Pointers in Legal and Judicial Ethics

2015 Bar Examinations

Prof. Victoria V. Loanzon
Final Advice
1. Legal and Judicial Ethics is the last subject of the bar examinations. Save the BEST for last.
2. Think before you write your final answers. Find time to make an outline using only key words in
your questionnaire. Manage your time properly. If there are 30 questions, make a mathematical
computation to divide the 4 hours allotted for you to finish the exams.
3. Remember questions in Legal and Judicial Ethics deal, more or less, with appropriate standards
of behavior. You can surmise from the narration of facts if ones act is inappropriate. Remember to
apply your inherent sense of what is right and what is wrong in a given situation.
4. In case of doubt, think whether the action involved serves the ends of justice, improves the
administration of justice and protects the rights of the individuals. If it does not fall within these
general guideposts, then it must be unethical and violates of the canons for the bench and the bar.
5. Follow the basic guidelines that all lawyers, whether in private practice or in government
service, must serve the ends of justice, preserve the justice system, protect the rights of
individuals; and both members of bar and the bench are the vanguards of justice.
6. Relax, have fun. It is just a matter of time for you to reap the rewards of hard work and realize a
lifetime dream.
Like most of you, I will take a much needed rest after November 29. I stayed up many nights
reading cases and related laws. I have made every effort possible to prepare the weekly pointers
in all the eight bar subjects with the hope that in my small and humble way, I will able to help you
build your career in the legal profession in the same way my professors at the U.P. College of Law
prepared me to become a lawyer.
All the best! Stay well. Keep faith.

PART ONE LEGAL ETHICS

I The Attorneys Oath
Q. Write the Attorneys 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 sources of ethical standards for the members of the bench and bar?
A. (1) ConstitutionArticle VIII The Judicial Department, Sec. 5(5),
Article VI The Legislative Department, Sec.14,
Article VII The Executive Department, Sec. 13,
1

Article IX Constitutional Commissions, IX-A, Sec. 2;

(2) The Attorneys Oath;
(3) The Code of Professional Responsibility;
(4) The Code of Judicial Ethics;
(5) The Rules of Court; (6) 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice;
(7) MCLE Rules;
(8) JBC Rules;
(9) Issuances of the Supreme Court;
(10) Legislations from Congress (creation and jurisdiction of appellate and other lower courts, also
the Lapid Law on legal aid service of lawyers);
(11) Jurisprudence; and
(12) Scholarly Writings on Legal and Judicial Ethics.
Q. What is the four-fold duty of a lawyer?
A. The Four-fold duty of a lawyer - to Society, the Legal Profession, the Courts and Clients.
Q. What is the practice of law?
A. The practice of law is 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.
Elements of the legal profession are: organization, learning, and the spirit of public service.
(Section 5 (5), Article VIII, Constitution)
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. If you were
the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, will you approve the
registration of the subject company?
A. No. The practice of law is not a business and lawyers cannot form stock corporations to
practice the profession. It is also 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)
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. 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 which other lawyers which requires candor, fairness and
decency avoiding any kind of encroachment upon others 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. 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 . . .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.
ADRIANO E. DACANAY v. BAKER & MCKENZIE, ADM. CASE 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. What is the rule on representation by a law firm?
A. SPOUSES ROGELIO AMATORIO AND AIDA AMATORIO v. ATTY. FRANCISCO DY YAP
AND ATTY. WHELMA F. SITON-YAP, A.C. No. 5914, March 11, 2015, Reyes, J.:
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
clients 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 complainants 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. 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
3

the dismissal of the case arguing that the matter does involve any lawyer-client
relationship. Is his legal argument tenable?
A.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 and if the transaction involves his sale of a portion of his real
property.Gacias v. Balauitan (507 SCRA 8, 2006)
Q. Can an individual practicing before the Shaira court affix the prefix ATTY. before his
name?
A. No. While the Supreme Court administers the examinations for one to practice before the Shari
a courts, any one 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 are the requirements for admission to the practice of law?
A. Sec. 2, Rule138 of the Rules of Court provides for the following qualifications: One must be a
citizen of the Philippines, at least 21 years of age (take note this requirement was imposed when
the age of majority was 21), must be a resident of the Philippines,must have obtained his law
degree in a local school(Sections 5 & 6, Rules of Court), possesses Good Moral Character
(presentation of proof of good moral character, certification that one does not have any pending
charges or have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude)
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
Bachelor of Laws 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. Under the 1987 Constitution, Roberto Lo is considered a natural-born Filipino since both
his parents remain 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. No. 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)
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 Attorneys
Oath? Why?
A. Yes, because San Juan 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
4

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. 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 was 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.
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 lawyers professional fee does not include facilitation fee.
Q. What is the coverage of the annual bar examinations?
A. Bar Subjects under Sec. 9, Rule 138, Rules of Courtinclude: 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. 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 October 2015. He wanted to become a lawyer but
he realized that it was too late for him to take the November 2015 bar examinations. Can he
file a petition to the Supreme Court to be allowed to take his special bar examinations?
A. No. The Supreme Court administers the bar examinations only once a year. Sec. 11 Rule 138,
rules of Court
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 Fernandos petition. Fernando has remained a Filipino citizen and 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. In Re: Garcia, 2
SCRA 985
5

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.
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 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. It is the offense of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels in suits. It is frowned upon as it is
against public policy as it will clog the dockets of the courts and frustrate the orderly administration
of justice.
Q. What is ambulance chasing?
A. This practice 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:
6

fomenting litigation; subornation of perjury; mulcting of innocent persons upon manufactured

causes of action; defrauding injured parties.
Q. What is assumpsit?
A. A promise or engagement by which one person assumes or undertakes to do some act or pay
something to another. Assumpsit on quantum meruit is when a person employs another to do
work for him, without any agreement as to his compensation, the law implies a promise from the
employer to the workman that he will pay him for his services as much as they deserve on merit
(Blacks Law Dictionary)
III. Appearance of Non-Lawyers
Q. What is the Student Practice Rule?
A. Law Student Practice Rule: Rule 138-A of the Rules of court allows a law student to represent
indigent clients provided one has successfully completed the 3rd year of a prescribed four-year
curriculum and enrolled in a recognized law schools clinical legal education program
> 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.
> Under Section 34 of the Rules of Court, a law student may appear before the first level court
as an agent or friend of a party without the supervision of a member of the bar.
Q. Under what circumstances can non-lawyers represent parties?
A. Non-lawyers may appear in the following:
1. Non-lawyers in first level courts: small claims cases
2. Non-lawyers in administrative tribunals: HLURB, DENR, DAR, NLRC, etc.
3. Proceedings where lawyers are prohibited from appearing: proceedings before the Lupong
Tagapamayapa,
4. Non-lawyers in court ordered mediation
Q. What are the sanctions for practice or appearance without authority?
1. Lawyers without authority: Contempt of Court (Sec. 1, Rule 71)
Acts constituting contempt: 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: Indirect Contempt (Sec. 3 (e), Rule 71)
Ciocon-Reer v. Lubao (674 SCRA 13): 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 found
guilty of indirect contempt of court and fined P10,000.00 without imprisonment.
IV. Public Officials and Practice of Law
Q. Are government lawyers covered by the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)?
A. Yes. 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 government lawyer who retired pending the processing of a license application,
represent the applicant after he is separated from service?
7

A. No. Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 6.03 prohibits former
government lawyers from accepting "engagement or employment in connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in said service."
Q. Who are the public officials not allowed to practice law?
A. Under the Constitution: The President, Vice President, 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 Ombudsman
Q. What is the concept of limited practice of law among public officers?
A. 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.
Ex.
SEC. 90. Practice of Profession. (a) All governors, city and municipal mayors are
prohibited from
practicing their
profession or engaging in any
occupation other than the exercise of their functions as
local chief executives.
(b) Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any
occupation, or teach in schools except during session hours: Provided,
That sanggunian members who are members of the Bar shall not:
(1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a
local government unit or any office, agency, or instrumentality of the
government is
the adverse party;
(2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or
employee of the
national or local government is accused of an offense
committed in relation to his
office;
(3) Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings
involving
the local government unit of which he is an official; and
(4) Use property and personnel of the Government except when
the sanggunian member concerned is defending the interest of the
Government.
(c) Doctors of medicine may practice their profession even during official
hours of work only on occasions of emergency: Provided, That the officials
concerned do not derive monetary compensation therefrom.

Lorenzana v. Fajardo ( 462 SCRA 1 (2005)): 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?
8

A. The lawyers tasked to represent government: 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 governments 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 Office of the Ombudsman. On appeal, it is the OSG that represents
the government.
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 propio discipline lawyers?
A. Yes.
People of the Philippines v. The Hon. Juanito C. Castaneda, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 208290,
December 11, 2013.CTA in conformity with the Run After the Smugglers (RATS) Group of the
Revenue Collection Monitoring Group (RCMG) ofthe BOC tried the private respondents for
violation of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, as amended. 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 Courts 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. YOLANDA A. ANDRES, MINETTE A. MERCADO, AND ELITO P. ANDRES v.ATTY.
SALIMATHAR V. NAMBI, A.C. No. 7158, March 09, 2015, DEL CASTILLO, J.: This is a
Complaint for Disbarment filed against then Labor Arbiter Salimathar v. Nambi (respondent) on the
ground of gross ignorance of the law in issuing an Amended Alias Writ of Execution against M.A.
Blocks Work, Inc. and its incorporators, the herein complainants, who are not parties to the case.
The Court held that the labor arbiter had legal basis to pierce the corporate veil to serve the
ends of justice but he was reprimanded for not complying with the lawful orders of the IBP and the
Court.
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. Disbarment or disciplinary actions against lawyers are sui generis. It is c class of its own and
does not need proof beyond reasonable doubt.A disbarment proceeding is imprescriptible; all
proceedings are strictly confidential; may proceed despite withdrawal of the complaint.
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
9

By the Supreme Court motu proprio

By the IBP Board of Governors motu proprio
Upon referral by the S.C.
Upon referral by the IBP Chapter Board
Upon verified complaint by any person
IBP Board of
Governors

Commissioner

Chairman, CBD

May uphold the findings

May reverse the findings

REPORT

May amend the findings

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. Proceedings before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines
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. NESTOR FIGUERAS AND BIENVENIDO VICTORIA, JR. v. ATTY. DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ,
A.C. No. 9116, March 12, 2014.The S.C. held that the complainants have personality to file the
10

disbarment case. In Heck v. Judge Santos, the Court held that [a]ny interested person or the
court motu proprio 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.

Q. Can a disbarment case be dismissed upon motion of the complainant?

A. No. SPOUSES ROGELIO AMATORIO AND AIDA AMATORIO v. ATTY. FRANCISCO DY YAP
AND ATTY. WHELMA F. SITON-YAP, A.C. No. 5914, March 11, 2015, Reyes, J.:
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
clients 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
complainants 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.Will pardon for a crime involving moral turpitude prevent the filing of a disbarment case
based on such crime?
A. It depends. If the pardon is absolute it will prevent a disbarment case based on the pardoned
offense. If the pardon is conditional, a disbarment case may still be filed. (IN RE: DISBARMENT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ATTY. DIOSDADO Q. GUTIERREZ, 1962)
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. (see also definition of a prejudicial question)
ANTONINA S. SOSA v. ATTY. MANUEL V. MENDOZA, A.C. No. 8776, March 22, 2015, Brion,
J.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.
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 lawyers 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.
11

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 because the practice of law is imbued with public interest and institution of complaints
against lawyers is not predicated on a lawyer-client relationship.
Q. What is the effect of conviction upon the practice of law of a lawyer?
A. Catalan, Jr. v. Silvosa, 677 SCRA 352 (2012):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 Re: Atty. Rodolfo D.Pactolin, 670 SCRA 366(2112): 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. OCA v. Liangco, 662 SCRA 103 (2011): 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 who 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?
APO1 JOSE B. CASPE v. ATTY. AQUILINO A. MEJICA, A.C. No. 10679, March 10, 2015,
Villarama, J.: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. 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 Caspes counsel. When Rodriguez,
Jr. filed his counter-affidavit, it was Atty. Mejica who counseled 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.
Q. Does the lawyer have the burden of proof in a disbarment case?
A. No. 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.
12

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 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. What are the grounds for suspension (Disbarment)?
A. Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court provides the following grounds: deceit or any gross
misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of crime involving moral turpitude, violation of
lawyers Oath, willful disobedience of any lawful order, or corruptly or willfully 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 are 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 lawyer 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 attorneys 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 lawyers 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
13

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 willfully 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

Q. What are the guidelines in lifting of the order of suspension of the lawyer?
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:
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 respondents 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?
14

A. Yes. 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 Lozada3 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. 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. 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):
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.
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 Lawyers Oath
Q. Can a former Filipino resume his practice of law in the Philippines?
A. Yes. 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
15

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(h eshall 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.
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. CHUv.ATTY. JOSE C. GUICO,
JR., A.C. No. 10573, January 13, 2015, PER CURIAM:Fernando W. Chu invokes the Courts
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.
Q. What are the standards of morality required of a lawyer? What cases warrant
disciplinary action or disbarment?
A. MELVYN G. GARCIAv.ATTY. RAUL H. SESBREO, 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. Sesbreo. The two cases, docketed as A.C. No. 7973 and
A.C. No. 10457, were consolidated in the Courts Resolution dated 30 September 2014. The IBPCBD 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 (2011): The S.C. held that a lawyers act of having an affair with
his clients wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own
16

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. 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 clients 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
lawyers 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 sons 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 fulfill 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 2.012.04
Q. When is a lawyer guilty of encroaching on another lawyers practice?
A. 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.
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)
17

Q. Can a lawyer be held liable for the allegations set forth in a pleading which has been
verified by his client?
A. No. 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.
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. Coverage of the MCLE 36-unit requirement ( 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 onesMCLE?
A. A lawyer has 3-year completion period.
Q. Who are exempted from the MCLE requirement?
A. 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 are the penalties for non-compliance?
A. Imposition of fines, pleadings may be expunge from records of the court, lawyer be can a
subject of suspension or disbarment.
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?
18

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 Attorneys Oath
thereafter, and was scheduled to 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 Courts 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: P12,500 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.
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.
19

(1). Commissioning of a Notary Public

WILBERTO C. TALISIC v. ATTY. PRIMO R. RINEN, A.C. No. 8761, February 12, 2014: A
lawyers 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 shows 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)
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. Can a notary public dissolve marriage?
A. No. 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 sought to dissolve the marriage of the complainants.
Q. Is a lawyer required to recall the identity of the affiants after a lapse of five years?
20

A. No. 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. 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 ones notarial commission included in the conduct of the disbarment of the lawyer
although the same was not raised in the complaint?
A. Yes. 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 lawyers
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. Gupanas 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
21

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 partys 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. 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. 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 representatives 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)
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 respondents ignorance of the basic
rules of procedure. His wanton use of court processes in this case without regard for the
22

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.
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 8.018.02)
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.
Villatuya v. Tabalingcos, 676 SCRA 37(2012): This disbarment case is hinged on the
complainants demand from respondent lawyer to settle money obligations out of their business
transactions. The first ground he raised involves non-payment of agreed fees for every Stay Order
obtained from the court and 10% commission from every referral; the second is that the lawyer set
up two financial companies as fronts to solicit legal services and committing two counts of bigamy
for having married two other women while his first marriage was still subsisting.
On the first issue, the Court said that there is violation where a lawyer shares his fees with a nonlawyer. In this case, complainant failed to proffer evidence. On the issue of solicitation, the Court
held that it would appear that there was an attempt to circumvent the prohibition on advertising
ones services, reprimand is the proper penalty because there is no evidence on the prevalence to
use the two financial companies to solicit. The Court reminded lawyer to be clear as to what
services they are rendering if they have multiple professions. On the issue of gross immorality,
the belated move of the lawyer to institute civil actions to annul his marriages will not exculpate
him. The Court held: x x x respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality
required of him x x x. He made a mockery of marriage, x x x. His acts of committing bigamy twice
constituted gross immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Revised Rules of court.
Tumbokon v. Pefianco, 678 SCRA 60 (2012): This case also deals with the lawyers commitment
to share a portion of his legal fees with a non-lawyer in a case for partition of estate which
complainant referred to Pefianco. The lawyer was found guilty of this violation by his admission in
a letter he wrote to the parties in the partition case. On the second charge of abandoning his legal
wife to cohabit with his mistress with whom he has four children, the Court that it was a clear
betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or sexual relations outside marriage and is considered
disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and marital
vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.
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.
23

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
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. 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.
2. Respect for courts and judicial officers
CANON 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others (Rules 11.01-11.05)

to judicial

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. 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. 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.
24

Q. Are court decisions subject to criticism?

A. Yes. 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 persons 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 resides 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.
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 - Evidence - 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. When can a lawyer be found liable for conflict of interest?
A. Pacana v. Pascual-Lpez, A.C. No. 8243, July 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.
25

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 clients 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 doubledealing, for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers,
which is paramount in the administration of justice.
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.S.C. said 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 clients
confidence once given should not be stripped by the mere expiration of the professional
employment. As a general rule, the ban on disclosure of clients 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 Clients 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.
A. No. 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 VS. 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 low regard to his commitment to the oath he took when he joined
26

his peers, thereby seriously tarnishing the image of the profession which he should hold in high
esteem.
Q. What instances would indicate violation of a lawyers 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 lawyers lien.
All costs of litigation must be borne by the client.
5. Fidelity to clients 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 Zaldvar 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 lawyers duty of competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing
the cases entrusted to the counsels 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 lawyers mere failure to perform the obligations due his client
is per se a violation.
(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. Quesadas failure to attend the
scheduled conference hearings, despite due notice and without any proper justification, exhibits
27

his inexcusable lack of care and diligence in managing his clients 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 clients interest.
Carlito P. Carandang v. Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina,A. C. No. 7813, Apr. 21, 2009.In a June 3, 2013
case, S.C. reiterated that the Attorneys 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 clients 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
participate in an on-going case

may

7. Representation with zeal within legal bounds

Q. What is the recourse of a party who has lost a case?
28

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. 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.
Antonio M. Lorenzana v. Judge Ma. Cecilia I. Austria, RTC, Br. 2, Batangas City, A.M. No.
RTJ-09-2200, April 2, 2014. The Court reiterated the rule that in administrative cases and
disbarment proceedings, the complainant bears the onus of proving the averments of his
complaint by substantial evidence. In this case, the allegations of grave abuse of authority,
irregularity in the performance of duty, grave bias and partiality, and lack of circumspection are
devoid of merit because the complainant failed to establish Judge Austrias bad faith, malice or ill
will. The complainant merely pointed to circumstances based on mere conjectures and
suppositions. These, by themselves, however, are not sufficient to prove the accusations. Even
granting that the judge erred in the exercise of her judicial functions, these are legal errors
correctible not by a disciplinary action, but by judicial remedies that are readily available to
the complainant. An administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every
irregular or erroneous order or decision issued by a judge where a judicial remedy is
available, such as a motion for reconsideration or an appeal.

(i) Use of fair and honest means: A lawyer must only employ such legal strategy allowed by
the circumstances.
(ii) Clients fraud: A lawyer must not condone any illegal acts of his client.
(iii) Procedure in handling the case: The lawyers 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?
Dimagiba v. Montalvo, Jr. Adm. Case No. 1424, October 15, 1991. 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.
A. Ong v. Unto, Adm. Case No. 2417, February 6, 2003. 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.
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. Malvars counsel filed a Motion to Intervene to Protect Attorneys
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
29

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 clients initiative would not deprive the attorney of the legitimate
compensation for professional services rendered.
Attorneys fees: (i) Acceptance fees; (ii) Contingency fee arrangements; (iii) Attorneys
liens; (iv) Fees and controversies with clients; (v) Concepts of attorneys fees - (a) ordinary
concept and (b) extraordinary concept.
On Lawyers fees and other charges:
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. What is a charging lien?
A. A charging lien is the right which the attorney has upon all judgments for payment of money,
and executions in pursuance of such judgments, obtained in favor of the client, to secure
reimbursement for advances made and payment of attorneys fees.
Q. What is a retaining fee?
A. A retaining fee can partake of an acceptance fee and covers professional fees for services
rendered including the payment of such amount as may be agreed upon by the parties in the
course of handling a legal matter for the client.
ReadRule 20.01 of CPR and Rule 138, Section 24 on factors to consider in charging fees
(importance of the subject matter of controversy, extent of services rendered, professional
standing)
Q. What is the concept of Quantum Meruit?
A. A lawyer will receive such amount commensurate the services he rendered during the period of
lawyer-client relationship which may have been severed by either party during the pendency of the
referral. It may also collected in event of the death of counsel before the resolution of the case.
Q. What is champerty?
A. A champertous contract may result where a lawyer assumes all expenses for litigation and
reimbursement is contingent on the outcome of the case. This is strictly prohibited under Rule 1604 of the CPR.
Champerty is different from a contingent fee contract because in the latter the lawyer gets
reimbursed for the advances made for the client in the course of representation, whether
he wins the suit or not; only the amount of professional fees is contingent upon winning.
Q. May a lawyer have a lien on a judgment to protect his professional fees?
A. Yes. Conchita Baltazar, et al. v. Atty. Juan B. Baez, 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 clients 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?
30

A. In Re: The Conjugal Partnership of the Spouses Vicente Cadavedo and Benita ArcoyCadavedo (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 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 clients 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. 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.
9. Withdrawal of Services: valid, justifiable reasons for withdrawal
PART TWO - JUDICIAL ETHICS
I. Sources of Judicial Ethics: 1. The Constitution; 2. The Rules of Court; 3. Statues creating
courts; 4. The New Canons of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (took effect on
June 1, 2004 per A.M. 03-05-01-SC) which was patterned after the Bangalore Draft of Code
of Judicial Conduct; and .5. Code of Judicial Conduct
II. Membership in the Judiciary
Qualifying to the Bench
1. Members of the Supreme Court and lower appellate courts: Section 7(1), Article VIII, 1987
Constitution mandates that a Justice of the Supreme Court and all collegiate appellate
courts must be a natural born Filipino.
Qualifications of SC Justice: natural born Filipino, at least be 40 years old, must have been for
15 years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
2. Members of the lower courts (regional trial courts and first level courts): Section 7(2),
article VIII, 1987 Constitution provides that Congress shall provide for qualifications but one must
be citizen of the Philippines and member of the Philippine Bar.
3. Common qualification for all members of the judiciary, Section 7(3), Article VIII, 1987
Constitution provides: A member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence,
integrity, probity and independence.
4. Term of Office: Section 11, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution provides that members of the
judiciary shall hold office during good behavior until they reach 70 years old or they become
incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office.
5. Manner of Selection and Appointment (Read Section 8, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution for
the composition, powers and term of office of members of the Judicial and Bar Council)
31

Q. Does Congress get one representative for the House of Representatives and one
representative for the Senate at the JBC?
No. Chavez v. JBC, et al., G.R. No. 202242, July 17, 2012: Congress( the House of Reps. and
the Senate) is entitled only to one seat in the JBC and not one for each house.
Recent rulings related to the JBC:
Q. May the JBC require that first level court judges render 5 years of service before being
qualified for a promotion to the RTC?
A. Yes. Villanueva v. JBC (2015): While the 1987 Constitution has provided the qualifications of
members of the judiciary, this does not preclude the JBC from having its own set of rules and
procedures and providing policies to effectively ensure its mandate. A first level trial court must
await a 5-year period before he can be promoted as RTC judge. The Court sustained the power of
the JBC to prescribe rules in the screening of qualified candidates to the judiciary to ensure that
only men of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence will be appointed to the
bench.
Q. Is a nominee for a position to the judiciary entitled to due process?
A. Yes. Jardeleza vs. Chief Justice Sereno and JBC (2015): Having been denied due process,
Jardeleza should be included in the list of nominees to be appointed as justice of the Supreme
Court. An issue about his integrity was raised in the selection process but Jardeleza was never
given the opportunity to be heard to overturn the allegation against him.
Appointments made by the President in the judiciary do not need any confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments. (Section 9. Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)
Please note that:
Any vacancy in the Supreme Court must be filled within 90 days from the occurrence
thereof. (Section 4(1), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)
For lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within 90 days from the
submission of the list. (Section 9, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)
Requirements in the discharge of responsibilities of members of the judiciary:
1. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly, the facts and law on which it is based. (Section 14, Article VIII, 1987
Constitution)
2. Dedicated service to the judiciary
3. Members of the judiciary shall not be designated to any agency performing quasijudicial or administrative functions. (Section12, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)
4. SALN Requirement
Members of the Supreme Court shall not only report all their assets, liabilities, and
net worth upon assumption to duty but they must disclose such to the PUBLIC in the
manner provided by law. (Section 17, Article XI, 1987 Constitution)
5. Allegiance to the Philippine Government. Any public officer owes allegiance to the
Philippine government and its Constitution and a public officer who seeks to change
citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of another country during his
tenure shall be dealt with by law.(Section 18, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)
III. Qualities (I.I.I. PECd): Independence, Integrity, Impartiality, Propriety, Equality and
Competence and diligence
A. Uphold the Dignity and Independence of the Court
CANON 1 A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the Judiciary. (Sections 1-7)
Two aspects of independence: institutional independence and personal independence: What is
expected of judges: to discharge their functions based solely on a fair assessment of the facts and
invoking the appropriate provision of law in resolving issues presented before the court; and shield
themselves from any kind of influence from any party involved in the case.
Q. Can a party resort to an administrative case if a member of the judiciary renders a
decision adverse to the former?
A.Generally, no. In Re: Verified Complaint of Engr. Oscar L. Ongjoco, 664 SCRA 465 (2012):
A complaint against justices of the Court of Appeals must be dismissed if the same is baseless
and the recourse of the party is to seek judicial relief from an adverse decision.
32

Q.Can mere allegations be the basis of administrative complaints?

A. No. In Re: S.C. Resolution dated 28April 2003 in G.R. Nos. 146817 and 145822, (Atty.
Pena) 669 SCRA 530(2012): A motion to inhibit the ponente in a pending case before the S.C.
based on suspicion of bribery in the form of a brand new Mercedes Benz and collusion with
another senior associate justice of S.C. cannot be given due course. Counsel must show proof
that a connection and direct correlation exists between his failure to receive a copy of its Motion
for Clarification of the other party. He alleged that the incident did not allow him to refute the
allegations therein. The Court said that such imputation is completely untenable and
irresponsible.
Q.Is sexual harassment of a clerk of court sufficient for dismissal from service?
A. Yes. Talens-Dabon v. Arceo, A.M. 1. No. RTJ-96-1336, July 25, 1996: A judge was dismissed
from service for gross misconduct for sexually harassing his Clerk of Court.
B. Avoid Impropriety: CANON 2 A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all activities. (Sections 1-3)
Q. May a judge notarize any document?
A. No. Rex M. Tupal v. Judge Remegio V. Rojo, etc., A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842. February 24,
2014.The Court held Judge Rojo guilty of violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct and Circular
No. 190, and of gross ignorance of the law. He was suspended for six months for having
notarized affidavits of cohabitation, which were documents not connected with the exercise of
his official functions and duties as solemnizing officer. He also notarized affidavits of
cohabitation without certifying that lawyers or notaries public were lacking in his courts
territorial jurisdiction. As a solemnizing officer, the judges only duty involving the affidavit of
cohabitation is to examine whether the parties have indeed lived together for at least five years
without legal impediment to marry. The Guidelines does not state that the judge can notarize the
parties affidavit of cohabitation. Notarizing affidavits of cohabitation is inconsistent with the duty to
examine the parties requirements for marriage. Circular No. 190 dated February 26, 1990.
Circular No. 190 allows municipal trial court judges to act as notaries public ex officio and
notarize documents only if connected with their official functions and duties.
Q. May a judge be prevented from assuming his duties because of misrepresentation?
A. Yes. Samson v. Judge Caballero, A. M. No. RT J-08- 213, 595 SCRA 423. The newly
appointed judge was not allowed to assume his post as RTC judge of Cabanatuan City for his
material misrepresentation in his application form. Caballero did not disclose that a graft and
corruption charge was filed against him before the Office of the Ombudsman when he served as a
prosecutor.
Q. May a judge be disciplined for neglecting the cases submitted for decision?
A. Yes. Suarez v. Judge Dilag, A. M. No. RT J-06-2014, March 4, 2009, 580 SCRA 491. A judge
was dismissed from service due to gross misconduct. The judge was found to have officiated
several marriage rites in a short span of time without having resolved the numerous cases
pending before his court.
Q.May a judge be suspended for incterceding on behalf of a prty in a case before the
Supreme Court?
A. Yes. Santos v. Judge Arcaya- Chua, A. M. No. MT J-07-20093, February 17, 2009. A judge
was suspended by the Court for having accepted money to intercede on behalf of her husbands
relative in a pending case before the Supreme Court where she was previously employed.
33

Q. Can a judge hold a person who parked his car in the slot reserved for said judge in
contempt?
No. Inonog v. Judge Ibay, A. M. No. RT J-09-2175, July 28, 2009, 594 SCRA 168.A judge was
fined by the Court for oppressive conduct for citing a driver in contempt of court for having
parked the car of his employer in the parking slot assigned to the judge. The judge imposed upon
the driver a monetary fine.
Q. Is a judge required to supervise his staff in their performance of duties?
A. Yes. Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Edwin C. Larida, Jr., RTC, Branch 18,
Tagaytay City, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2151, March 11, 2014. The Court held that Judge Larida, Jr.
committed several lapses, specifically the non-submission to the Court of the required inventory of
locally-funded employees, and his allowing Marticio to draft court orders. Such lapses manifested
a wrong attitude towards administrative rules and regulations issued for the governance and
administration of the lower courts, to the extent of disregarding them, as well as a laxity in the
control of his Branch and in the supervision of its functioning staff. The omission to submit the
inventory should not be blamed on Atty. Calma as the Branch Clerk of Court. Although it was very
likely that Judge Larida, Jr. had tasked Atty. Calma to do and submit the inventory in his behalf,
Judge Larida, Jr. as the Presiding Judge himself remained to be the officer directly burdened with
the responsibility for doing so. Further, for knowingly allowing detailed employees to solicit
commissions from bonding companies, Judge Larida, Jr. contravened the Code of Judicial
Conduct, which imposed on him the duty to take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures
against court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which he would have become aware.
Q. Is a judge allowed to create a social media account? Are the rules of Judicial Ethics
applicable to online activities?
A. Yes. Antonio M. Lorenzana v. Judge Ma. Cecilia I. Austria, RTC, Br. 2, Batangas City, A.M.
No. RTJ-09-2200, April 2, 2014. The Court held the conduct of Judge Austria of and posting a
picture with an indecent attire for the publics consumption in her Frendster account is
inappropriate.. The Court held that she was guilty of impropriety. While judges are not
prohibited from becoming members of and from taking part in social networking
activities, they do not shed off their status as judges. They carry with them in cyberspace
the same ethical responsibilities and duties that every judge is expected to follow in his/her
everyday activities. Judge Austria was guilty of impropriety when she posted her pictures in a
manner viewable by the public. Joining Friendster per se does not violate the New Code of
Judicial Conduct. The Court said Judge Austria disregarded the propriety and appearance of
propriety required of her when she posted Friendster photos of herself wearing an off-shouldered
suggestive dress and made this available for public viewing. .
C. Maintain Impartiality
CANON 3 A judge should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence.
(Sections 1-6)
Q. May a judge with a tendency to collect money from litigants be dismissed?
A. Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan v. Judge Vilalon-Pornillos, 592 SCRA 36: A judge was
dismissed from service for gross misconduct. Evidence was presented to establish the propensity
to exact money from litigants and lawyers. She also exhibited manifest bias in her demeanor in
court.
May a judge be allowed to propound questions?
It depends. Paco v. Quilala, et. Al., A. M. No. RT J-02-1699, 413 SCRA 364. A judge together
with the Clerk of Court and the court stenographer assigned to his court were also sanctioned by
the S.C. The Court said that except for clarificatory questions, the judge may not be allowed to
ask questions that would elicit answers to favor one of the parties to the case. Note: It is not also
34

proper for the judge to allow the Clerk of Court to conduct any proceeding in the absence of the
judge and for the stenographer to transcribe such proceedings.
Q. Do questions of impartiality raised against a member of the Court become moot after
said member is impeached?
A. Yes. Complaint against Chief Justice Corona dated Sept. 14, 2011 filed by Inter-Petal
Recreational Corp., A.M. No. 12-6-10 SC, June 13, 2012. The complaint raised the issue on the
capacity of then Chief Justice to decide on a pending case without any bias. The S.C. dismissed
the complaint because the same has become moot and academic with the impeachment and
eventual removal of Chief Justice Corona from office.
Q. What are the prohibitions involving members of the judiciary in deciding cases where
they have relatives as litigants or counsels for litigants?
Villaluz v. Mijares, A. M. No. RT J-98-1402, April 3, 1998, 288 SCRA 594. This case was filed by
Justice Villaluz, the former spouse of Pasay City RTC Judge Mijares, against her. The S.C. called
the attention of Mijares that the Rules of Court prohibit judges from hearing cases involving
relatives up to the sixth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. In the same fashion a member of
the bench may not hear cases where a counsel is a relative up to the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity.
D. Duty to Improve the Law and the Administration of Justice
CANON 4: A judge may, with due regard to official duties, engage in activities to improve the law,
the legal system and the administration of justice. (Sections 1-15)
Q. May a disciplinary case be filed if a judge forgets to sign an order granting provisional
freedom?
Yes. Albos v. Alaba, A.M.No. MTJ-91517, March 11, 1994.A judge who failed to sign the order
granting bail to the accused and who left for out of town was found to have been remised of his
responsibility as a judge.
Q. Does a failure of a trial court judge to decide a case within 90 days warrant disciplinary
action?
A. Yes, because the period is mandatory.
Re: Cases Submitted for Decision before Hon. Teofilo D. Baluma, Former Judge, Branch 1,
Regional Trial Court, Tagbilaran City, Bohol, A.M. No. RTJ-13-2355, September 2, 2013.For
his failure to sufficiently explain why he failed to act on the twenty-three (23) cases submitted for
decision/resolution, the S.C. imposed upon him administrative sanctions. The Court held that it
has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously
under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. Every judge should decide
cases with dispatch and should be careful, punctual, and observant in the performance of his
functions for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the
judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute.
Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Santiago E. Soriano, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1683,
September 11, 2013.
The S.C. held that Judge Soriano has been remiss in the performance of his judicial duties for his
failure to decide thirty-six (36) cases submitted for decision in MTC and MTCC, which were all due
for decision at the time he compulsorily retired. Such unreasonable delay in deciding cases and
resolving incidents and motions, and his failure to decide the remaining cases before his
compulsory retirement constitutes gross inefficiency. The Court that this warrants the imposition of
an administrative sanction on the defaulting judge. Judge Sorianos inefficiency in managing his
caseload was compounded by gross negligence as evinced by the loss of the records of at least
35

four (4) cases which could no longer be located or reconstituted despite diligent efforts by his
successor. Judge Soriano was responsible for managing his court efficiently to ensure the prompt
delivery of court services, especially the speedy disposition of cases. Thus, Judge Soriano was
found guilty of gross inefficiency and gross ignorance of the law, and fined P40,000 to be taken
from the amount withheld from his retirement benefits.
Re: Failure of Former Judge Antonio A. Carbonell to Decide Cases Submitted for Decision
and Resolve Pending Motions in the RTC, Branch 27, San Fernando, La Union, A.M. No. 085-305-RTC, July 9, 2013.The S. C. said that Carbonells failure to decide cases within the
reglamentary 90-day period without any justifiable and credible reasons constitutes gross
inefficiency. The reiterated that as a frontline official of the Judiciary, a trial judge should always
act with efficiency and probity. He is duty-bound not only to be faithful to the law, but also to
maintain professional competence. The pursuit of excellence ought always to be his guiding
principle. Such dedication is the least that he can do to sustain the trust and confidence that the
public have reposed in him and the institution he represents. The Court reduced the
recommended penalty of fine from P50,000 to P20,000 considering that Judge Carbonell has
retired due to disability, his poor health condition may have greatly contributed to his inability to
efficiently perform his duties as a trial judge.
Related case on Ejectment: Gershon N. Dulang v. Judge Mary Jocelyn G. Regencia, MCTC,
Asturias-Balamban, Cebu, A.M. No. MTJ-14-1841, June 2, 2014. The Supreme Court held that
pursuant to Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, prompt disposition of cases is
attained basically through the efficiency and dedication to duty of judges. In this case, the civil
case was already submitted for resolution. Being an ejectment case, it is governed by the Rules of
Summary Procedure which clearly sets a period of 30 days from the submission of the last
affidavit or position paper within which a decision must be issued. In violation of this rule, Judge
Regencia rendered judgment only more than two years later the judge failed to proffer any
acceptable reason in delaying the disposition of the ejectment case, thus, making her
administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a decision. .
Q. Is the failure to decide a case within the 90 day period an automatic ground for
discipline in all cases?
No. Danilo E. Lubaton v. Judge Mary Josephine P. Lazaro, Regional Trial Court, Br. 74,
Antipolo, Rizal, A.M. RTJ-12-2320, September 2, 2013. The S.C. held that the 90-day period
within which a sitting trial Judge should decide a case or resolve a pending matter is mandatory. If
the Judge cannot decide or resolve within the period, she can be allowed additional time to do so,
provided she files a written request for the extension of her time to decide the case or resolve the
pending matter. The rule, albeit mandatory, is to be implemented with an awareness of the
limitations that may prevent a Judge from being efficient. Under the circumstances specific to this
case, it would be unkind and inconsiderate on the part of the Court to disregard Judge Lazaros
limitations and exact a rigid and literal compliance with the rule. With her undeniably heavy
inherited docket and the large volume of her official workload, she most probably failed to note the
need for her to apply for the extension of the 90-day period to resolve the Motion to Dismiss.

E. Duty to Avoid Conflict with Judicial Responsibilities

CANON 5: A judge should regulate extra-judicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict of judicial
duties. (Sections 1 - 5)
Q. Can a judge convicted be immediately suspended?
36

A. No. Re. Conviction of Judge Angeles, A. M. No. RT J-06-9-5215, 543 SCRA. The Court held
that a judge cannot be suspended in the discharge of her responsibilities until after conviction of a
criminal offense she allegedly committed has become final and executory.
Q. Is the Judge free to use any vulgar language in court?
A. No. Guanzon v. Judge Rufon, 537 SCRA 38. The Court reminded the family court judge to
avoid using vulgar language in the course of the trial. Use of vulgar language insults a witness and
may also diminish the respect of the litigants towards the court because court proceedings are
held in public.
Q. May a judge be disciplined for being seen dining with a person that has a pending case
before his court?
A. Yes. Sy v. Judge Fineza, A. M. RT J-03-1808, October 15, 2003, 413 SCRA 374. The Court
will not condone the acts of judges of accepting money from a litigant with a pending case before
his court nor should a judge be seen dining with a litigant facing a criminal case before his court.
F. Duty to Exhibit Competence and Diligence
CANON 6: Competence and Diligence (Sections 1-7)
Q. Can a judge be liable for his official acts?
A. No, if he was in good faith. Narciso G. Dulalia v. Judge Afable E. Cajigal, RTC, Br. 96,
Quezon City, A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 10-3492-RTJ, December 4, 2013. S.C. said that as a matter of
public policy, a judge cannot be subjected to liability for any of his official acts, no matter how
erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office
untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of
administering justice can be infallible in his judgment. The Court reminded parties that resort to
judicial remedies must be exercised to question the decision of the trial judge. Bad faith on the
part of the trial judge should never be imputed unless the same can be supported by evidence.
Q. What may be considered bad faith?
Ma. Liza M. Jorda, City Prosecutors Office, Tacloban City v. Judge Crisologo S. Bitas, RTC,
Branch 7, Tacloban City; Prosecutor Leo C. Tabao v. Judge Crisologo S. Bitas, RTC,
Branch 7, Tacloban City,A.M. No. RTJ-14-2376/A.M. No. RTJ-14-2377. March 5, 2014. The
Court held Judge Bitas judge liable for gross ignorance of the law when he deviated from the
requirement of a hearing where there is an application for bail and aggravated his offense when
he also granted bail to Miralles without neither conducting a hearing nor a motion for application
for bail. Judge Bitas acts are not mere deficiency in prudence, discretion and judgment on his
part, but a patent disregard of well-known rules. When an error is so gross and patent, such
error produces an inference of bad faith. Miralles was charged with Qualified Trafficking, which
under Section 10 (C) of R.A. No. 9208 is punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of not less
than P2,000,000 but not more than P5,000,000. Thus, by reason of the penalty prescribed by law,
the grant of bail is a matter of discretion which can be exercised only by Judge Bitas after the
evidence is submitted in a hearing. The hearing of the application for bail in capital offenses is
absolutely indispensable before a judge can properly determine whether the prosecutions
evidence is weak or strong.
Q. May a judge that delays a case to favor party be disciplined?
A. Yes. Biggel v. Judge Pamintuan, A. M. No. RT J- 08-2101, 559 SCRA 344. The apparent bias
exhibited by the judge shown in the delay in the legal procedure cannot be condoned. S.C. held
reminded judges of their pivotal role in the administration of justice.
Q. May the Court relax the rules on discipline based on compassion?
A. Yes. Bayaca v. Judge Ramos, A. M. No. MT J-07-1676, 577 SCRA 93. S.C. held that gross
misconduct and serious lapses in the conduct of the affairs of the court merit dismissal from the
judiciary except for reasons of compassion, the Court awarded the retirement benefits of the judge
who died during the pendency of this administrative case.
37

IV. Disqualification of Justices and Judges (Rule 137)

Prohibition on practice of profession: No member of the judiciary may practice their
profession during their incumbency.
A. Prescriptive Duty to resolve pending matters
All matters pending with the Supreme Court must be resolved with 24 months;
Twelve (12) months for all collegiate appellate courts; and
Three (3) months for all other lower courts. (Section 15(1), 1987 Constitution)
B. Disqualification and Inhibition of Judges: may be voluntary or involuntary: There are
two rules governing the qualification and voluntary inhibition of judges: Section 1, Rule 137
of the Rules of Court; and Rule 3. 12 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary. Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court provides: Disqualification of judges.
No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is
pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise , or in which he is related to
either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the
fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has
been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in
any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written
consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in case,
for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above. (ex. If judge served as wedding
sponsor to one of the litigants or litigant is his kasambahay.)
Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary states:
Rule 3.12. A Judge should take no part in proceeding where the judges impartially might
reasonably be questioned. These cases include, among others, proceedings where:
The judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
The judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustees or lawyer in the case or
matter in controversy,
or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their association, or the judge
or lawyer was a material witness therein;
The judges ruling in a lower court is the subject of review;
The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree or
to co-counsel within the fourth degree;
The judge knows that his spouse or child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee, creditor,
fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding,
or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.
1. Voluntary Inhibition: When is voluntary inhibition allowed? A judge is allowed under the
second paragraph of Section 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, supra, to voluntary inhibit
from a case for just or valid reasons other than those grounds of disqualification.
Q.Is a member of the judiciary required to give notice of his inhibition to the party
litigants?
A. Yes. Re: Complaint filed by Lucena B. Rallos against Justices Gabriel T. Ingles,
Pamela Ann Maxino, and Carmelita S. Manahan, IPI No. 12-203-CA-J/A.M. No. 12-9-08-CA,
December 10, 2013. Complainant charged Justice Hernando with manifest bias because he
voluntarily inhibited himself in CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676 only after the promulgation of the
March 28, 2012 and April 13, 2012 resolutions. Complainant alleged that she should have
been informed of the voluntary inhibition. The Court, however, said that under the internal rules
of the C.A., the same was not necessary. In the spirit of transparency, the Court held that
henceforth all the parties in any action or proceedings should be immediately notified of
any mandatory disqualification or voluntary inhibition of the Justice who has participated in any
action of the court, stating the reason for the mandatory disqualification or voluntary inhibition.
The requirement of notice is a measure to ensure that the disqualification or inhibition has not
been resorted to in order to cause injustice to or to prejudice any party or cause.
Q. How is voluntary inhibition effected?
38

A. A judge may motu proprio or on motion of a party voluntarily recluse from a case if he has good
or valid reasons which render him incapable of acting objectively on the case.
Q. When should a judge not inhibit himself?
A. Absent any ground for disqualification, a judge should not inhibit and if a motion to that effect is
filed, he should deny it if, despite the circumstances cited by the movant, he honestly believes that
he can act on the case objectively.
2. Q. What is remittal of disqualification?
A. Remittal of disqualification is the process by which a judge who is disqualified to sit on a case
on any of the grounds enumerated in Section 5, Canon 3, may purge himself of such a
disqualification so that he may act upon the case.
Q. How remittal is effected?
A. This process is allowed under Section 6 of the same Canon which provides:
A judge disqualified as stated above may, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on
the record the basis of disqualification. If, based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers,
independently of the judges participation, all agree in writing that the reason for inhibition is
immaterial or unsubstantial; the judge may then participate in the proceeding. The Agreement,
signed by all the parties and lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record of the proceedings.
V. Discipline of Members of the Judiciary
A. Members of the Supreme Court: Impeachment. (Section 2, Article XI, 1987 Constitution);
Grounds; and Proceedings
Is a retired Justice still subject to the disciplinary power of the Court?
Yes. In re: Undated letter of Mr. Louis C. Biraogo, A.M. No. 09-2-19, S.C. The Court fined a
retired justice of the Supreme Court with P500, 000.00 and indefinite suspension for premature
release of a decision involving the citizenship requirement of a member of the House of
Representatives.
B. Discipline of Appellate Justices and Lower Court Judges: Read Section 11, Article VIII,
1987 Constitution
1 Q. Who has jurisdiction over disciplinary case over members of the judiciary?
A. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline appellate justices and lower
court judges.
2. Q. What is the vote required in dismissing a member of the judiciary?
A majority vote of all justices who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case
and voted thereon.
3. Grounds for disciplinary action over appellate and trial judges
4.
Sanctions: fines, suspension, dismissal from office, forfeiture of benefits and
disbarment
Q. May a judge be disbarred on the same ground as the cause from his removal as a
judge?
Yes. Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Daniel R. Liangco (A.C. No.5355, December 11,
2011). A trial court judge was dismissed from service for gross misconduct and gross ignorance of
the law. He allowed a local government unit to take possession and awarded ownership of a
private property without any expropriation proceedings having been filed by the government. As a
defense, the judge said that what he rendered was not a decision but only an opinion. After his
dismissal, the Court initiated disbarment proceedings against him before the IBP. The IBP
recommended his disbarment which the Court affirmed.
VI. Administrative Aspects over Court Matters, Responsibilities and Discipline of Court
Personnel
A. Powers and Duties of Courts and Judicial Officers (Rule 135)
B. Court Records and General Duties of Clerks and Stenographer (Rule 136)
C. Legal Fees (Rule 141): Manner of payment: legal tender; principles of Negotiable
Instruments Law will apply; fees in lien; and persons authorized to collect legal fees
D. Costs: Recovery of costs (Rule 142): a) Prevailing party; b) Dismissed appeal or action
c) Frivolous appeal; d) False allegations; and e) Non-appearance of witness
39

Survey of Recent Jurisprudence involving employees of the judiciary:

Q. What is dishonesty?
A. Executive Judge Ma. Ofelia S. Contreras-Soriano v. Clerk III Liza D. Salamanca,
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 55, Malabon City, A.M. No. P-13-3119. February 10, 2014.
The
Executive
Judge
filed
an
administrative
case
against
respondent
for
unauthorized/unexplained absences and other infractions: (1) failure to account for and turn over
the partial settlement amount of a civil obligation; and (2) failure to account for and turn over the
payment for legal fees she received in a case. The Court held that the acts of Salamanca
constitute dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Dishonesty is defined as a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud. It implies
untrustworthiness, lack of integrity, lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle on the part of
the individual who failed to exercise fairness and straightforwardness in his or her dealings.
Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service, on the other hand, pertains to any conduct that
is detrimental or derogatory or naturally or probably bringing about a wrong result; it refers to acts
or omissions that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or tend to diminish the
peoples faith in the Judiciary.
Q. Is the disclosure of the interest earned by time deposits required in a SALN?
A. Yes. De Castro, J. Angelito R. Marquez, et al. v. Judge Venancio M. Ovejera, etc., et
al., A.M. No. P-11-2903, February 5, 2014.In finding the sheriff guilty, the Court cited Section
8 of RA 6713 which requires all public officials and employees to accomplish and submit
declarations under oath of their assets and liabilities. The requirement of SALN submission
is aimed at curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for official corruption, as well as at
maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service. With such disclosure, the public
would, to a reasonable extent, be able to monitor the affluence of public officials, and, in
such manner, provides a check and balance mechanism to verify their undisclosed
properties and/or sources of income. S.C. held that based on Section 8 of RA 6713, all
other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds, and the like,
should be declared by the public official in his or her SALN. In this case, however, it was
established that she only declared the original amount of her time deposits in her SALN for
the years 2004 and 2005, and did not disclose the interests which had eventually accrued
on the same.
Q. Qhat disciplinary action may the Court take against a mere court employee who makes it
appear that she can influence judicial decisions?
A. Dismissal from service. Veronica F. Galindez v. Zosima Susbilla-De Vera, A.M. No. P-133126, February 4, 2014. The Court found respondent guilty of grave misconduct for soliciting
money to supposedly facilitate a legal proceeding in court. She was dismissed from service for
violating Section 2, Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel has enjoined all court
personnel from soliciting or accepting any gift, favor or benefit based on any or explicit
understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions.

40

The Court further said that to deserve the trust and confidence of the people, Susbilla-De Vera
was expected to have her dealings with the public to be always sincere and above board. She
should not lead others to believe that despite her status as a minor court employee she had the
capacity to influence the outcomes of judicial matters. Her acts did not live up to the expectation,
for the records unquestionably showed how she had deliberately and fraudulently misrepresented
her ability to assist the complainant in the adoption of her niece and nephew.
Q. Does the dismissal of an administrative case follow from a resignation of the court
employee subject of the case?
A. No. Concerned Citizen v. Nonita v. Catena, Court Stenographer III, RTC, Br. 50, Puerto
Princesa, Palawan, A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1321-P, July 16, 2013.Respondent stenographer was
dismissed from service for gross dishonesty in connection with her Civil Service eligibility where
she was accused of causing another person to take the Civil Service Eligibility Examination in her
stead. Before the Decision was imposed, however, respondent resigned but the Court said that
despite this, it did not lose jurisdiction over the complaint and that it did not warrant the dismissal
of the same. The Court emphasized that cessation from office by virtue of her intervening
resignation did not warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint against her, for the act
complained of had been committed when she was still in the service. Nor did such cessation from
office render the administrative case moot and academic. Otherwise, exacting responsibility for
administrative liabilities incurred would be easily avoided or evaded. The Court therefore also
ordered her eligibility to be cancelled, her retirement benefits to be forfeited, and her
disqualification from re-employment in the government service to be perpetual. Her intervening
resignation necessarily means that the penalty of dismissal could no longer be implemented
against her. Instead, fine is imposed, the determination of the amount of which is subject to the
sound discretion of the Court.
Q. What is grave misconduct?
A. Office of the Court Administrator v. Noel R. Ong, Deputy Sheriff, Br. 49, et al., A.M. No. P09-2690. . The Court held that respondents acts of using the levied car for personal errands and
losing it while under their safekeeping constitute grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty. The
Court said misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a
forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong
behavior. A misconduct is grave or gross if it is out of all measure; beyond allowance; flagrant;
shameful or such conduct as is not to be excused. Such flagrant and shameful acts and should
not be countenanced. Respondents acts warrant the penalty of dismissal as provided in Rule 10,
Section 46 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. As for respondent
Buencamino, his death is not a ground for the dismissal of the Complaint against him. Respondent
Buencaminos acts take away the publics faith in the judiciary, and these acts should be
sanctioned despite his death.
Sheriffs are reminded that they are repositories of public trust and are under obligation to perform
the duties of their office honestly, faithfully, and to the best of their abilities. Being frontline
officials of the justice system, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs must always strive to maintain public
trust in the performance of their duties.
Anacleto O. Villahermosa, Sr., et al. v. Victor Sacia, Executive Assistant IV and Efren R.
Rivamonte, etc., A.M. No. CA-14-28-P, February 11, 2014. The Court held that the act of soliciting
or receiving money from litigants constitutes grave misconduct. The S.C. reiterated that The Code
of Conduct for Court Personnel requires that court personnel avoid conflicts of interest in
performing official duties. It mandates that court personnel should not receive tips or other
remunerations for assisting or attending to parties engaged in transactions or involved in actions
or proceedings with the judiciary. Further, court personnel cannot take advantage of the
vulnerability of partylitigants. In this case, respondents were found guilty of grave misconduct
and thus, dismissed from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual
41

disqualification from holding public office in any branch or instrumentality of the government,
including governmentowned or controlled corporations.
Atty. Rhea R. Alcantara-Aquino v. Mylene H. Dela Cruz, etc., A.M. No. P-13-3141. January 21,
2014. The Court held that in this case, Dela Cruz failed to live up to these exacting standards. The
inculpatory acts committed by Dela Cruz are so grave as to call for the most severe administrative
penalty. Dishonesty and grave misconduct, both being in the nature of a grave offense, carry the
extreme penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued
leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for re-employment in the government service. This
penalty is in accordance with Sections 52 and 58 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service.
Atty. Virgilio P. Alconera v. Alfredo T. Pallanan, A.M. No. P-12-3069, January 20, 2014. The
Court said that absent a TRO, an order of quashal, or compliance with Sec. 19, Rule 70 of the
Rules of Court, respondent sheriff has no alternative but to enforce the writ. The S.C. did not find
the sheriff guilty of the charge of grave misconduct. He did not enforce the writ of execution
because there was still a pending Motion for Reconsideration before the trial court. S.C. said that
misconduct has been defined as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action,
more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is
grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to
disregard established rules, all of which must be established by substantial evidence, and must
necessarily be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct. In this case, there was no element of
misconduct established against the accused.
The sheriffs duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial; he is to execute the order of the
court strictly to the letter. He has no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. When the
writ is placed in his hands, it is his duty, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary, to
proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to implement it in accordance with its mandate.
It is only by doing so could he ensure that the order is executed without undue delay. This holds
especially true herein where the nature of the case requires immediate execution.
Q. What is simple neglect of duty? Development Bank of the Philippines, etc. Vs. DamvinV.
Famero, Sheriff IV, RTC, Br. 43, Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, For the respondents lapses in the
procedures in the implementation of the writ of execution, he was found guilty of simple neglect of
duty, defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to the task expected of him. Under
Section 52(B)(1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect
of duty is a less grave offense punishable by suspension from office for one (1) month and one
(1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense. In the
imposition of the appropriate penalty, Section 53 of the same Rules allows the disciplining
authority to consider mitigating circumstances in favor of the respondent. The court considered his
length of service in the Judiciary, acknowledgment of infractions, remorse and other family
circumstances, among others, in determining the proper penalty. He was also found to be entitled
to the following mitigating circumstances: (1) his more than 24 years of service in the Judiciary; (2)
a clear record other than for the present infraction which is his first offense, (3) the resistance of
the informal settlers to leave the property; (4) fear for his life; and (5) his well-grounded recognition
that he could not undertake any demolition without the appropriate court order. After considering
the attendant facts and the mitigating circumstances, the court also considered that the efficiency
42

of court operations may ensue if the respondents work were to be left unattended by reason of his
suspension. Thus, he was imposed the penalty of fine instead of suspension from service.
Alberto Valdez v. Desiderio W. Macusi, Jr., Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 25, Tabuk, Kalinga, A.M.
No. P-13-3123, June 10, 2014. Sheriff Macusi was held to be remiss in his duties and thus liable
for simple neglect of duty which is the failure to give attention to a task, or the disregard of a duty
due to carelessness or indifference. The Court held that the 30-day period imposed for the
execution of the writ after the judgment has been received by the sheriff, as well as the periodic
report every 30 days, is mandatory. A return which Macusi referred to as his Partial Report is not
acceptable because the court issues a writ, it is incumbent upon the sheriff to enforce it.
Q. What is the nature of a position in the judiciary? What are expected of employees of the
judiciary?
Office of the Court Administrator v. Donabel M. Savadera, et al., A.M. No. P-04-1903,
September 10, 2013. The S.C. once again called the attention of court personnel that no position
demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder than a judicial office. Those
connected with the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the lowliest clerk, carry a
heavy burden of responsibility. As frontliners in the administration of justice, they should live up to
the strictest standards of honesty and integrity. They must bear in mind that the image of a court of
justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who
work there.
The respondent court employees were meted out with penalties because the audit team of the
Court discovered cash shortages in the books of accounts of the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC,
Lipa City. As clerk of court, Atty. Apusen is primarily accountable for all funds collected for the
court, whether personally received by him or by a duly appointed cashier who is under his
supervision and control. As custodian of court funds, revenues, records, properties and premises,
he is liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of said funds and properties. Being a
cash clerk, Savadera is an accountable officer entrusted with the great responsibility of collecting
money belonging to the funds of the court. Clearly, she miserably failed in such responsibility upon
the occurrence of the shortages.
Office of the Court Administrator v.Atty. Mona Lisa A. Buencamino, etc., et al. /Re: Report
on the financial audit conducted in the Metropolitan Trial Court etc., A.M. No. P-052051/A.M. No. 05-4-118-MeTC. January 21, 2014.The Supreme Court held that the admission of
Mapue of her liability does not exculpate Atty. Buencamino from her own negligence. A clerk of
court has general administrative supervision over all the personnel of the court. The administrative
functions of a clerk of court are as vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice as his
judicial duties. As custodian of court funds and revenues, the clerk of court is primarily
accountable for all funds that are collected for the court, whether personally received by him or by
a duly appointed cashier who is under his supervision and control. Atty. Buencamino was remiss
in the performance of her duties as clerk of court. Atty. Buencamino failed to supervise Mapue and
to properly manage the court funds entrusted to her,
Office of the Court Administrator v. Sarah P. Ampong, etc., A.M. No. P-13-3132, June 4, 2014.
The Court dismissed from service Ampong for being liable for dishonesty in impersonating and
taking the November 1991 Civil Service Eligibility Examination for Teachers on behalf of one
Decir. Under section 58(a) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
(URACCS), the penalty of dismissal carries with it the following administrative disabilities: (a)
cancellation of civil service eligibility; (b) forfeiture of retirement benefits; and (c) perpetual
43

disqualification from re-employment in any government agency or instrumentality, including any

government-owned and controlled corporation or government financial institution. Ampong should
be made to similarly suffer the same. Every employee of the Judiciary should be an example of
integrity, uprightness, and honesty. Court personnel are enjoined to adhere to the exacting
standards of morality and decency in their professional and private conduct in order to preserve
the good name and integrity of the courts of justice.
Elpidio Sy, President, Systems Realty Development Corporation v. Edgar Esponilla, Legal
Researcher and Officer-in-Charge, et al., A.M. No. P-06-2261, December 11, 2013.Respondent
Esponilla, Legal Researcher and then Officer-In-Charge of Br. 54 of RTC Manila, and Atty.
Buendia, clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff of RTC Manila were charged with Gross Misconduct,
Negligence and Dishonesty for the irregular withdrawal of deposits for monthly rentals in a civil
case based on a purported Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Rental Deposits filed by Atty. Bayhon in
the civil case. S.C. held that Atty. Bayhon violated the Lawyers Oath and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility for failing to explain, in good faith the circumstances
surrounding the filing of the Ex-Parte Motion which he himself filed, for proffering misleading
claims in the course of the subject administrative investigation, and for not having shown and
proved that he exerted his best efforts to secure and submit a copy of the Ex-Parte Motion all in
violation of the resolutions issued by the Court. Atty. Bayhon was suspended for six (6) months
from the practice of law.
In recent cases decided by the S.C. involving court personnel, the Court made the following
rulings:
1. A court stenographer must pay just obligations as there is a compelling need to preserve
decency in the judiciary.
2. Court personnel are likewise covered by the prohibition that he cannot purchase a
property involved within the jurisdiction of their courts.
3. A clerk of court who delays the transmittal of records to the appellate court is guilty of
misconduct and merits suspension without pay.
4. A clerk of court who fails to issue an Official Receipt as Commissioners fee and the
stenographers fee exhibits misconduct.
5. A clerk of court who fails to remit money received in the course of his work may be
suspended and the amount unremitted will be deducted from his salary until fully paid.
6. A clerk of court who showed oppressive conduct towards her subordinates may be
dismissed from service if the subordinates and other third parties are able to substantiate
their claims.
7. A court personnel who is found guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, unlawful
behavior or who is found to have a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or betray;
untrustworthiness, lack of integrity, lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; and
lack of fairness and straightforwardness may face not only administrative investigation by
the Office of the Court Administrator but may likewise be charged for violation of Civil
Service Rules and Regulations and violation of the Revised Penal Law and other Special
Penal Laws involving public officers.

Final Note:
It is possible that some questions for Legal and Judicial Ethics might include Practical
Exercises.
Please familiarize yourself with the following:
44

Complaint-Affidavit and Counter-Affidavit

Verification
Combined Verification, Certification against Forum Shopping, and Statement of Material Dates
Request for and Notice of Hearing
Proof of Personal Service
Proof of service by registered mail (with Explanation for failure to serve personally)
Special Power of Attorney
General Power of Attorney
Secretarys Certificate
Board Resolutions
Deed of Sale with Mortgage
Letters Rogatory
Judicial Affidavit

45

46