note the relevant provisions of the 2004 Notarial Rules: (Take particular attention of the
date when a document was notarized. A document notarized before the effectivity of the 2004
Notarial Rules will be governed by the relevant provisions of the Revised Administrative Code where
the “cedula” will suffice as proof of identity.)
HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO REPRESENTED BY DAVID ALILANO v. ATTY. ROBERTO E. EXAMEN, A.C. No.
10132, March 24, 2015. The complainants charged Atty. Examen of notarizing Deeds of Sale where his brother
was the vendee. In his defense, Atty. Examen said that at the time of the execution of the subject Deeds of Sale the
Notarial Rules of 2004 were not yet in effect. Under the Revised Administrative Code which governed the notarial
practice there was no prohibition on notarizing documents of relatives up to the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity and affinity. The Court, however, held Atty. Examen liable for not ascertaining the details of the
“cedulas” of the affiants. He relied on the entries made by his secretary. The Court suspended Atty. Roberto E.
Examen from the practice of law for TWO (2) YEARS. In addition, his present notarial commission, if any, was
likewise REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public for a period of two (2)
years from finality of this decision.

(1). Commissioning of a Notary Public
WILBERTO C. TALISIC v. ATTY. PRIMO R. RINEN, A.C. No. 8761, February 12, 2014: A lawyer’s notarial
commission was revoked and he was not allowed to renew the same for one year for failure to ascertain the
identities of the parties who executed an Extra Judicial Partition with Sale which allowed the transfer to Spouses
Durante of a parcel of land. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with
substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.
(2). Qualifications (Section 1, Rule III)
(3). Manner of Obtaining a Commission (Sections 2, 3, 4, 5,6,7,8, 9 and 10 Rule III); and Renewal of
Commission (Sections 13 and 14, Rule III)
(4). Powers and Limitations
Powers (Section 1, Rule IV; Sections 1-4, Rule VII)
Prohibitions (Section 2, Rule IV; Section 1, Rule XII)
Disqualifications (Section 4, Rule IV)
(5). Instances when a Notary Public may refuse to notarize, issue certification (Sections 4, 5 & 6, Rule
IV)
(6). Jurisdiction and Period of Validity of Commission (Section 11, Rule III; Section9, Rule IX)
RE: VIOLATION OF RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICEA.M. No. 09-6-1-SC,
January 21, 2015, MENDOZA, J.:A review of the records and evidence presented by complainants show that
Atty. Siapno indeed maintained a law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan, just beside the law office of one of the
complainants, Atty. Elizabeth Tugade. It was also proven that Atty. Siapno notarized several instruments with
an expired notarial commission outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. Section 11,
Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides:
“Jurisdiction and Term – A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place
within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years commencing the
first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary
public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.”
(7). Reportorial Requirement (Section 12, Rule III; Sections 1-6, Rule VI; and Sections 1-2, Rule VIII)

20 | P a g e
NEW JURISPRUDENCE – Notarial Practice
1. Romeo Almario v. Atty. Domica Llera-Agno,
A.C. No. 10689 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3171], January 08, 2018. Del Castillo, J.
- SUSPENDED as Notary Public for a period of two months
- GUILTY of violating Section 1, Rule II and Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial Rules
Violations committed by respondent –
(1) Respondent notarized the document despite the fact that affiant could not have signed the SPA since
on the date of execution, Mallari was in Japan;
(2) Respondent allowed the use of CTC as competent proof of identity.
Respondent asked for reduction of the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors on the following
grounds:
(1) this is her first offense since she was first commissioned as a notary public in 1973;
(2) the case involved only one document;
(3) the notarization was done in good faith;
(4) the civil case wherein the questioned SPA was used ended in a Compromise Agreement; and finally
(5) she is already 71 years old and is truly sorry for what she had done and promises to be more circumspect
in the performance of her duties as a notary public.
2. Virgilio Rigon v. Atty. Eric P. Subia, A.C. No. 10249, September 07, 2020, Delos Santos, J.
- SUSPENDED for six (6) months
- GUILTY of violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and of negligence in the performance of his
duties as a notary public.
- Notarial Commission is REVOKED and PROHIBITED from being commissioned as a notary public for two
(2) years.
- WARNED that a repetition of the same offense or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Violations committed by respondent -
(1) Atty. Subia failed to properly verify that the persons who signed the same as vendors were already
dead at the time of its execution.
(2) The subject Deed also lacks the signatures of two (2) witnesses in the execution thereof.
2. Teodoro L. Cansino and Emilio L. Cansino, Jr. v. Atty. Victor D. Sederiosa, A.C. No. 8522. October 6, 2020,
Hernando, J.
- SUSPENDED from the practice of law for TWO (2) YEARS, on top of the ONE (1) YEAR SUSPENSION
previously imposed upon him.
- Notarial commission is REVOKED.
- PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from acting as notary public.
Violations committed by respondent –
(1) Respondent conspiring in the execution and notarization of fictitious and simulated documents.
(2) During the period of his one-year suspension, Sederiosa continued to practice law and he even
obtained a renewal of his notarial commission.
3. Alberto Lopez v. Atty. Rosendo C. Ramos, A.C. No. 12081. November 24, 2020, Peralta, C.J.
- SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two years
- PROHIBITED from renewing his notarial commission for two years.
Violations committed by respondent –
(1) Respondent willfully aided parties to the sale of a parcel of land in Tondo to evade or defeat the
proper payment of taxes on the transaction.
(2) Respondent showed gross negligence in the performance of his duties as a notary public resulting in
the registration of title based on forged deed of sale of the subject property.

CRESCENCIANO M. PITOGO v. ATTY. JOSELITO TROY SUELLO, A.C. No. 10695, March 18, 2015, Leonen, J:
For not faithfully reflecting the notarial deeds in his registration book, Atty. Joselito Troy Suello was found
GUILTY of violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice. Accordingly, he was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months; his notarial
commission was immediately revoked; and was DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as notary public for
one (1) year
(8). Disciplinary Sanctions/Death of a Notary Public
Revocation of commission ((Section 1, Rule XI)
Suspension from practice as a lawyer
Death of a Notary Public (Section 4, Rule XI)
Q. You had just taken your oath as a lawyer. The secretary to the President of a big university offered to
get you as the official notary public of the school. She explained that a lot of students lose their
Identification Cards and are required to secure an affidavit of loss before they can be issued a new one.
She claimed that this would be very lucrative for you, as more than 30 students lose their Identification

21 | P a g e
Cards every month. However, the secretary wants you to give her one-half of your earnings therefrom.
Will you agree to the arrangement? Explain. [2005]
A. No, I will not agree to the proposal of the secretary since she is not a lawyer because Rule 9.02 of Canon 9
that "a lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal service with persons not licensed to
practice law"
Q. Can a notary public dissolve marriage?
A. No, a notary public may not dissolve marriage.
Espinosa v. Atty. Julieta A.Omana, A.C. No. 9081, October 12, 2011: The S.C. revoked the notarial
commission of a lawyer and she was likewise suspended from the practice of law for notarizing a document
which effectively dissolved the marriage of the complainants.

Q. Is a lawyer required to recall the identity of the affiants after a lapse of five years?
A. No, a lawyer is not required to recall the identity of affiants after lapse of five years.
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Arguelles, 679 SCRA 348 (2012): The S.C. held that it is sufficient for
the Notary Public to ascertain the identities of the affiants and the witnesses at the time of the execution of
the document. The Notary Public must rely on the presumption that the proofs of identity of the parties were
issued by the public agencies in the regular course of the discharge of their responsibilities. It is also not
practical for a notary public to recall the affiants 12 years after they personally appeared before him.

Q. Can a lawyer continue to notarize documents with an expired commission?
A. No. Tenoso v. Echanez, A.C. No. 8384, 11 April 2013: By performing his duties without renewing his notarial
commission, the S.C. said that he committed acts of falsehood and must be punished.

Q. Can a lawyer notarize the statement executed by his sister-in-law?
A. No, he cannot notarize the document.
Jandoquile v. Revilla, A.C. No.9514, 10 April 2013: The Notarial Rules of 2004 disqualifies lawyers from
notarizing documents of relatives up to the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. The defense of
Atty. Revilla that he notarized the Affidavit-Complaint of his relative by his virtue of the fact that he was the
counsel in the criminal case is not availing according to the Court. The S.C. held that since he signed it with the
details of his notarial commission leads to no other conclusion that he signed it as a Notary Public and not as
counsel. The S.C. reiterated the rule that where the affiants are personally known to the Notary Public, the
jurat must state so, otherwise, parties must show proof of competent identity.

Q. Can one’s notarial commission included in the conduct of the disbarment of the lawyer although the
same was not raised in the complaint?
A. Yes, this can be included in the proceeding.
Virtusio v. Virtusio, 680 SCRA 1(2012): The IBP Investigating Commissioner discovered in the course of the
disciplinary proceeding against Virtusio that she failed to renew her notarial commission in 2006 and 2007.
While it was not a subject of the complaint, the S.C. held that the infraction can be scrutinized in the
investigation. The S.C. revoked the notarial commission of the lawyer, did not allow her to renew the same
and suspended her from the practice of law for deliberate falsehood for holding out to the public that she has
been properly commissioned to notarized documents.

Q. What is the culpability of a lawyer for failure to ascertain the identity of an affiant?
A. Wilberto C. Talisic v. Atty. Primo R. Rinen, A.C. No. 8761, February 12, 2014: A lawyer’s notarial
commission was revoked and he was not allowed to renew the same for one year for failure to ascertain the
identities of the parties who executed an Extra Judicial Partition with Sale which allowed the transfer to
Spouses Durante of a parcel of land. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested
with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries
public.
Carlito Ang v. Atty. James Joseph Gupana, A.C. No. 4545. February 5, 2014:The Supreme Court held that
Atty. Gupana’s revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary
public for a period of two years and suspension from the practice of law for one year are in order for failure to
require the personal presence of the affiant in an Affidavit of Loss purportedly executed in 1994.
Licerio Dizon v. Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr., A.C. No. 10185, March 12, 2014. The S.C. held that as a notary
public, Atty. Cabucana, Jr. should not notarize a document unless the person who signs it is the same person
executing it and personally appearing before him to attest to the truth of its contents. This is to enable him to
verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the
party’s free and voluntary act and deed. Thus, Atty. Cabucana, Jr. was found violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and suspended from the practice of law for three months. His notarial
commission was revoked, and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.

Q. Atty. A, a duly licensed notary public, has maintained several notarial registers in his separate offices
in order to cater to the needs of his clients and accommodate their growing number. Due to Atty. A's
busy schedule, Atty. A's secretary would usually perform the notarial acts on his behalf. Sometime in

22 | P a g e
April 2017, Mrs. B, an Overseas Filipino Worker staying in Singapore, sought the legal services of Atty.
for the nullification of her marriage. Consequently, Atty. A drafted a petition with verification which
was sent from his law office in Manila to Singapore for the signature of Mrs. B, who, after signing the
same, sent it back to Atty. A. When the document arrived in Atty. A's office, his secretary, as per usual
practice, notarized the signed document upon Atty. A's instruction.

Q. (a) Name at least two (2) violations of the Rules on Notarial Practice committed by Atty. A.
A. He violated the following rules
(1) Rule II, Section 5 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice states that “Notarial Register” refers to a
permanently bound book with numbered pages containing a chronological record of notarial acts performed
by a notary public.

(2)2 Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that “a notary public shall not
perform a notarial act outside his regular place of work or business, except in few exceptional occasions or
situations, at the request of the parties.”
Q.(b) May Atty. A be also held liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility for the same
infractions committed by him as a notary public? Explain.
A. Yes, aside from violating the 2004 Notarial Rules, Atty. A may also be held liable for violation of the
following Canons under the Code of Professional Responsibility:
(1) Canon 1 – For failure to comply with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; and
(2) Canon 7 - For failure to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
Q. (c) What does the phrase "competent evidence of identity" refer to under the Rules on Notarial
Practice?
A. The phrase “competent evidence of identity” refers to the identification of an individual based on:
(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and
signature of the individual; or
(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who
is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible
witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows
the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification. [Section 12, 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice]

Q. What is the liability of a lawyer for notarizing a document when the affiant is already dead?
A. Atty.Florita S. Linco v. Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebral, A.C. No. 7241, October 17, 2011: A notary public who
notarized a Deed of Donation of another lawyer one day after his death to the detriment of the interests of the
surviving lawyer-spouse, was suspended by the S.C.

Important matters to consider:
Jurat (Section 6, Rule II) and Acknowledgment (Section1, Rule II), distinguished
Competent Evidence of Identity (Section 12, Rule 2)
JIMMY ANUDON AND JUANITA ANUDON v. ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA, A.C. No. 5482. February 10, 2015,
Leonen, J. Without the ascertaining the personal presence of the affiants, the Court imposed upon the errant
lawyer the perpetual disqualification for notarial commission, revocation of notarial commission and suspension
from the practice of law. The lawyer was found to have notarized a Deed of Sale of a property while the
complainants were abroad.

Q. Can a notary public delegate his duties as a notary public?
A. No, a notary public may not delegate his duties as a notary public.
MELANIO S. SALITA, v.ATTY. REYNALDO T. SALVE.A.C. No. 8101, February 04, 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same
persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are
stated therein. These acts of the affiants cannot be delegated because what are stated therein are facts they
have personal knowledge of and are personally sworn to. Otherwise, their representative’s names should
appear in the said documents as the ones who executed the same. As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary
public, Atty. Salve is mandated to discharge his sacred duties with faithful observance and utmost respect for
the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat.

Affirmation or Oath(Section 2, Rule II) and Signature Witnessing (Section 14, Rule II), distinguished

3. Upholding the dignity of the legal profession
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. (Rules 7.01-7.03)
23 | P a g e


Q. What is the liability of a lawyer for failure to uphold the dignity of the legal profession?
A. The lawyer may be disbarred by the Supreme Court which he tarnishes the image of the legal profession
which tends to erode public trust in the administration of justice.
Keld Stemmerik v. Atty. Leonuel N. Mas, A.C. 8010, June 16, 2009: A lawyer was disbarred by taking
advantage of the lack of knowledge of Philippine laws by a foreigner. Atty. Mas drew up a Deed of Sale of a
property in Subic which is part of public domain and therefore outside the commerce of man.
OCA v. Liangco, supra: S.C. said: “We are appalled by the respondent’s ignorance of the basic rules of procedure.
His wanton use of court processes in this case without regard for the repercussions on the rights and property of
others clearly shows his unfitness to remain a member of the bar.”
In Re: Pactolin, supra: The S.C. ruled: “As a rule, this Court exercises the power to disbar with caution. x x yet
this Court has also consistently pronounced that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final
judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude. x xx His conduct only exacerbates his offense and shows that he
falls short of the exacting standards expected of him as a vanguard of the legal profession.”

Q: Discuss the lawyer’s duty under Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
A. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that all lawyers should uphold at all times the
dignity and integrity of the Legal Profession.
Rule 7.01 states that shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 7.02 provides that 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 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "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."

4. Courtesy, fairness and candor towards professional colleagues
CANON 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. (Rules 8.01-8.02)

Q: Dr. B alleged that Atty. G wrote a series of posts on his Facebook account insulting and verbally
abusing her. His posts included remarks about the Dr. B’s alleged quack doctoring and bribery allegedly
to pin him down. The complaint further alleged that respondent posted remarks on his Facebook
account that were intended to destroy and ruin BMGI’s medical personnel and the posts were sexist,
vulgar, and disrespectful of women. Finally, complainant averred that the attacks against her were
made with the object to extort money from her. She lodged an administrative complaint against Atty. G.
Will the case prosper?
Answer: Yes, the case will prosper. Respondent’s inappropriate and obscene language, and his act of publicly
insulting and undermining the reputation of complainant through the subject Facebook posts are, therefore,
in complete and utter violation of the provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility. By posting the
subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and BMGI, respondent disregarded the fact that, as a
lawyer, he is bound to observe proper decorum at all times, be it in his public or private life. He overlooked
the fact that he must behave in a manner befitting of an officer of the court, that is, respectful, firm, and
decent. (MARIA VICTORIA G. BELO-HENARES v. ATTY. ROBERTO “ARGEE” C. GUEVARRA, A.C. No. 11394,
FIRST DIVISION, December 1, 2016, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.)

Q: The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner holding
that non-compliance with MCLE requirement is not a ground for disbarment. Was the recommendation
to dismiss the case proper?
A: Yes, the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors to dismiss the administrative case against Atty. OA
was correct. The Court that with regard to Atty. OA’s alleged violation of BM No. 1922, the Court agrees with
the IBP that his failure to disclose the required information for MCLE compliance in the complaint for
damages he had filed against his brother MA is not a ground for disbarment. At most, his violation shall only
be cause for the dismissal of the complaint as well as the expunction thereof from the records. (MAXIMINO
NOBLE III v. ATTY. ORLANDO O. AILES, A.C.No. 10628, July 1, 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.)

Q: Atty. N alleged Atty. OA filed a complaint for damages against his own brother, MA, whom Atty. N
represented, together with other defendants, therein. Atty. N claimed that at the time of the filing of the
said complaint, Atty. AO’s IBP O.R. was not current and he had complied with his MCLE.
MA informed Atty. N that Atty. OA filed a separate case for grave threats and estafa against him. After
sometime, MA informed him that his brother was willing to enter into a compromise agreement with
him. MA showed to Atty. N the text messages of Atty. OA which evidently maligned him and sought to
persuade MA to terminate their lawyer-client relationship.
Atty. N filed an administrative complaint charging Atty. OA with violation of Rule 7.03 of Canon 7, the
entire Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), Bar Matter (BM) Nos. 8509 and 1922,
and prayed for the disbarment of respondent as well as the award of damages. Will the case prosper?
24 | P a g e
A: Yes, the case will prosper. As members of the bar, lawyers should be more circumspect in their words,
especially when being fully aware that they pertain to another lawyer to whom fairness as well as candor is
owed. Indulging in offensive personalities in the course of judicial proceedings, as in this case, constitutes
unprofessional conduct which subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action. While a lawyer is entitled to present
his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive
language. The Court has consistently reminded the members of the bar to abstain from all offensive
personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor and reputation of a party. Considering the
circumstances, it is glaringly clear how Atty. OA transgressed the CPR when he maligned Atty. N to his client.
Atty. OA violated Canon 8 which provides-
“Canon 8 — A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.
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.” (MAXIMINO NOBLE III v. ATTY. ORLANDO O.
AILES, A.C. No. 10628, July 1, 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.)
Note: In Buatis Jr. v. People, the Court treated a lawyer's use of the words "lousy," "inutile," "carabao English,"
"stupidity," and "satan" in a letter addressed to another colleague as defamatory and injurious which
effectively maligned his integrity. Similarly, the hurling of insulting language to describe the opposing counsel
is considered conduct unbecoming of the legal profession.

Q: Atty. R filed a complaint against Atty. B intimidating, harassing, blackmailing, and maliciously
threatening him into withdrawing the case filed by his client. According to Atty. R, Atty. B would make
various telephone calls and send text messages and e-mails not just to him, but also to his friends and
other clients, threatening to file disbarment and/or criminal suits against him. Further, and in view of
R’s "high profile" stature, Atty. B also threatened to publicize such suits in order to besmirch and/or
destroy Atty. R’s name and reputation. Does Atty. R have a basis to file the administrative case against
Atty. B?
A: Yes, Atty. R has a basis to file the action against B. Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are
empowered to appear, prosecute, and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities, and liabilities
are devolved by law as a consequence.
Membership in the Bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the
legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. To this end, Canon 8 commands: A
lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and
shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Case law instructs that "[l]awyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy,
dignity[,] and civility.”
In this case, respondent's underhanded tactics against complainant were in violation of Canon 8 of the
CPR. As aptly pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner, instead of availing of remedies to contest
the ruling adverse to his client, respondent resorted to personal attacks against the opposing litigant's
counsel, herein complainant. Thus, it appears that respondent's acts of repeatedly intimidating,
harassing, and blackmailing complainant with purported administrative and criminal cases and
prejudicial media exposures were performed as a tool to return the inconvenience suffered by his client.
His actions demonstrated a misuse of the legal processes available to him and his client, especially
considering that the aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according to law, not
to harass them. More significantly, the foregoing showed respondent's lack of respect and despicable
behavior towards a colleague in the legal profession, and constituted conduct unbecoming of a member of the
bar. (ATTY. HERMINIO HARRY L. ROQUE, JR. v. ATTY. RIZAL P. BALBIN, A.C. No. 7088, December 4, 2018,
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.)

Q. Can a lawyer share his professional fees with a non-lawyer?
A. No, as a general rule a lawyer is not allowed to his professional fees with a non-lawyer. (See relevant
discussion under Attorney’s Fees)

5. No assistance in the unauthorized practice of law
CANON 9 – A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law. (Rules 9.01-
9.02)

Q. What constitutes unauthorized practice of law?
A. Tapay et al v. Attys. Charlie L. Bancolo et al, A. C. No. 9604, March 20, 2013: A lawyer who allowed his
secretary to sign his pleading in the Office of the Ombudsman is guilty of violation of Canon 9.Only lawyers are
allowed to sign pleadings and the same cannot be delegated.
Atty. Edita Noe – Lacsamana v. Atty. Yolando F. Bustamente (A.C. No. 7269, November
23, 2011: A lawyer who allowed a paralegal to attend court hearings on his behalf has violated Canon 9 because
only lawyers are allowed to undertake representation clients before the regional trial courts.
25 | P a g e
Q: T alleged that Atty. P undertook to give him 20% commission, of the attorney's fees. Their agreement
evidenced by a letter. However, respondent failed to pay him the agreed commission. He then demanded
the payment of his commission which respondent ignored.
T further alleged that respondent has not lived up to the high moral standards required
of his profession for having abandoned his legal wife with whom he has two children, and cohabited
with another woman with whom he has four children. Did Atty. P cross ethical lines?
A: Yes, Atty. P crossed ethical lines. The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State
on those who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the
profession. As such, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency,
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing, and must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal
profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms embodied in the Code.
Lawyers may, thus, be disciplined for any conduct that is wanting of the above standards whether in their
professional or in their private capacity. He is guilty of -
(1) Violating Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating
to divide a fee for legal services with persons not
licensed to practice law, except in certain cases which do not obtain in the case at bar;
(2) Violating Canon 1 of the CPR because it is settled rule that betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or
sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful
and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows
protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws. (ENGR. GILBERT TUMBOKON , A.C. No. 6116,
THIRD DIVISION, August 1, 2012, Perlas-Bernabe, J.)

C. Duty to the Courts
1. Candor, fairness and good faith towards the courts
CANON 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. (Rules 10.01-10.02)
Read also Rule 138, Section 20(c) and (d), Rules of Court, Duties of Attorneys
NEW JURISPRUDENCE
1. Justices Fernanda Lampas- Peralta, Stephen Cruz and Ramon Paul Hernando v. Atty. Marie Frances
Ramon, A.C. No. 12415, March 05, 2019
- DISBARRED
- GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath, Canons 1, 7, and 10, and Rules 1.01, 1.02, 7.03, 10.01, 10.02,
and 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Grave Misconduct.
Acts patently establishing disrespect to the justices of the Court of Appeals -
1. She represented to De Jesus and Aquino that she could secure the acquittal of Fajardo and even used the
names of the Associate Justices to accomplish her ill motives.
2. She defrauded her clients by drafting a fake, spurious, and sham decision regarding the purported acquittal
of Fajardo. She placed the names of complainants in the fake decision even though the criminal case of
Fajardo was raffled in a different division and assigned to a different Associate Justice.

Canons 10 to 13 of the CPR outlines the duty of respect of lawyers to the courts. A lawyer who commits
falsehood in his work as litigator is engaged in dishonest conduct which was also disrespectful of the courts.

2. Marilu C. Turla v. Atty. Jose M. Caringal, A.C. No. 11641, March 12, 2019, Hernando, J.
- SUSPENDED for three years for signing pleadings without full compliance with the MCLE
requirements
The significant number of pleadings which he signed indicating wrong MCLE details completely negated any
defense of good faith since it demonstrated negligence in the performance of his duties towards his client and
the courts.
Acts constituting disrespect to the courts -
(1) failure to take the MCLE seminars for the MCLE II and III compliance periods as required under Bar
Matter No. 850 and (2) violation of his lawyer's oath not to do any falsehood.
Note:
A non-compliant lawyer must pay a non-compliance fee of P1,000.00 and still comply with the MCLE
requirements within a sixty (60)-day period, otherwise, he/she will be listed as a delinquent IBP member
after investigation by the IBP-CBD and recommendation by the MCLE Committee.
The non-compliance fee is a mere penalty imposed on the lawyer who fails to comply with the MCLE
requirements within the compliance period and is in no way a grant of exemption from compliance to the
lawyer who thus paid.

3. Cleo B. Dongga-as v. Atty. Rose Beatrix Cruz-Angeles, Atty. Wylie M. Paler, and Atty. Angeles Grandea,
AC. No. 11113, August 09, 2016, Perlas-Bernabe, J-

26 | P a g e
 - Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler are suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years
for violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Canon 7, Canon 11, Rule 18.03, Canon 18, and Rules 16.01 and 16.03,
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- Cruz-Angeles and Paler were ordered to return to complainant Cleo B. Dongga-as the legal fees they
received from the latter in the aggregate amount of P350,000.00 within ninety (90) days from the
finality of this Decision.
- Atty. Grandea was exonerated of any liability as his participation in the charges has not been
discussed, much less proven.

Acts showing violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR –
(1) Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler should not perform acts that would tend to undermine and/or denigrate
the integrity of the courts, such as insinuating that they can find a "friendly" court and judge that will ensure a
favorable ruling in complainant's annulment case.
(2) Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler compromised the integrity not only of the judiciary, but also of the national
prosecutorial service, by insinuating that they can influence a court, judge, and prosecutor to cooperate with
them to ensure the annulment of complainant's marriage.
4. Flordeliza Madria v. Atty. Carlos P. Rivera, A.C. No. 11256, March 07, 2017
- DISBARRED
- GUILTY of grave misconduct and violation of the lawyer's oath.
A lawyer who causes the simulation of court documents not only violates the court and its processes, but also
betrays the trust and confidence reposed in him by his client and must be disbarred to maintain the integrity
of the law profession.
Acts revealing utter disrespect to the court -
(1) The respondent acknowledged authorship of the petition for annulment of marriage.
(2) He simulated the decision and the certificate of finality.

5. Leah Taday v. Atty. Dionisio Apoya, Jr., A.C. No. 11981, July 03, 2018
- DISBARRED
- GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section
2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Respondent committed unlawful, dishonest, immoral and
deceitful conduct, and lessened the confidence of the public in the legal system. Instead of being an advocate
of justice, he became a perpetrator of injustice.
Acts showing disrespect to the court –
(1) Respondent notarized the verification and certification of non forum shopping in the petition filed before
RTC Branch 131 supposedly executed by complainant as the affiant. At that time, however, complaint was not
in the Philippines because she was still in Norway working as an OFW. Undoubtedly, respondent violated the
notarial rules when he notarized a document without the personal presence of the affiant.
(2) Aside from improperly notarizing a petition, respondent committed an even graver transgression by
drafting a fake decision and delivering it to his client in guise of a genuine decision.

Q. Can a Senator be exonerated from any liability for calling the Supreme Court as a “court of idiots”?
A. Antero J. Pobre v. Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, A.C. No. 7399, August 25, 2009. S.C. exonerated the
respondent for calling the S.C. justices as a “court of idiots”. She invoked parliamentary immunity.

Q. Is a lawyer liable for resorting to a fraudulent order of the court to gain custody of his minor
children?
A. Yes, the lawyer is liable for resorting to a fraudulent order to gain custody of his minor children.
Natasha Hueysuwan-Florido v. Atty. James Benedict C. Florido, A.C. No. 5624, Jan.20, 2004). S.C. suspended
lawyer for resorting to a fraudulent order purportedly issued by the Court of Appeals awarding custody of his
children pending the annulment case filed by his complainant-wife.

Q: Complainants lodged an election protest and enlisted the services of Atty. DV and were asked by
the latter to pay his acceptance fee plus various court appearance fees and miscellaneous expenses.
A year later, when the deadline was looming, Atty. DV rushed the preparation of the necessary
documents and attachments for the election protest. Atty. DV attached two affidavits in order to beat the
deadline but the presiding excluded the two affidavits because they were falsified based on the
testimonies of the affiants. Did Atty. DV violate any duty as a lawyer?
A: Yes, Atty. DV violated his oath as a lawyer and his duty of candor and respect to the court.
In his dealings with his client and with the courts, every lawyer is expected to be honest, imbued with
integrity, and trustworthy. These expectations, though high and demanding, are the professional and ethical
burdens of every member of the Philippine Bar, for they have been given full expression in the Lawyer’s Oath
that every lawyer of this country has taken upon admission as a bona fide member of the Law Profession.

27 | P a g e
Atty. DV sanctioned the submission of a falsified affidavit before the court in his desire to beat the deadline
for filing the election protest of his client. (MELANIO S. SALITA v. ATTY. REYNALDO T. SALVE, A.C. No. 8101,
FIRST DIVISION, February 4, 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.)

2. Respect for courts and judicial officers
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 (Rules 11.01-11.05)

Q. Are professors of law considered engaged in the practice of profession and are therefore subject to
disciplinary action of the Supreme Court? De Castro, J.
A. Yes. Re: Letter of the U.P. Law Faculty on Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation of the S.C., A.
M. No. 10-10-4-SC, March 8, 2011. The S.C. reminded the faculty members of the U.P.College of Law to be more
circumscribed with the filing of similar complaint against the members of the judiciary. It noted that the
concerned justice already admitted the lapse and that it was not done with malice. His good faith relieved him
from any kind of administrative liability.

3. Assistance in the speedy and efficient administration of justice
CANON 12 – A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. (Rules 12.01-12.08)
Read also Rule 138, Section 20(g) Rules of Court – Duties of Attorneys; and
Article III, Section 16, Constitution – Right to speedy disposition of cases.

4. Reliance on merits of his cause and avoidance of any impropriety which tends to influence the
appearance of influence upon the courts
CANON 13 – A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause refrain from any impropriety which tends to
influence or gives the appearance of influencing court. (Rules 13.01- 13.03)

Q. Can a lawyer be held liable for drafting the decision on behalf of a judge in an effort to help declog
court dockets?
A. Yes, a lawyer may be held liable for drafting the decision on behalf of a judge.
Lantoria v. Bunyi, A.M. Case No. 1769, June 8, 1992. A lawyer should not take it upon himself to prepare a draft
decision on behalf of a judge. Such an action of the counsel undermines the competence of the judiciary and will
tend to erode confidence in the judicial system.

Q. Is it proper for a lawyer to make pronouncements in the media regarding a pending case?
A. No, it is not proper to make pronouncements in the media regarding a pending case.
Cruz v. Salva, G. R. 12871, July 25, 1959, 105 Phil. 115. The S.C. cautioned lawyers from attracting media
attention over a pending case.

Q. Are court decisions subject to criticism?
A. Yes, court decisions are subject to criticism.
In Re: Almacen G.R. No. L-27654, Feb. 18, 1970. Lawyers as part of free speech may criticize decisions of the
Court but such post litigation utterances must never be resorted in order to malign the Court.

D. Duty to Clients

(i) Services regardless of a person’s status
CANON 14 – A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy. (Rules 14.01-14.04)
Read: Rule 138, Section 20, Rules of Court on Duties of Attorneys (h) and (i)
Rule 138, Section 31, Rules of Court on Attorneys for Destitute Litigant
(ii) Services as counsel de oficio primarily in CRIMINAL CASES
- Appointment as Counsel de oficio (to represent accused in criminal proceedings)
Read: Rule 116, Section 6, Rules of Court, Right to Counsel of an Accused
Rule 117, Section 7, Rules of Court, Appointment of Counsel de oficio during trial

Q. Who may be appointed as counsel de oficio?
A. A lawyer in good standing; or any person who reside where the case is filed, of good repute for probity and
ability where there is no lawyer in the jurisdiction.

Q. What factors are considered in the appointment of a counsel de oficio?
A. The following factors are considered: gravity of the offense, difficulty of the issues involved and experience
and ability of the appointee.

Q. What is the rule of the designation of Counsel de officio before an appellate court?
A. Rule 124, Section 2, Rules of Court: Conditions for appointment: accused is in prison, there is no counsel de
parte on appeal and accused signed notice of appeal himself.
28 | P a g e

Q. What are valid grounds for refusal to be engaged as counsel?
A. The following grounds may be invoked: where engagement may result into conflict of interest, when
lawyer is unable to represent a party due to pressing professional matters that need his attention, when what
the client wishes the client to undertake is patently illegal, when the client agrees in writing to retire his
representation or where after due notice and hearing, the court allows the counsel to withdraw his
appearance in an action or special proceeding, other similar grounds.

2. Candor, fairness and loyalty to clients
CANON 21 – A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client
relation is terminated.
(i) Confidentiality rule: Rule will cover partners in legal profession and non-legal staff working for
the lawyer.
(ii) Privileged communications. Sec.21 (b), Rule 130 will apply.
(iii) Conflict of interest: Disclose matters that would give rise to representation of two adverse
interests. Conflict of Interest, concept; when lawyer may lawyer may held accountable; liability
Q: What are covered the privilege communication rule?
A: The privilege communication rule covers the following matters:
1. Where legal advice of any kind is sought by the client;
2. When the information is from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such;
3. When the communication covers a matter relating to that purpose;
4. When communication is made in confidence;
5. When disclosure is made by the client;
6. When the disclosures are at his client’s instance permanently protected; and
7. When the information is derived from disclosure by the client or by legal advisor.
Except when the protection is waived by the client. (HADJULA V. MADIANDA, A.C. NO. 6711, JULY 3, 2007)
The following exceptions are allowed:
1. When there is consent or waiver of client;
2. When the law requires disclosure;
3. When disclosure is made to protect the lawyer’s rights (i.e. to collect his fees or defend himself, his
employees or associates or by judicial action); and
4. When such communications are made in contemplation of a crime or the perpetuation of a fraud:
5. A communication relating to a fraud already commenced is privileged
6. Payment of a retainer fee is not essential before an attorney can be required to safeguard a prospective
client’s secret acquired by an attorney during the course of consultation with the prospective client, even if
the attorney did not accept the employment
7. The essence of the veil of secrecy is that the communication between attorney and client is that the
communication between attorney and client is that the communication is intended by the client not for the
purpose of seeking legal advice from his attorney as to his agents or obligations (Sec. 24[b], Rule 130, Revised
Rules on Evidence).

Q: Is the counsel required to divulge the identity of his client?
A: The general rule in is that a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity
of this client. However, it is qualified by some important exceptions:
1. 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;
2. Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability; his identity is privileged;
3. 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 client's name is privileged;
4. When the content of any client communication to a lawyer lies within the privilege if it is relevant
to the subject matter of the legal problem on which the client seeks legal assistance;
5. Where the nature of the attorney-client relationship has been previously disclosed and it is the
identity which is intended to be confidential, the identity of the client has been held to be privileged,
since such revelation would otherwise result in disclosure of the entire transaction. (REGALA v.
SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. 105938, SEPTEMBER 20, 1996)

Q: What is the rule on conflict of interests?
A: A lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in
any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases. The prohibition
is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste. It behooves lawyers 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, which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice. Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not represent

29 | P a g e
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
(OROLA v. RAMOS, A.C. NO. 9860, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013, PERLAS-BERNABE, J)

Q: What are the tests to determine the existence of conflict of interests on the part of a lawyer?
A: The tests to determine conflicting interests are:
1. Conflicting Duties: This test will examine whether the lawyer will be required to contest for that
which his duty to another client requires him to oppose.
2. Invitation of Suspicion: This test will determine if the acceptance of a new relation of the lawyer to a
new client will invite suspicion and/or actually lead to unfaithfulness or double-dealing towards
another client.
3. Use of Prior Knowledge Obtained: This test will establish if the lawyer will be called upon in his new
relation to use against his former client any knowledge acquired in the previous employment.

Q: What are the rules that govern conflict of interest cases covering former government lawyers?
A: The rules that govern conflict of interest cases covering former government lawyers are:
1. Adverse-interest conflict exists where the matter in which the former government lawyer represents
a client in private practice is substantially related to a matter that the lawyer dealt with while
employed by the government and the interests of the current and former are adverse”; and
2. Congruent-interest conflict is the disqualification which does not really involve a conflict at all,
because it prohibits the lawyer from representing a private practice client even if the interests of the
former government client and the new client are entirely parallel. The “congruent-interest
representation conflict,” unlike the “adverse-interest conflict,” is unique to former government
lawyers. (PCCG v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND TAN, G.R. NOS. 151809-12, APRIL 12, 2005)

Q: May a lawyer in a law firm represent a party who has a claim against an existing client?
A: A lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in
any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases.
As an organization of individual lawyers which, albeit engaged as a collective, assigns legal work to a
corresponding handling lawyer, it behooves the law firm to value coordination in deference to the
conflict of interest rule. This lack of coordination, as respondents’ law firm exhibited in this case,
intolerably renders its clients’ secrets vulnerable to undue and even adverse exposure, eroding in the balance
the lawyer-client relationship’s primordial ideal of unimpaired trust and confidence.
(WILFREDO ANGLO v. ATTY. JOSE MA. VALENCIA, ATTY. JOSE MA. J. CIOCON, ATTY. PHILIP Z. DABAO, ATTY.
LILY UY-VALENCIA, ATTY. JOEY P. DE LA PAZ, ATTY. CRIS G. DIONELA, ATTY. RAYMUNDO T. PANDAN, JR.,
ATTY. RODNEY K. RUBICA, and ATTY. WILFRED RAMON M. PEÑALOSA, A.C. No. 10567, FIRST DIVISION,
February 25, 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.)

Q: Buenavista Properties, Inc. (BPI) entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with La Savoie
Development Corporation (LSDC), represented by Atty. D, for the development of a parcel of
land into a mixed-use commercial and residential subdivision and for the sale of the subdivided lots. A
disagreement ensued between the parties. This caused the filing of a case between the parties. Atty.
advised the lot buyers to pursue their claim against BPI by instituting separate actions before the
HLURB. One of the buyers he convinced were Spouses F. After the unsuccessful claim of Spouses F for
delivery for their land title, they instituted an action against LSDC. The President of LSDC was
represented by Atty. D. Is Atty. D guilty of conflict of interest?
A: Yes, Atty. D violated Rules 15.01 and 15.03, Canon 15 when he represented the President of
LSDC, in a criminal case for estafa filed by Spouses Flores, while he filed a complaint for delivery of title
against BPI before the HLURB. As such, Atty. D simultaneously represented parties despite their conflicting
interests, considering that the estafa case against the President was premised on the latter's and LSDC's
alleged misrepresentation of ownership over the lots sold and LSDC's eventual failure to deliver the title.
Thus, Atty. D's simultaneous representation of two adverse parties sans their written consent after a full
disclosure of the facts violated the rules on conflict of interest.
Atty. D also violated Rule 12.02, Canon 12 of the CPR on forum shopping when he lodged a complaint before
the HLURB praying for BPI to execute deeds of absolute sale and deliver the titles over the subdivided lots,
which was the same subject matter in the preliminary mandatory injunction earlier denied by the RTC while
the main civil case was still pending.
Atty, D violated Canon 17 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the CPR, since he failed to
communicate with and inform his client about the complaint against BPI before the HLURB and also
failed to file the required position paper and draft decision before the HLURB. As such, he neglected the legal
matters entrusted to him and failed to serve his client with competence and diligence, for which he must be
clearly held administratively liable. (BUENAVISTA PROPERTIES, INC., v. ATTY. AMADO B. DELORIA, A.C. No.
12160, SECOND DIVISION, August 14, 2018, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.)




30 | P a g e
Q. When can a lawyer be found liable for conflict of interest?
A. Pacana v. Pascual-López, A.C. No. 8243, Jully 24, 2009. A lawyer who acted as a retained counsel of a
company was disbarred for also rendering advice to the creditors of the company. The S.C. reminded lawyers
to avoid at all times any occasion where they will represent two adverse interests.
Notes on Issue of Conflict of Interest: The nature of lawyer and client relationship is one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree.
1. A lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his present or
former clients.
2. A lawyer may only be allowed to represent a client involving the same or a substantially related
matter that is materially adverse to the former client only if the former client consents to it after
consultation.
3. Throughout the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with
the client’s case, including the weak and strong points of the case. Knowledge and information
gathered in the course of the relationship must be treated as sacred and guarded with care and to
avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing, for only then can litigants be encouraged to
entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is paramount in the administration of justice.

In PO1 JOSE B. CASPE
v. ATTY. AQUILINO A. MEJICA (A.C. No. 10679, March 10, 2015), Caspe alleged the controversy started
when Atty. Mejica disregarded conflict of interest rules. Caspe said that when he filed a complaint for
attempted murder against Antonio Rodriguez, Jr., Atty. Mejica served as Caspe’s counsel. When Rodriguez, Jr.
filed his counter-affidavit, it was Atty. Mejica who counselled and represented him. The Court found Atty.
Aquilino A. Mejica GUILTY of violation of Rules 1.03, 1.04 and 10.01 and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and suspended him from the practice of law for two years.

3. Candid and honest advice to clients: Give a fair assessment of the case referral.
CANON 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his
clients. (Rules 15.01-15.08)
When lawyer-client relationship commences: no formal contract is needed, it is sufficient that the advice
and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any manner pertinent to his profession.
Ferdinand A. Samson v. Atty. Edgardo O. Era, A.C. No. 6664, July 16, 2013 the S.C. held that the termination of
the attorney-client relationship does not justify a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with
that of the former client. The spirit behind this rule is that the client’s confidence once given should not be
stripped by the mere expiration of the professional employment. As a general rule, the ban on disclosure of
client’s confidences is perpetual. Thus, Atty. Era was found guilty of Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 and Canon 17 of
the CPR and was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years
4. Compliance with laws: No one is above the Rule of Law
5. Concurrent practice of another profession: pay separate PTRs; one profession is governed by the
Professional Regulation Commission and the legal profession by the Supreme Court.
5. Dealing with Client’s monies and properties
CANON 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
profession.(Rules 16.01-16.04)
(i)Fiduciary relationship
(ii) Co-mingling of funds: A lawyer must not co-mingle his personal funds with those of his client.
(iii) Delivery of funds: A lawyer must promptly surrender to his client and/ or account for any money
received by way of a money judgment or proceeds from a transaction he handled in the course of his
engagement.
(iv) Borrowing or lending: A lawyer must refrain from borrowing money from his client.
Please note: Article 1491(5), New Civil Code which covers the prohibition against lawyers to
participate in any public or judicial auction of a property or rights where his professional
services were engaged.

Q. Is it proper for a lawyer to ask from her client for an advance for her professional fees and thereafter
not render any kind of legal service to the client?
A. No, it is not proper for a lawyer to ask for an advance for her professional fees and thereafter, not to render
any kind of legal service to client.
Victoria C. Heenan v. Atty. Erlinda Espejo, A.C. No. 10050, December 3, 2013.S.C. found Atty. Espejo guilty of
gross misconduct for failure pay a personal loan to her client which she initially asked as an advance for her
professional fees. The deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross
misconduct. A lawyer may be disciplined not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession but also for
gross misconduct outside of his professional capacity. Thus, Atty. Espejo was suspended from the practice of law
for two (2) years.
CECILIA AGNO v. ATTY. MARCIANO J. CAGATAN [558 SCRA 1, December 7, 2010] A lawyer who paid another
with a personal check from a bank account which he knew has already been closed exhibited an extremely

31 | P a g e
low regard to his commitment to the oath he took when he joined his peers, thereby seriously tarnishing the
image of the profession which he should hold in high esteem.
New Jurisprudence
1. Gracita P. Domingo-Agaton v. Atty. Nini D. Cruz, A.C. No. 11023. May 4, 2021 [Date Uploaded:
8/05/2021] –
- DISBARRED for “having clearly violated her Lawyer’s Oath and the Canons of Professional Responsibility
through her dishonest, deceitful and fraudulent conduct.”
- ORDERED TO REFUND Domingo-Agaton the P2 million plus 6% interest per annum from October 12, 2015,
until full payment.
Badges of Dishonesty
(1) Cruz was dishonest when she concealed that the consignation complaint was already dismissed by the
RTC.
(2) Cruz also defrauded complainant by misappropriating her manager’s check as settlement for the
obligation of another client in another case.
(3) She likewise deceived the RTC into believing that the complainant’s manager’s check was issued for a
civil case, to which she was not a party.

2. Diwei “Bryan” Huang v. Atty. Jude Francis Zambrano, A.C. No. 12460, March 26, 2019, Per Curiam
- DISBARRED
- GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01, 16.01, and 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
- DIRECTED to immediately remit to complainant Diwei "Bryan" Huang the full amount of Two
Hundred and Fifty Thousand Pesos (PhP250,000.00), which will earn interest of six percent (6%) per
annum from finality of this Decision until its full payment.
Acts showing dishonesty –
(1) Zambrano rejected the options presented by Huang on how to settle a monetary obligation of one of the
latter’s creditors.
(2) The creditor agreed to settle the obligation at P250,000,00 which Zambrano received on behalf of Huang.
(3) Despite receipt of the money, Zambrano did not remit the same to Huang.
The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and prescribes on a lawyer a great fidelity
and good faith. The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account
for the money or property collected or received for or from his client. Thus, a lawyer's failure gives rise to the
presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use.

Q. What instances would indicate violation of a lawyer’s fiduciary duty?
A. Bayonla et al v. Atty. Purita A. Reyes, A. C. No. 4808, November 22, 2011. For her failure to turn over to her
clients the just compensation in an expropriation case, S.C. disbarred the respondent lawyer.
Freeman v. Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes, A. C. No. 6246, November 15, 2011. S.C. disbarred respondent-lawyer for
employing deceit to personally gain from the proceeds of the insurance claims and retirement benefits of the
deceased British spouse of the complainant.

Important matters to consider on fiduciary duty:
(1). Lawyers are bound to promptly account for money or property received in the course of his
engagement as counsel.
(2). Even if a lawyer has a lien for fees, he is bound to turnover any property or money received on
behalf of his client.
(3). The turnover of money or property to his client is subject to lawyer’s lien.
All costs of litigation must be borne by the client.
5. Fidelity to client’s cause

CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him.

Q. What is the nature of a lawyer-client relationship?
A. Josefina Carranzavida de Zaldívar v. Atty. Ramon SG Cabanes, Jr., A.C. No. 7749, July 8, 2013. S.C.
suspended respondent lawyer for gross negligence in violation of Canon 17 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of
Canon 18 of the CPR. S.C. reiterated that the relationship between an attorney and his client is one imbued
with utmost trust and confidence. Whether his services are paid or rendered pro bono, a lawyer’s duty of
competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsel’s care or giving
sound legal advice, but also consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal,
attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the
handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for the client or the
court to prod him or her to do so. While such negligence or carelessness is incapable of exact formulation, the
Court has consistently held that the lawyer’s mere failure to perform the obligations due his client is per se a
violation.

32 | P a g e
Notes on Issue of Conflict of Interest: The nature of lawyer and client relationship is one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree.
A lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his present or former
clients.
A lawyer may only be allowed to represent a client involving the same or a substantially related matter that is
materially adverse to the former client only if the former client consents to it after consultation.
Throughout the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the
client’s case, including the weak and strong points of the case. Knowledge and information gathered in the
course of the relationship must be treated as sacred and guarded with care and to avoid the appearance of
treachery and double-dealing, for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their
lawyers, which is paramount in the administration of justice.

(iv) Duty to apprise client: The lawyer must inform the client of the status of the case.

CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. (Rules 18.01-18.04)

Q. What characterizes the duty of a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence?
A. Felipe C. Dagala v. Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. and Atty. Amado T. Adquilen, A.C. No. 5044, December 2,
2013. S.C. reiterated the need for lawyers to be ever mindful of the cause of their clients and accordingly
exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. For his part, the lawyer is required to
maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and
competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He is
expected to act with honesty in all his dealings, especially with the courts. These principles are embodied in
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, Canon 17 and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the CPR. Atty.
Quesada’s failure to attend the scheduled conference hearings, despite due notice and without any proper
justification, exhibits his inexcusable lack of care and diligence in managing his client’s cause in violation of
Canon 17 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR.
Stephan Brunet and Virginia Romanillo Brunet v. Atty. Ronald L. Guaren, A.C. No. 10164, March 10, 2014.
For having violated Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR, Atty. Guaren was suspended from the practice of law for six
months. Despite acceptance of the amount of P7,000.00 for the titling of complainants’ lot, he failed to
perform his obligation and allowing 5 years to elapse without any progress on the referral. S.C. reiterated that
the practice of law is not a business and it reminded lawyers that the duty to public service and to the
administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their
personal interests or what they owe to themselves. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making
venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits.
Julian Penilla v. Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, Jr., A.C. No. 9149, September 4, 2013: The Court held that Atty. Alcid, Jr.
violated Canon 18 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he filed a
criminal case for estafa when the facts of the case would have warranted the filing of a civil case for breach of
contract; when the case was dismissed he committed another similar blunder by filing a civil case for specific
performance and damages before the RTC, when he should have filed it with the MTC; and he did not also
apprise complainant of the status of the cases. Atty. Alcid, Jr. is not only guilty of incompetence in handling the
cases. His lack of professionalism in dealing with complainant is gross and inexcusable. The legal profession
dictates that it is not a mere duty, but an obligation, of a lawyer to accord the highest degree of fidelity, zeal
and fervor in the protection of the client’s interest.
Carlito P. Carandang v. Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina, A. C. No. 7813, Apr. 21, 2009.In a June 3, 2013: In this case,
S.C. reiterated that the Attorney’s negligence to file an appellate brief and his failure to inform the client that
the case was dismissed because of his negligence is guilty of violating Canon 18. Similarly, a lawyer who
falsifies the date of receipt of the decision to make it appear that the time was filed within the prescriptive
period is also guilty of negligence and was slapped with a monetary fine.
Ermelinda Lad vda. De Dominguez, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact, Vicente A. Pichon v. Atty.
Arnulfo M. Agleron Sr., A.C. No. 5359, March 10, 2014: The S. C. held that once a lawyer takes up the cause of
his client, he is duty bound to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client’s cause with
diligence, care and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. For his failure to promptly file
a pleading he already signed on the ground that his client did not send the filing fees and 30% of his
professional fees, the S.C. was suspended for three months The Court said that this act exhibited his lack of
professionalism.

To summarize:
On the Duty to Serve with Competence and Diligence
(i) Adequate protection: A lawyer must ensure the appropriate legal reliefs for his client.
(ii) Negligence: A client is bound by the negligence of his counsel.
(iii) Collaborating Counsel: With the consent of the client, a collaborating counsel may participate in
an on-going case


33 | P a g e
7. Representation with zeal within legal bounds

Q. What is the recourse of a party who has lost a case?
A. Re: Verified Complaint of Tomas S. Merdegia against Hon. Vicente S.E. Veloso, etc. /Re: Resolution
dated October 8, 2013 in OCA IPI No. 12-205-CA-J against Atty. Homobono Adaza II, IPI No. 12-205-CA-
J/A.C. No. 10300, December 10, 2013: The S.C. held administrative complaints against justices cannot and
should not substitute for appeal and other judicial remedies against an assailed decision or ruling. While a
lawyer has a duty to represent his client with zeal, he must do so within the bounds provided by law. It found
Atty. Adaza guilty of indirect contempt for his failure to impress upon his client the features of the Philippine
adversarial system, the substance of the law on ethics and respect for the judicial system, and his own failure
to heed what his duties as a professional and as an officer of the Court demand of him in acting for his client
before the courts.
(i) Use of fair and honest means: A lawyer must only employ such legal strategy allowed by the
circumstances.
(ii) Client’s fraud: A lawyer must not condone any illegal acts of his client.
(iii) Procedure in handling the case: The lawyer’s acceptance and the limits of the engagement of his
services must be made clear at the commencement of the lawyer-client relationship.

CANON 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.

Q. When will the lawyer be held accountable for violation of the responsibility to serve his client with
zeal within the bounds of law?
A: Dimagiba v. Montalvo, Jr. Adm. Case No. 1424, October 15, 1991: The lawyer was disbarred for stretching
for almost 49 years a case involving a probate of a will from which more than other ten criminal and civil
suits were instituted.
Ong v. Unto, Adm. Case No. 2417, February 6, 2003: The S.C. suspended a lawyer for six months for using
harassing tactics to harass a party from him his client wanted to obtain child support.

CANON 20 – A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.
Nature and Purpose of Professional Fees - Professional fees are amounts of monies received by lawyers for
the engagement of their legal services.
Concepts of Professional Fees –
(1) Ordinary concept – fees that lawyers charge for their services.
(2) Extraordinary concept – an award made by the court by way of damage in favor of a prevailing party.
Classification of Professional Fees –
(1) Acceptance Fee
(2) Retainer Fee
(3) Contingency Fee
(4) Fee based on quantum meruit
New Jurisprudence
1. Rosalie P. Domingo v. Atty. Jorge C. Sacdalan, A.C. 12475, March 26, 2019
- Ordered his name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately for violating Rules 1.01, 16.04, and
18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
- Ordered to return to complainant the P50,000, as legal deposit to cover the expenses related to the expected
litigation, and P100,000, as cash advance chargeable against his appearance fees and other fees, with interest
of 6% per annum reckoned from the date of the receipt of this Decision until full payment.
- Fined P5,000 for disobedience to the orders of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines–Commission on Bar
Discipline
Scope of engagement of services – to recover possession of a parcel of land from illegal settlers in
Binangonan, Rizal with an acceptance fee of P75,000.00.
Undertaking to client - to file and ejectment case before the Municipal Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal with
receipt of P50,000.00 to cover filing fees and other costs.
Advances for appearance fees – P100,000.00 given out of compassion to cover hospitalization costs of his
wife.
Failure to update client of status of the case – upon personal verification, complainant discovered that
Sacdalan has yet to file a case.
Fake ejectment complaint – gave a copy of an alleged complaint filed with the court.
2. Kenneth Mariano v. Atty. Jose N. Laki, A.C. No. 11978 [Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2769], September
25, 2018
- DISBARRED
- Notarial Commission is REVOKED
- ORDERED to RETURN to complainant Kenneth R. Mariano the total amount of P150,000.00, with legal
interest of six percent (6%) per annum, if it is still unpaid, within ninety (90) days from receipt of this
Decision.
34 | P a g e
Acts surrounding the engagement –
(1) Laki asked for P160,000.00, representing a package deal for his professional fee, docket fee and expenses
for the preparation and filing of the petition, subject to an advance payment of P50,000.00.
(2) Laki assured Mariano that he could secure a favorable decision even without Mariano's personal
appearance since he will file the petition for annulment before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac which
is presided by a "friendly judge" and is known to be receptive to annulment cases.
(3) For almost a year, Mariano discovered no case was ever filed.
3. Eduardo B. Manalang v. Atty. Cristina Benosa-Buendia, A.C. No. 12079, November 10, 2020
- DISBARRED
- GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
- ORDERED to return to complainant Eduardo B. Manalang, within 30 days from notice, the sum of
P270,000.00 with an interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the promulgation of
this Resolution until fully paid
- DIRECTED to submit to the Court proof of her payment within 10 days therefrom.
Acts considered as violative of Canon 1 of the CPR
(1) Atty. Buendia admitted to receiving the following payments: (a) P10,000.00 and P15,000.00 acceptance
fees; (b) P120,000.00 partial payment for nullity proceedings; and (c) P30,000.00 legal fees.
(2) She deliberately misled and deceived her client by fabricating a court decision.
Respondent was dishonest in the performance of her duties and in dealing with her client. She claims that she
took care of the client's case when, in truth, she never acted on it. Worse, she deceived the client by saying
that his nullity case was already resolved, handing him a fabricated decision and Certificate of Finality.

Compromise Agreement should include the professional fees of lawyers:
Czarina T. Malvar v. Kraft Foods Phils., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 183952, September 9, 2011: The case stemmed
from the execution of a final decision with the C.A. in a labor litigation. Petitioner Malvar, however, entered
into a compromise agreement with the respondents pending appeal without informing her counsel. Malvar’s
counsel filed a Motion to Intervene to Protect Attorney’s Rights.
S.C., on considerations of equity and fairness, disapproved of the tendencies of clients compromising their
cases behind the backs of their attorneys for the purpose of unreasonably reducing or completely setting to
naught the stipulated contingent fees. It said that even if the compensation of the attorney is dependent only
on winning the litigation, the subsequent withdrawal of the case upon the client’s initiative would not deprive
the attorney of the legitimate compensation for professional services rendered.

Compromise Agreement must be executed with the consent of the client -
Atty. Sison v. Atty. Camacho: A lawyer who entered into a compromise agreement without the consent of the
client was disbarred by the Supreme Court.

Attorney’s fees: (i) Acceptance fees; (ii) Contingency fee arrangements; (iii) Attorney’s liens; (iv) Fees
and controversies with clients; (v) Concepts of attorney’s fees - (a) ordinary concept and (b)
extraordinary concept.
PNOC v. APAC MARKETING CORPORATION, represented by CESAR M. ONG, JR., G.R. No. 190957, June 5,
2013: There are two commonly accepted concepts of attorney’s fees – the ordinary concept and the
extraordinary concept. In its ordinary concept, attorney's fees represent the reasonable compensation paid to
a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter; while in its extraordinary concept,
they may be awarded by the court as indemnity for damages to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing
party. Attorney's fees as part of damages are awarded only in the instances specified in Article 2208 of the
Civil Code. As such, it is necessary for the court to make findings of fact and law that would bring the case
within the ambit of these enumerated instances to justify the grant of such award, and in all cases it must be
reasonable.
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs,
cannot be recovered, except:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or
to incur expenses to protect his interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's
plainly valid, just and demandable claim;
(6) In actions for legal support;
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws;
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;

35 | P a g e
 (11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses
of litigation should be recovered.
The general rule is that attorney’s fees cannot be recovered as part of damages because of the policy that no
premium should be placed on the right to litigate. They are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit.
The power of the court to award attorney’s fees under Article 2208 demands factual, legal, and equitable
justification. Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect
his rights, still attorney’s fees may not be awarded where no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected
in a party’s persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause.
Q: What is an acceptance fee?
A: An acceptance fee is not a contingent fee but is an absolute fee arrangement which entitles a lawyer to get
paid for his efforts regardless of the outcome of the litigation (Yu vs. Bondal, 448 SCRA 273).

Q: What is a contract for contingent fees?
A: Contract for contingent fees is an agreement in writing by which the fees, usually a fixed percentage of
what may be recovered in the action, are made to depend upon the success in the effort to enforce or defend a
supposed right. Contingent fees depend upon an express contract, without which the attorney can only
recover on the basis of quantum meruit. (National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay,
656 SCRA 60)

Q: What is the principle behind the application of quantum meruit to settle professional fees of lawyers?
A: The principle of quantum meruit justifies the payment of the reasonable value of the services rendered by
the lawyer and may be used to determine his compensation in the absence of a written agreement for that
purpose. (International Hotel Corporation vs. Joaquin, G.R. No. 158361, April 10, 2013). It may be authorized
in the following cases:
a. There is no express contract for attorney’s fees agreed upon between the lawyer and the client;
b. When although there is a formal contract of attorney’s fees, the stipulated fees are bound unconscionable
or unreasonable by the court;
c. When the contract for attorney’s fees is void due to purely formal matters or defects of execution;
d. When the counsel, for justifiable cause, was not able to finish the case to its conclusion;
e. When lawyer and client disregard the contract of attorney’s fees;
f. When there is a contract but no stipulation as to attorney’s fees; and
g. When the client dismissed his counsel or the latter withdrew therefrom, for valid reasons.

When a client agrees to pay an attorney under a contingency fee agreement and terminates the attorney
before occurrence of the contingency, the attorney may recover based on quantum meruit. In contrast to
withdrawal, this rule applies whether the client terminates the relationship with or without cause. However,
there are two exceptions to this rule:
1. If an attorney violates the CPR, then compensation is not available and
2. If the attorney substantially performs the duties owed to the client, then the attorney may recover the full
contingency, not just quantum meruit. The substantial performance exception only applies in the rare case
where full performance is delinquent by "minor and relatively unimportant deviations."' (Ross v. Scannell, 97
Wn.2d 598, 1982)
Nature of Contingency Contract -
A contingency contract is a written contract whereby the lawyer would be paid attorney’s fees only if the suit
or litigation ends favorably to the client. Contingent fee contracts are permitted in this jurisdiction because
they redound to the benefit of the poor client and the lawyer especially in cases where the client has
meritorious cause of action, but no means with which to pay for legal services unless he can, with the sanction
of law, make a contract for a contingent fee to be paid out of the proceeds of litigation. (Atty. Orocio v.
Angulan et. al., G.R. No. 179892-93 January 30, 2009)

Q: What are the factors considered in the determination of professional fees?
A: Rule 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility lists the guidelines for determining the proper
amount of attorney fees, to wit:
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.

36 | P a g e
Q: What is a contract of champerty?
A: A champertous agreement is similar to a contingent fee agreement wherein the lawyer will be paid only if
he is successful in handling the case. But what makes it champertous is the provision that the lawyer will
shoulder all expenses of litigation. That makes the lawyer a businessman who invested in the case in the hope
that he will profit from such investment. A contingent fee contract is valid, while a champertous agreement is
invalid. (The Conjugal Partnership of the Spouses Cadavedo v. Lacaya, G.R. No. 173188, January 15, 2014)

Q: Distinguish between champertous contract from contingent fee.
A: The distinctions between champertous contract distinguished from contingent fee are:
1. Contingent fee may be paid in cash, whereas, a champerty can be paid only in kind;
2. Counsel does not undertake to bear all the expenses of litigation, whereas in the latter, there is an
undertaking that a lawyer will conduct litigation on his own account, to pay expenses thereof and to
receive as his fee a portion of the proceeds of a judgment (Pineda, Legal and Judicial Ethics 3rd ed., p.266).
3. Acceptance of an initial fee or during the progress of the litigation does not detract from the contingent
nature of the fees, as long as the bulk thereof is made dependent upon the successful outcome of the
action (Francisco v. Matias, 10 SCRA 89).

Q: Cite the rules governing charging lien.
A: The rules which govern charging lien are:
1. A lawyer 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 judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the
Rules of Court (Rule 16, Code of Professional Responsibility).
2. A charging or special lien is an attorney’s specific lien for compensation on the fund or judgment which
he has recovered by means of his professional services for his client in a particular case. The lien shall
attach to the proceeds of the judgment and the client who receives the same, without paying his attorney
who was responsible for its recovery, shall hold said proceeds in trust for his lawyer to the extent of the
value of the lawyer’s recorded lien (National Power Corporation Drivers and Mechanics Association v.
National Power Corporation, 565 SCRA 417).
3. A charging lien, to be valid as security for payment of attorney's fees and lawful disbursements, requires
that the following requisites concur:
a. There must be an attorney-client relationship;
b. The attorney has rendered services;
c. A money-judgment favorable to the client has been secured in the action;
d. The attorney has a claim for attorney's fees or advances; and
e. A statement of his claim has been duly recorded in the case with notice thereof served upon the client
and the adverse party (Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 367).
4. The attorney's charging lien takes affect from and after the time the attorney has cause a notice of his lien
to be duly entered in the record of the case (Macondray and Co. v. Jose, 60 Phil 590). The record, to be
valid, should be effected while the court has jurisdiction over the case and before full satisfaction of the
judgment (G.A. Machineries, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 79 SCRA 291).

Q: What is a retaining lien?
A: An attorney’s retaining lien is fully recognized if the presence of the following elements concur: (1) lawyer-
client relationship; (2) lawful possession of the client’s funds, documents and papers; and (3) unsatisfied
claim for attorney’s fees. When there is no unsatisfied claim for attorney’s fees, lawyers cannot validly retain
their client’s funds or properties. Furthermore, assuming that Atty. Mendoza had proven all the requisites for
a valid retaining lien, he cannot appropriate for himself his client’s funds without the proper accounting and
notice to the client. (Spouses Nicasio v. Atty. Mendoza, A.C. No. 5440, November 26, 2014)

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 (Rule 22.02, Code of
Professional Responsibility).
Illustrative Cases:
1. A right merely to retain the funds, documents and papers as against the client until the attorney is fully paid
his fees. It should be underscored that the retaining lien of an attorney is only a passive right and cannot be
actively enforced. It amounts to a mere right to retain the documents and papers as against the client, until
the attorney is fully paid, the exception being that funds of the client in the attorney's possession may be
applied to the satisfaction of his fees (Ampil v. Juliano-Agrava 34 SCRA 370).
2. The retaining lien attaches from the moment the attorney lawfully obtains and retains possession of the
funds, documents and papers of the client. The lawyer's position is similar to that of a creditor, who holds an
attachment lien over the property, and the client-debtor must discharge the lien over the property, and the
client-debtor must discharge the lien before he can dispose of the property to third persons (Rustia v. Abeto,
72 Phil. 133).

37 | P a g e
3. The lawyer need not file an action in court to enforce his retaining lien and recover his fees and
disbursements if what he retains in the exercise of his lien refers to funds or money of the client that lawfully
comes into his possession and the client does not dispute his claim for attorney's fees and amount thereof. In
such case, the lawyer may lawfully apply the client's funds in satisfaction of his claim for attorney's fees and
disbursements (De Jesus-Alano v. Tan, 106 Phil. 445).

Q: Under what circumstances may a lawyer share his professional fees?
A: The general rule is that a lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons
not licensed to practice law, except:
1. 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
2. Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; or
3. 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 profit-sharing agreement. (Rule 9.02, CPR)

Read Rule 138, Section 24, Rules of Court on Compensation of Attorneys
Rule 138, Section 12, Rules of Court on Compensation for Attorneys de officio
Rule 138, Section 37, Rules of Court on Charging Lien

Q. May a lawyer have a lien on a judgment to protect his professional fees?
A. Yes, a lawyer may take steps to protect the non- payment of his professional fees.
Conchita Baltazar, et al. v. Atty. Juan B. Bañez, Jr., A.C. No. 9091, December 11, 2013. Section 26, Rule 138
of the Rules of Court allows an attorney to intervene in a case to protect his rights concerning the payment of
his compensation. The court may, at its discretion, allow the lawyer to have a lien upon all judgments for the
payment of money rendered in a case in which his services have been retained by the client. In this case,
however, the contract for legal services is in the nature of a champertous contract – an agreement whereby an
attorney undertakes to pay the expenses of the proceedings to enforce the client’s rights in exchange for some
bargain to have a part of the thing in dispute. Such contracts are prohibited under Canon 16.04 of the CPR,
which states that lawyers shall not lend money to a client, except when in the interest of justice, they have to
advance necessary expenses in a legal matter they are handling for the client.

Q. What is the nature of a champertous contract?
A. A champertous contract is one where a lawyer finances a litigation case and his professional fees are
assured immaterial of the outcome of the case. The contract does not provide for reimbursement of the costs
of litigation.
In Re: The Conjugal Partnership of the Spouses Vicente Cadavedo and Benita Arcoy-Cadavedo (both
deceased), substituted by their Heirs, namely: Herminia, Pastora, Heirs of Fructiosa, Heirs of Raquel,
Evangeline, Vicente, Jr., and Armand, all surnamed Cadavedo, G.R. No. 173188. January 15, 2014: The
Court held that the contingent fee of P2000.00 should control the agreement of counsel and his clients
although the same was contingent upon winning the case. The Court said that granting arguendo that the
spouses Cadavedo and Atty. Lacaya indeed entered into an oral contingent fee agreement securing to the
latter one-half of the subject lot, the agreement is void. The agreement is champertous and is contrary to
public policy. Any agreement by a lawyer to “conduct the litigation in his own account, to pay the expenses
thereof or to save his client therefrom and to receive as his fee a portion of the proceeds of the judgment is
obnoxious to the law.”

8. Preservation of client’s confidences: (i) Prohibited disclosures and use; (ii) Disclosures, when
allowed: The disclosures made a client to a lawyer are covered by the privileged communications rule.
The lawyer may, however, disclose information relayed to him by a client when the latter is about to
commit a crime or when there is a dispute between the lawyer and his client and the information is vital
in the defense of the lawyer.

Q. When is lawyer released from his non-disclosure duty?
A. Palm v. Atty. Felipe Iledan, Jr.A.C. No. 8243, July 24, 2009: Canon 21 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides:
“Canon 21. A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and a secret of his client even after the
attorney-client relationship is terminated.”
The S.C. held that a lawyer is released from his non-disclosure duty when he files with a government agency a
pleading or any document on behalf of his client. The Court said that the right to information is protected
under the Bill of Rights.

CANON 22 – A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the
circumstances. Rule 22.01 of Canon 22 provides:
“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;
38 | P a g e
 b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursues 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.”

Part Two – Judicial Ethics

Q. What are the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution for one to become a member of the bench?

A. For one to become a member of the bench, one must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity
and independence.

Q. What are the proscriptions under the Code of Judicial Conduct which a member of the bench must
observe?
A. A member of the bench must observe the following canons under the Code of Judicial Conduct:
Canon 1: Independence
Canon 2: Integrity
Canon 3: Impartiality
Canon 4: Probity
Canon 5: Equality
Canon 6: Competence and Diligence

Judicial Ethics – Independence of Judges

Q. Judges of the first and second level courts are allowed to receive assistance from the local
government units where they are stationed. This assistance could be in the form of equipment or
allowance. Justices at the Court of Appeals in the regional stations in the Visayas and Mindanao are not
necessarily residents there, hence they incur additional expenses for their accommodations. Pass on the
propriety of the Justices' receipt of assistance/allowance from the local governments. [2010]
A. In the cases of Dadole v. Commission on Audit [393 SCRA 262 (2002)] and Leynes v. Commission on
Audit [418 SCRA 180 (2003)], the Court affirmed the grant of assistance, whether by way of equipment or
cash, to members of the bench stationed within the territorial jurisdiction of local government units
pursuant to Section447(a)(1)(xi) and Section 458, paragraph (a)(1)(xi) of RA 7160. The Court said that to
rule against the power of LGUs to grant allowances to judges subverts the principle of local autonomy
zealously guaranteed by the Constitution.
Judicial Ethics –Integrity of a Judge
Q. A Judge of the Regional Trial Court, notwithstanding the fact that he was facing criminal charges at
the time he obtained his appointment, did not disclose the pendency of the cases either to the President
or to the Supreme Court.
He claims that:
(a) he enjoys presumption of innocence in the pending criminal cases;
(b) that the said cases even if sustained after trial do not involve moral turpitude; and
(c) before an administrative complaint based on a criminal prosecution can be given due course there
must be a conviction by final judgment.
May the Judge be considered as an undeserving appointee and therefore be removed from his office?
[1996]

A. The judge may be considered as undeserving and may be removed from office. The important
consideration is that he had a duty to inform the appointing authority and the Court of the pending criminal
charges against him to enable them to determine based on his record, eligibility for the position he was
seeking. He did not discharge that duty. The Court said that it behooves every prospective appointee to the
judiciary to appraise the appointing authority of every matter bearing on his fitness for judicial office,
including such circumstances as may reflect on his integrity and probity. (OCA v. Estacion, A.M. No. RTJ-87-
104 August 23, 1995)

Judicial Ethics – Validity of Judicial Decisions due to Transfer of Station

Q. Judge Dino was transferred to regional trial Court of Pasig after serving asJudge of the Regional
Trial Court in Sorsogon. Delighted with her transfer, she immediately assumed her new post. However,
she brought with her the records office cases which are completely heard by her in her former

39 | P a g e
assignment and already submitted for decisions. Thereupon, she prepared the decision in said five
cases, by registered mail to her former Clerk of Court. One of the losing parties questioned the authority
of the Judge Dino in deciding the cases after she transfer to Pasig. Are the decisions rendered by Judge
Dino in the five cases valid? Why? (1992)
A: The decisions are valid considering that the Regional Trial Court in Sorsogon is co-equal with that of the
regional trial court in Pasig. It is assumed that the five (5) cases were already submitted for decisions at the
time Judge Dino transferred to Manila. (Valentine v. Sta. Maria, 55 SCRA 40)

Judicial Ethics – Inhibition of Judges

Q. In a civil case, the defendant discovered that the counsel for plaintiff used to be a member of the
Judicial and Bar Council during whose time the Judge presiding over the case was appointed and
confirmed by him. He filed a motion to inhibit the Judge on the ground that latter’s ability to act
independently and judiciously had been compromised and seriously impaired because of his “utang na
loob” to the plaintiff’s counsel. If you were the Judge, how will your rule the motion? [1992]
A: I will voluntarily inhibit myself. Section 1 Rule 137 of the Rules of Court provides specific grounds where
it is mandatory for a Judge to be legally disqualified from sitting in a case. None of those grounds is
applicable to the facts given in this case. However, the same rule allows that the Judge may exercise of his
sound discretion to disqualify himself from sitting in the case for a just and valid reason. The Supreme Court
has held that when a suggestion is made that a judge might be induced to act in favor of one party and
against another arising out of circumstances capable of inciting such a state of mind; he should exercise his
discretion in a way the people’s faith in the court of justice is not impaired. (Masadao and Elizaga Re: Crim
Case No, 4954-M155, 1987)
Q: Bong, son of Judge Rey, is a fourth-year law student. He helped his friend prepare an affidavit-
complaint for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. After drafting, they showed it to Judge Rey who
made some corrections. Later, the B.P. Blg. 22 case was raffled to Judge Rey who tried and convicted the
accused. Was there impropriety. [2012]
A: (A) Yes since Judge Rey was not a fair and impartial judge.
Reason: Section 5 (a) of Canon 3 of Code of Judicial Ethics expressly states that judges shall disqualify
themselves if he/she has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed
evidentiary facts concerning proceedings
Judicial Ethics – Propriety of a Judge
Q. After a study of the records of the case and deciding that the plaintiff was entitled to a favorable
judgment, Judge Reyes requested Atty. Sta. Ana for the plaintiff, to prepare a draft decision. Judge Reyes
then reviewed the draft decision prepared by Atty. Sta. Ana and adopted its decision for the plaintiff.
Judge Reyes saw nothing unethical in the procedure he would ask the other party to do the same if it
were the prevailing party. Please comment if Judge Reyes decision was ethical and proper. [1994]
A: The procedure of Judge Reyes was unethical because the judge is duty bound to review the case himself;
he must personally and directly prepare his decisions and not delegate it to other person especially a lawyer
in the case. (Section 1 Rule 36 of the Rules of Court)
Q: Judge L is assigned in turtle province. His brother ran for governor in Rabbit Province. During the election
period this year, Judge L filed a leave of absence to help his brother conceptualize the campaign strategy. He even
contributed a modest amount to the campaign kitty and hosted lunches and dinners. Did Judge L incur
administrative and/or criminal liability? Explain. [2010]

A: Judge L incurred administrative liability for the following –

(1) Violation of Section 5.18 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that a judge is entitled to
entertain personal views on political questions, but to avoid suspicion of political partisanship, a judge shall
not make political speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly endorse candidates for political office or
participate in other partisan political activities.
(2) Violation of Section 26 (I) of the Omnibus Election Code which penalizes any officer or employee in civil
service who directly or indirectly engages in any partisan political activity, except to vote or to preserve
public order.

Q: Atty. Hermano requested his fraternity brother, Judge Patron, to introduce him to Judge Apestado,
before whom he has a case that had been pending for some time. Judge Patron, a close friend of Judge
Apestado, acceded to the request, telling the latter that Atty. Hermano is his fraternity "brod" and that
Atty. Hermano simply wanted to ask for advice on how to expedite the resolution of his case. They met,
as arranged, in the fine dining restaurant of a five-star hotel. Atty. Hermano hosted the dinner. Did Atty.
Hermano, Judge Patron and Judge Apestado commit any ethical/administrative violation for which they
can be held liable? [2013]

40 | P a g e
 A: On the part of Atty. Hermano, he violated Rule 13.01 of Canon 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides:
“A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating
familiarity with Judges.”
On the part of Judges Patron and Apestado, they are guilty of violating Section 3 of Canon 4 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct which states that:
“Judges shall, in their personal relations with individual members of the legal profession who practice
regularly in their court, avoid situations which might reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of
favoritism or partiality.”


Judicial Ethics – Propriety of Public Pronouncement of a Judge

Q. In connection with a sensational criminal case, the Public Relations Officer of All Judges Association,
Inc. issued two press releases, one stating that the
trial judge should not have granted bail to the accused since evidence of guilt was strong and the other,
calling upon said judge to inhibit himself from trying the case since he did not exhibit the cold
neutrality of an impartial judge in ruling upon certain motions. Comment on the actuations of the
Public Relations Officer who is presumably authorized by the All-Judges Association. (1995)
A. The actuation of the Public Relations Officer of All Judges Association is improper. What the All-Judges
Association should do is to report the matter to the Supreme Court. The issuance of the press release is in
violation of the rule that charges and investigations against Judges should be confidential in character and
should not be published. The Public Relations Officer can even be held in contempt of court because this is
covered by the sub judice rule.
Furthermore, the Public Relations Officer may be held liable under the following:
1. Rule 2.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that “a judge shall refrain from influencing in any
manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency.”
2. Rule 3.07 which states that “a judge should abstain from making public comments on any
pending case and should require similar restrain on the part of court personnel.”

Judicial Ethics – Propriety of a Judge

Q. Judge P decided an annulment of title suit in favor of A. After the decision had become final and
executory, A sold property to a realty firm. Judge P, a good friend of the owner of the realty firm,
purchased two lots in the property at a substantial discount.
a) Did Judge P violate any provision of the Civil Code with respect to the purchase of a litigated property?
A. The judge did not violate Article 1491 (5) of the Civil Code because the prohibition does not apply where
the property was not acquired from any of the parties to the case, or when the litigation is already
terminated. In the above facts, the realty firm was not a party to the case. Moreover,
his judgment had already become final and executory; hence the property was no longer in litigation.
b) Did Judge P go against any provision of the Civil Code with respect to the purchase of a litigated
property? (1996)
A. It was unwise and indiscreet of the judge to have acquired the subject property because
it gives cause for doubt or mistrust in the uprightness of the administration of justice.
The judge violated Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics which requires that his conduct should be free
from the appearance of impropriety and that his everyday life should be beyond reproach.
Q: Judge L is assigned in Turtle Province. His brother ran for governor in Rabbit Province. During the
election period this year, Judge L filed a leave of absence to help his brother conceptualize the campaign
strategy. He even contributed a modest amount to the campaign kitty and hosted lunches and dinners.
Did Judge L incur administrative and/or criminal liability? Explain. [2010]
A: Judge L incurred administrative liability for the following –
1. Violation of Section 5.18 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that a judge is entitled to entertain
personal views on political questions, but to avoid suspicion of political partisanship, a judge shall not make
political speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly endorse candidates for political office or participate in
other partisan political activities.
2. Violation of Section 26 (I) of the Omnibus Election Code which penalizes any officer or employee in civil
service who directly or indirectly engages in any partisan political activity, except to vote or to preserve
public order.

Judicial Ethics – Propriety of a retired Member of the Bench

Q. Justice C recently retired. The parents of the victims of the OZONE Disco tragedy retained him in the
case for damages which they filed against the owners of the Disco, responsible Quezon City officials and

41 | P a g e
local government of Quezon City itself. Can he appear as counsel for the victims and the parents?
Explain. (1996)
A: Justice C cannot appear as counsel for the victims and the parents. He will clearly violate Section 1 of
Republic Act No. 910, as amended, which provides that “it is a condition of the pension provided for herein
that no retiring justice or judge of a court x x x during the time that he is receiving the said pension shall
appear before any court in any civil case wherein the government or any of its legally instituted officers.”
[emphasis supplied]
Legal Ethics – Retaining Lien and Charging Lien
Q: Upon being replaced by retired Justice C, Atty. B, the former counsel of the victims of the Ozone Disco
tragedy, was directed to forward all the documents in his possession to Justice C.
Atty. B refused, demanding full compensation pursuant to their written contract. Sensing that a
favorable judgment was forthcoming, Atty. B filed a motion in court relative to his attorney’s fees,
furnishing his former clients with copies thereof. Is Atty. B legally and ethically correct in refusing to
turn over the documents to Justice C and in filing the motion? Explain. (1996)
A: Atty. B is legally and ethically right in refusing to turn over the documents. He is entitled to a retaining lien
under Section 37 of Rule 138, Rules of Court and Rule 16.03 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which gives him the right to retain the funds, documents and papers of his clients which have
lawfully come to his possession until his lawful fees and disbursement have been paid.
He is likewise legally and ethically right in filing a motion in court relative to his fees. He is entitled to a
charging lien upon all judgments for the payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of
such judgments, which he has secured in a litigation of his client, from and after the time when the records of
the court rendering such judgment or issuing such order of execution.
Q. Before he joined the bench, Judge J was a vice-mayor. Judge J resumed writing a weekly column in a
local newspaper. In his column, Judge J wrote: “I was wondering if the present vice-mayor can shed off
his crocodile’s hide so that he can feel the clamor of the public for the resignation of hoodlum public
officers of which he is one.” When charged administratively, Judge J invoked freedom of expression. Is his
defense tenable? Explain.
A. The judge’s reliance on freedom of expression is misplaced. The judge’s vicious writings compromise his
duties as judge in the impartial administration of justice. The words he employed employed

lack judicial decorum which always requires the use of temperate language. He violated Canon 3 on Propriety
of the Code of Judicial Conduct

Judicial Ethics – Right to a Public Trial

Q: Upon opening the session of his court, the Presiding Judge noticed the presence of television cameras
set up at strategic places in his courtroom and the posting of media practitioners all over the sala with
their video cameras. The Judge forthwith issued an order directing the exclusion from the courtroom of
all television paraphernalia and further instructing the reporters inside the hall not to operate their
video cams during the proceedings. The defense lawyers objected to the court’s order, claiming that it
was in violation of their client’s right to a public trial.
Q. A. In issuing the questioned order, did the Judge act in violation of the rights of the accused to a public
trial?
A. No, the Judge did not violate the right of the accused to a public trial. A trial is public when anyone
interested in observing the manner a judge conducts the proceedings in his courtroom may do so (Garcia v.
Domingo, 52 SCRA143 [1968]).
There is to be no ban on the attendance. Under the presented facts, the judge did not ban the attendance, he

only restricted the use of television paraphernalia and video cameras inside the court room to ensure orderly
proceedings.

Q. B. Did the Judge act in derogation of the press freedom when he directed the exclusion of the television
paraphernalia from the courtroom and when he prohibited the news reporters in the courtroom from
operating their video cams during the court proceedings
A. No, press freedom was never transgressed. The serious risks posed to the fair administration of justice by
live TV and Radio broadcast, especially when emotions are running high on issues stirred by the case, should
be taken into consideration before addressing the issue of press freedom. The right of the accused to a fair
trial, not by trial by publicity takes precedence over press freedom as invoked by TV Reporters in the case
(Sec. Perez v. Pres. Estrada, A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC September 13, 2001).

Judicial Ethics – Inhibition/Disqualification to Preside

Q: Judge Aficionado was among the several thousands of spectators watching a basketball game at the
Rizal Memorial Coliseum who saw the stabbing of referee Maykiling by player Baracco in the course of

42 | P a g e
the game. The criminal case correspondingly filed against Baracco for the stabbing of Maykiling was
raffled to the Regional Trial Court branch presided over by Judge Aficionado. Should Judge Aficionado sit
in judgment over and try the case against Baracco? Explain. [2004]
A: No, he should not preside over the case. Section 5 (a) of Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
provides that a judge should not take part in any proceeding where the judge has personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the same.
Q: In a verified complaint, Kathy said that Judge Florante decided a petition for correction of entry
involving the birth record of her grandson, Joshua, who happened to be child of Judge Florante's
daughter, Pilita. Judge Florante insisted that he committed no wrong since the proceeding was non-
adversarial and since it merely sought to correct an erroneous entry in the child’s birth certificate. Is
Judge Florante liable? [2011 MCQ]
A: (A) Yes, because Florante breached the rule on mandatory disqualification.
Reason: Section 5 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that: “Judges shall disqualify
themselves from participating in proceedings . . . where x x x
6. The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the 6th civil degree or to counsel
within the fourth civil degree.”
This is considered as a mandatory disqualification.

Q: True or False. A companion or employee of the judge who lives in the judge’s household is included in
the definition of the "judge’s family. [2009]
A: TRUE
Reason: A judge’s family as defined in the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary includes
a judge’s spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, and any other relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the sixth civil degree or any person who is a companion or employee of the judge and who
lives in the judge’s household.

Judicial Ethics – Competence and Diligence

Q: Justice Frank, a retired Court of Appeals justice, appeared before the Supreme Court on behalf of
Landbank, a government bank, in a case involving the compensable value of the property taken from a
landowner under the agrarian reform law. The landowner questioned Justice Frank's appearance in
the case, pointing out that the same is unethical and smacks of opportunism since he obviously
capitalizes on his judicial experience. Is Justice Frank's appearance in the case valid? [2011]
A: (A) Yes, because the law allows such appearance as long as the government is not the adverse party.
Reason: Section 1 of R.A. 910 provides - “x x x that no retiring Justice during the time that he is receiving
said pension shall appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein the Government or any

subdivision or instrumentality thereof is the adverse party, or in any criminal case wherein and officer or
employee of the Government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office, or collect any fee
for his appearance in any administrative proceedings to maintain an interest adverse to the Government,
insular, provincial or municipal, or to any of its legally constituted officers.

PART III: PRACTICAL EXERCISES

The following are the forms which are normally included in Practical Exercises:
1. Verification and certificate of non-forum shopping
2. Notice of hearing and explanation in motions
3. Judicial Affidavit
4. Affidavit Complaint
5. Compromise Agreement
6. Quitclaims in Labor Cases
7. Notarial Certificates – Jurat and Acknowledgement
8. Affidavits – Loss, Change of Name
9. Special power of attorney
10. Promissory Notes
11. Contract of sale of realty or personal property
12. Contract of lease
13. Board Resolution
14. Secretary’s Certificate
15. Demand and authorization letters

43 | P a g e


44 | P a g e