Você está na página 1de 26


Sources of Legal Ethics 1. Code of Professional Responsibility promulgated by SC on June 21, 1988 (Canons 1-22) 2. Canons of Professional Ethics from American Bar Association adopted by Philippine Bar in 1917 and 1946 (1-47) 3. New Code of Judicial Conduct Bangalore Draft adopted by the Supreme Court which took effect on June 1, 2004 amending: a. Canons of Judicial Ethics A. O. No. 162 dated August 1, 1946 DOJ (1-31) b. Code of Judicial Conduct promulgated September 5, 1989 took effect on October 20, 1989 (Canon 1-5) 4. Rules of Court Rule 138. Attorneys and Admission to Bar (Sections 1-37) Rule 139-B. Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys (Sections 1-20) Rule 140. Discipline of Judges, CA & Sandiganbayan (Sections 1-12) *Under ROC start Part V Legal Ethics also Rule 135. Powers and Duties of Courts and Judicial Officers (Sections 1-9) Rule 136. Court Record and General Duties of Clerks and Stenographers n(Sections 1-19) - Rule 137. Disqualification of Judicial Officers (Section 1) 5. Rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) adopted August 22, 2000 took effect October 1, 2000 (Rule 1-15) 6. Rules on Notarial Practice DUTIES OF A LAWYER Society/Public (pp. 69-89) Candor and Legal Profession/Bar (pp. 90-130) Courtesy Fairness Courts (pp. 133-173) Good Faith* Clients (pp.174-297) Loyalty * Bad faith not simply connote bad judgment or negligence, it implies a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong. DEFINITION *Legal Ethics - is the embodiment of all principles of morality and refinement that should govern the conduct of every member of the bar. Specifically, it refers to that branch of moral science which treats of the duties which an attorney owes to the court, to his client, to his colleagues in the profession and to the public. (2x asked in the Bar - definition)

PRELIMINARY MATTERS Power of Congress to Regulate the Bar The Bar Flunkers Act of 1953 is not a legislation; it is a judgment a judgment promulgated by this Court during the aforecited years affecting the bar candidates concerned; although this

Court certainly can revoke these judgments even now, for justifiable reasons, it is no less certain that only this Court, and not the legislative nor executive department, that may do so. Any attempt on the part of these departments would be a clear usurpation of its function, as is the case with the law in question. The ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as the other authorities say, merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license. ( In re Cunanan.94 Phil. 534.1954) ADMISSION TO PRACTICE Practice of Law The title attorney is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and successfully taken the Bar Examinations, having been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing, and it is they only who are authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction. As to the case of Alauya, the Supreme Court has declared that persons who pass the law Sharia Bar are not full-pledged members of the Philippine Bar, hence may only practice law before Sharia courts. While one who has been admitted to the Sharia Bar, and one who has been admitted to the Philippine Bar, may both be considered counselors in the sense that they give counsel or advice in a professional capacity, only the latter is an attorney. (Alawi v. Alauya. AM. SDC-97-2-P. February, 24, 1997) Practice of Law before Administrative Agencies Members of the Philippine Bar authorized to practice law, and in good standing, may practice their profession before the Patent Office, for the reason of that much of the business in said office involves the interpretation and determination of the scope and application of the Patent Law and other laws applicable, as well as the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved; that part of the functions of the Patent director are judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so that appeals from his orders are decisions are under the law, taken to the Supreme Court. (Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava. 105 Phil 173. February 16, 1959) Absence of Authority to Appear, Effect on Lawyers Appearing In all legal proceedings, the National Electrification Administration shall be represented by the chief or any attorney of its Legal Division, NEA can hire or employ a private lawyer or law firm only in exceptional cases provided these requisites concur: 1.) conformity and acquiescence in writing of the Solicitor General; 2.) with the written concurrence of the Commission on Audit; and, 3.) the law creating such government agency authorizes it to hire its own lawyer. When a lawyer wilfully appears as counsel for NEA without the above requisites, such counsel appeared without the authority to do so. Such an act is clear violation of Sec. 27 Rule138 of the ROC. (Santayana v. Atty. Alampay. AC. No. 5878) Practice of Law by Legislators The words any court used in prohibiting members of Congress to appear as counsel In any criminal case in which an officer or employee of the Government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office refers not only to a civil, but also to a Military court of a CourtMartial. (Marcos v. Chief of Staff. GR. No. L-4663. May 30, 1950)

Isolated Appearance; Permission from the Department Head It should be clarified that the practice of law, which is prohibited (under Section 35, Rule 138), does not pertain to an isolated court appearance; rather, it contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding ones self to the public as a lawyer. While respondents (branch clerk of court) isolated court appearances did not amount to practice of law, he failed to obtained a written permission therefore from the head of the Department, which is this Court (Supreme Court) which is required by Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules. The presiding judge of the court to which is respondent is assigned is not the head of the Department contemplated by law. (Office of the Court Administrator v. Ladaga AC. P-991287. January 26, 2000.) Restrictions in the Practice of Law of Members of the Sanggunian Under RA 7160, elective local officials of provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays are the following: the governor, the vice governor and members of the sangguniang panlalawigan for provinces; the city mayor, the city vice mayor and the members of the sangguniang panglungsod for cities; the municipal mayor, the municipal vice mayor and the members of the sangguniang bayan for municipalities and the punong barangay, the members of the sangguniang barangay and the members of the sangguniang kabataan for barangays While, as already discussed, certain local elective officials (like governors, mayor, provincial board members and councilors) are expressly subjected to a total or partial prescription to practice their profession or engage in any occupation, no such interdiction is made on the punong barangay and the members of the sangguniang barangay. Expressio unios est exclusio alterius. Since they are excluded from any prohibition, the presumption is that they are allowed to practice their profession However, he should have procured prior permission or authorization from the head of his Department, as required by the Civil Service Regulations. (Wilfredo Catu vs. Atty. Vicente Rellosa, A.C. No. 5738. February 19, 2008) Requirements before someone who reacquires Filipino citizenship can engage in the practice of law Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal profession, In the Philippines and he reacquires his Filipino citizenship pursuant to its provisions(he) shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice. Stated otherwise, before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 can resume his law practice, he must first secure from this Court the authority to do so, conditioned on: a. The updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the 1BP. b. The payment or professional tax; c. The completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education; this is specifically significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner s knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal developments and d. The retaking of the lawyers oath which will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. (For leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin M. Dacanay, BM No. 1678, December 17, 2007)


The Code of Professional Responsibility a. Canon 1 to 6 The Lawyer and the Society; b. Canon 7 to 9 The Lawyer and the Legal Profession; c. Canon 10 to 13 The Lawyer and the Courts; d. Canon 14 to 22 The Lawyer and the Client.

CHAPTER I THE LAWYER AND THE SOCIETY Canon 1. A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
(UDID) (8x asked in the Bar) Unlawful conduct act or omission which is against the law; Dishonest act of lying or cheating; Immoral or deceitful one that involves moral turpitude - it includes anything done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals OR to any vileness, baseness, or depravity in the private and social duties that a man owes to his fellowmen or society, contrary to accepted rule of right and duty between man and man. (In re Basa 41 Phil 275 (1920) ; In re Gutierrez 5 SCRA 661 (1962) * Bar Matter 1. Maintenance of Adulterous Relationship the act of a lawyer of marrying someone while he still has subsisting marriage constitute grossly immoral conduct, a ground for disbarment (Cojuanco, Jr. vs. Palma AC No. 2474, June 30 2005) 2. A lawyer may not be disciplined for failure to pay her loan obligation (Toledo vs. Abalos, 315 SCRA 419, 1999) but unwarranted obstinacy in evading the payment of debt considered as gross misconduct (Constantino vs. Saludares, 228 SCRA 233, 1993). However, issuance of bouncing checks reflects on the lawyers moral character and may be disciplined

Rule 1.02. A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. (3x asked in the Bar)
In an anomalous election of IBP Officers in 1989 the SC nullified the results after finding that the election was characterized by electioneering activities and extravagance on the part of the candidates in violation of IBP rules. Respect for law is gravely eroded when lawyers themselves, who are supposed to be MINIONS of the law, engage in unlawful practices and CAVALIERLY brush aside the very rules that IBP formulated for their observance. (Bar Matter No 491 Oct 6, 1989) * Bar 1998 number XIII Atty. Asilo, a lawyer and a notary public notarized a document already prepared by spouses Roger and Luisa when they approached him. It is stated in the document that Roger and Luisa formally agreed to live separately from each other and either one can have a live-in partner with full consent of the other. What is the liability of Atty. Asilo, if any? (5%) Answer: Admin Liab violation of Rule 1.02 of CPR for being contrary to law and morals. The ratification by a notary public of such illegal or immoral contract constitute malpractice or gross misconduct in office.

He should at least refrain from its consummation. (In RE Santiago, 70 Phil 661; Panganiban v. Borromeo, 58 Phil 367; In RE Bucana 72 SCRA 14)

Rule 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceedings. (2x asked in the Bar)
Difference between ambulance chasing and barratry (1) Refers to personal injury cases; any action, (2) cases brought before judicial fora; judicial or non-judicial bodies

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. Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
Bar: A well known lawyer has been engaged to run a program I which he encourages indigent party litigants to consult him free of charge about their legal problems over radio and television. Has he violated any ethical rules? Yes, indirect advertising and solicitation and violative of confidentiality of lawyer-client relationship. Also a form of self-praise (In RE; Tagorda, 53 Phil. 37)

Rule 2.04. A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.
Reason: Practice of law is a profession and not a trade. Improper to lower rate.

Canon 3. A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts.

Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
MUFFUDS misleading, undignified, false, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, self-laudatory (Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, Inc. 233 SCRA 378, 1993)

Rule 3.02. In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its communications that said partner is deceased.

Rule 3.04. A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business. Canon 4. A lawyer shall participate in the development of the legal system by initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the improvement of the administration of justice.


Canon 5. A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal development, participate in continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical trainings of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and jurisprudence. Canon 6. These canons shall apply to lawyers in government services in the discharge of their tasks. Rule 6.01. The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action. Rule 6.03. A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service. CHAPTER II THE LAWYER AND 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.
1. Members of the Bar are expected to ALWAYS live up to the STANDARDS of the legal profession as embodied in the CPR. (Ducat v. Villalon Jr, 131 SCAD 599, 337 SCRA 622, 629 (2000) 2. Involve in and actively support the activities of IBP, not merely pay his dues. Involve in forum for discussion of law, jurisprudence, law reform, pleading, practice and procedure; encourage and foster legal education.. (Art 1 S. 2 By-laws of IBP)

Rule 7.01. A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.
Must show his fitness for admission-possess the qualifications and none of the disqualifications (Rule 138 S. 2, 5, 6 ROC)

Rule 7.02. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
1.05. Gross immorality reflective of unfitness to practice

GROSSLY immoral act- one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. (Reyes v Wong 63 SCRA 667 (1975), etc. ) Example of Gross Immorality: 1. Lives an adulterous life with a married woman (Royong v. Oblena 7 SCRA 869 (1963) etc.) 2. Maintains illicit relations with his niece or the niece of his common-law wife (Sarmiento v. Cui 100 Phil 1102 (1957) ; Royong v Oblena supra) 3. Abandons his lawful wife to live with another woman (Toledo v. Toledo 7 SCRA 747 1963) etc.) 4. Contracts a marriage while his first marriage is still subsisting (Santos v. Tan 196 SCRA 16 (1991)

5. Seduces a woman to have carnal knowledge with her on the basis of misrepresentation to marry (Bolivar v Simbol 16 SCRA 623 (1966), etc.) , that he is single (Pangan v. Ramos 107 SCRA 1 (1981), that they are already married upon signing a mere application for marriage license (Cabrera v. Agustin 106 Phil 256 (1959) etc ), carnal knowledge with a student by taking advantage of his position and a married lawyer who proposed love and marriage to a 20-year old and succeeded in having carnal relations with her by promise of marriage, impregnated, suggested abortion, breached his promise to marry an deserted her and his child (Delos Reyes v Aznar 179 SCRA 653 (1989) On the other hand: 1. Mere intimacy with neither legal impediment to marry, voluntary carried on and devoid of any deceit, even if as a result the woman gave birth (Soberano v. Villanueva 6 SCRA 893 (1962), etc), he admits paternity and agrees to support (Arciga v. Maniwang 106 SCRA 591 (1981) Cohabitation per se is not grossly immoral but will depend on the surrounding CIRCUMSTANCES (Arciga supra) Not necessary that there be a prior conviction, it is enough that the act charged, in the language of the law, constitutes a crime (Royong v Oblena supra) The question as to whether an act is so unprincipled or so disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree presents a more difficult problem for the answer, may to some extent, depend upon the prejudice, caprice and bias of the court and the general concept of morality prevailing at that time (Cf. Konegsber v State Bar of California 353 US 252 (1957) Nevertheless, may be REPRIMANDED (Tolosa v. Cargo 171 SCRA 21 (1989)

Canon 8. A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Temperate but forceful language in his pleadings or arguments as befitting an advocate (Rule 8.01 CPR, Asturias Sugar Central v Pure Cane Molasses 57 Phil 517 (1932) , do as adversaries do in law: strive mightily but eat and drink as friends (Canon 17, People v Sembrano 130 SCRA 465 (1984) For mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations and offensive personalities between brother lawyers not only detract from the dignity of the legal profession (Javier v Cornejo 63 Phil 293 (1936); Narido v. Linsangan 58 SCRA 85 (1974) but constitute highly unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action as well (Tolentino v Baylosis 110 Phil 1010)

Rule 8.02. A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
Note: Notice to the other lawyer by the client that his services has been terminated, absence, lawyer shall obtain the conformity of previous counsel without it, improper encroachment Reason: The notice will enable the lawyer sought to be change to assert and protect any right to compensation which he may claim or possess As to the litigant right to be represented by counsel of his CHOICE.

Canon 9. A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law. Rule 9.02. A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with a person not licensed to practice law
Eg. 1. Agreement between union lawyer and layman president of union to divide equally the attorneys fees in a labor case (Amalgamated Laborers Assn. v CIR 22 SCRA 1266 (1968) 2. Contract between lawyer and layman granting percentage of fees collected (Tan Tek Beng v David 126 SCRA 389 (1983) 3. Donation by a lawyer to a labor union of part of attorneys fees from the judgment as it amounts to rebate or commission (Halili v CIR 136 SCRA 113 (1985) *Three (3) Exceptions: 1. where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the latters death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to persons specified in the agreement; 2. where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer 3. where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan, even if it is based in whole or in part on a profit sharing arrangement (Rule 9.02 CPR) Note: First 2 strictly speaking represent compensation for services rendered by deceased lawyer during his lifetime not future business. Third, represent additional deferred wages or compensation for past service of employees.

CHAPTER III THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS Canon 10. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
For the principles of legal ethics demand good faith of the highest order in the practice of law (People v Casiano 111 Phil 73 (1961). A lawyer should not suppress material and vital facts which bear on the merit or lack of merit of a complaint or petition (Orbit Transportation Co. v WCC 58 SCRA 78 (1974) ; Santos v Paguio 46 SCAD 295, 227 SCRA 1 (1993). Candor-To say one thing today and another tomorrow is a transgression of such duty (Paluwagan ng Bayan Savings Bank v King 172 SCRA 60 (1989) In RE: Letter dated 21 February 2005 of Atty. Noel S. Sorreda

Rule 10.01. A lawyer shall not do any falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any article.
It is improper for counsel of the accused to ask him to plead guilty to an offense which counsel knows his client did not commit (Nueno v. Santos 58 Phil 557 (1933)

To make complaining witness believe that he is working for him and instruct not to appear at the scheduled hearing so that the case against his client would be dismissed for non-appearance of the offended party (Cantorme v Ducasin 57 Phil 23 (1932)

Rule 10.02. A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been approved.

Reason: In citing this Courts decisions and rulings, it is the bounden duty of courts, judges and lawyers to reproduce or copy the same WORD for WORD and PUCTUATION MARK by PUNCTUATION mark. Indeed, there is a salient or salutary reason why they should do this. Only from this Tribunals decisions and rulings do all other courts, as well as lawyers and litigants take their bearings. This is because the Decisions referred to in Article 8 of Civil Code..Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines are only those enunciated by this Court of last resort (Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. Employees Assn., v Insular Life 37 SCRA 244, 279-280 (1971)

Rule 10.03. A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedures and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
This rule is EVER timely and should always be inculcated among lawyers because the rules of procedure offer innumerable opportunities and means for delay and to defeat the ends of justice. Procedural rules are instruments in the Speedy and Efficient Administration of Justice (SEA of Justice). They should be used to achieve such end and not to derail it (Macias v Uy Kim 45 SCRA 251 (1970) ; Gabriel v CA 72 SCRA 273 (1976) He does not discharge his responsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice by filing pointless petitions. A judicious study of the facts and the law should advise him when a case should not be filed, as it would only clutter the dockets. He does not advance the cause of the law or his client by commencing litigations that for sheer lack of merit do not deserve the attention of the courts. (Pepsi Cola Products Phil Inc v CA 101 SCAD 299, 299 SCRA 518 (1998) The filing by a lawyer of a petition as a scheme to frustrate and further delay the execution of a FINAL and EXECUTORY judgment is a misuse of judicial process. xxxfor courts are constituted to put an end to controversies and prevent any attempt to prolong them (Gomez v Presiding Judge 65 SCAD 179, 249 SCRA 432 (1995)

Canon 11. A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
2nd to duty maintaining allegiance to the republic; reason stability, high esteem (Salcedo v Hernandez 61 Phil 729 (1935) 1. Threatens a judge with the filing of administrative charge if his motion is not granted (Tolentino v. Cabral 123 SCAD 757, 329 SCRA 1 (2000) 2.Berating the researcher of the court in his pleading is disrespectful to the court itself (Maglucot-Aw v Maglucot 123 SCAD 832, 329 SCRA 78 (2000) 3. A lawyer who openly defied the TRO issued by the Court of Appeals is guilty of disrespect to the court (Villafor v Sarita 107 SCAD 288, 308 SCRA 129 (1979) Court orders however erroneous they may be, must be respected especially by lawyers who are themselves officers of the court (De Leon v Torres 99 Phil 463 (1956) One such misconduct, for which a number of lawyers have either been fined or suspended from practice, is the failure to comply with the courts order to file appellants brief or comment w ithin the required period (People v Manangan 56 SCRA 817 (1974) etc ) By the very nature of his position a judge lacks the power, outside of his court, to defend himself against unfounded criticisms and clamor and it is the attorney, and no other, who can better or more appropriately support the judiciary and the incumbents of the judicial positions (Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel 31 SCRA 1 (1970)

In special civil actions or proceedings, a judge whose decision or order is under attack in a higher court is merely a NOMINAL party (Alcasid v Samson 102 Phil 735 (1957) etc)

Rule 11.03. A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing (SOM) language or behavior before the courts.
For while a judge as a public official is not supposed to be onion-skinned, neither is he supposed to be so thick-skinned as to be impervious to groundless personal attack (In re Pilar 104 Phil 743 (1958) Nor does his superior ability permit him to lampoon the judge. For as has been aptly said; A lawyer may think highly of his intellectual endowment. That is his privilege. And he may suffer frustration at what he feels is others lack of it. That is his misfortune. He should give allowance to the fact that judges are but men; and men are encompassed by error, fettered by fallibility (Rheem of the Phil. V Ferrer 20 SCRA 441 (1967)

Rule 11.04. Attribute to a judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.
Hence, does not preclude a lawyer from criticizing judicial conduct as long as SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD or is MATERIAL to the case. Does not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.

Canon 12. A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
His first duty is not to his client but the administration of justice; to that end, his clients success is wholly subordinate. (In RE: Letter dated 21 February 2005 of Atty Noel S. Sorreda, AM No. 0503-04-SC) Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that once a judgment has become final the winning party be not, through subterfuge, and misuse of legal process deprived of that verdict (Likim Tho v Sanchez 82 Phil 776 (1949) Aguinaldo v Aguinaldo 36 SCRA 137 (1970)

Rule 12.02. A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.
Section 5 Rule 7 Rules of Court. Certification against forum shopping. Failure to comply with the requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for DISMISSAL without prejudice, unless otherwise provided upon motion and after hearing. Submission of False certification or non-compliance with the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. Willful and deliberate forum shopping, ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and direct contempt, as well as cause for administrative actions. FORUM SHOPPING is the improper practice of going from one court to another in the hope of securing a; (1) favorable relief in one court which another court has denied (successive) (2) filing of repetitious suits or proceedings in different courts concerning substantially the same subject matter (simultaneous). 10

There is also forum shopping whenever as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum, other than appeal or certiorari. Also applies, to administrative proceedings when there is a case filed in court Test to determine forum shopping: 1. Whether the elements of LITIS PENDENTIA are present; 2. Whether a final judgment in one case will amount to RES JUDICATA in the other (First Phil Intl. Bank v CA 67 SCAD 196, 252 SCRA 259 (1996) Reasons: clogging of docket and creating possibility of conflicting decisions Rule 12.03. Lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation of his failure to do so. Failure to make an explanation constitutes discourtesy to the court. Duty to inform clients death and change of counsels address within 30 days Reasons: (1) part of obligation for early termination eg. Termination or substitution of parties. Court does not take judicial notice of the death of party, hence, may proceed; (2) such failure will not prevent any notice sent to the lawyer at his address of record to be effective and binding upon the client or heirs, as the case may be.

The question is one of PROPRIETY rather than of competency to testify. While the law does not disqualify a lawyer from being a witness and an advocate at the same time, the practice is violative of the rule on professional conduct (PNB v Uy Teng Piao 57 Phil 337 (1932) etc)

Canon 13. A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court.
It is not proper for a lawyer to advise a labor group to picket in front of the court of appeals. (Nestle Philippines Inc. vs. Sanchez 154 SCRA 542, 1987)

Rule 13.01. A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, or seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with judges. Rule 13.02. A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
Picketing conducted by members of a labor union which is a party to a pending case before the court premises are attempts to pressure or influence the courts of justice and constitute contempt of court. The duty rests upon the lawyer, who as an officer of the court, are duty bound to apprise them on proper decorum and attitude towards courts of justice (Nestle Philippines Inc. vs. Sanchez 154 SCRA 542, 1987) On the other hand, once a litigation is concluded, the judge who decided it is subject to the same criticism as any other public official (In re Gomez 43 Phil 376 (1922) because then his ruling becomes public property and is thrown open to public consumption (Strebel vs. Figueras 96 Phil 321, 1954 ; In RE: Almacen 31 SCRA 562, 1970) It is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be BONA FIDE, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety (In re Gomez; In re Almacen supra)


Proceedings, such as disciplinary actions against judges and lawyers, must be conducted in SECRET or considered CONFIDENTIAL for the proper administration of justice until their final adjudication, they should not be given publicity by the press. (In re Lozano 54 Phil 801 (1903) etc)

CHAPTER IV THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT Canon 14. A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy. Rule 14.01. A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the latters race, sex, creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of said person. Rule 14.02. A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient cause, an appointment as counsel de officio or as amicus curiae, or a request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippinnes or any of its chapters for rendition of free legal aid. Canon 15. A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealinngs and transactions with his clients.

Rule 15.01. A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.
Duty to decline employment: 1. No matter how attractive the fee offered may be if its acceptance will involve a violation of any rules of the legal profession. Eg. After giving professional advice to a plaintiff concerning the latters claim, a lawyer may not thereafter accept retainer from defendant to defeat that claim (Hilado v David 84 Phil 569 (1949); 2. Not accept employment from another in a manner adversely affecting any interest of his former client with respect to which confidence has been reposed (Canon 6 Code of Professional Ethics); 3. Nor may he handle a case to nullify a contract which he prepared (Bautista v Barrios 9 SCRA 695 (1963); 4. Not accept employment as an advocate in any matter in which he had intervened while in the government service (Rule 6.03 Code of Professional Responsibility) 5. Not use means of advertising his professional services or his skill. Eg. Employment as columnist to answer inquiries for advice to individual rights through the medium of a newspaper column. (ABA Op. 270 (Nov 30 1945) 6. As a rule, not refuse services to the needy, exception, refuse an indigent client if he is not in a position to carry it out effectively or competently or labors under a conflict of interest. (Rule 14.03. Code of Professional Responsibility)

Rule 15.02. A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by prospective client.


Reason: to make prospective client free to discuss whatever he wishes with the lawyer without fear that what he tells the lawyer will not be divulged nor used against him, and for the lawyer to be equally free to obtain information from the prospective client (Comment of IBP) Note: The rule does not include matters communicated when there is, (1) no attorney-client relationship, and (2) when matters revealed are matters concerning a crime that is planned to commit. Ethical considerations in taking a bad case A criminal action and a civil suit require the application of different ethical principles CRIMINAL ACTION The law makes it ethically easy for a lawyer to take the defense of an accused whom he knows is guilty. Not only the law presume an accused to be innocent; he is also entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt by procedure recognized by law. Apart from that, it is the right of the lawyer to undertake the defense of a person accused of crime, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, otherwise, innocent persons, victims only of suspicious circumstances, might be denied proper defense (Canon 5 CPEthics) And it is improper for a lawyer to assert in argument his personal belief in his clients innocence or in the justice of his cause (Canon 15 CP Ethics) CIVIL ACTION The rules and ethics of the profession enjoin a lawyer from taking a bad case: Firstly, the attorneys signature in every pleading constitutes a certificate by him that there is good cause to support it and that it is not interposed for delay, and a willful violation of such rule shall subject him to disciplinary action (Rule 7 Sec 3 ROC) Secondly, it is the attorneys duty to counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law (Rule 138 Sec 20 (c) ROC) Thirdly, he is not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or DELAY ANY MANS CAUSE, for any corrupt motive or interest (Rule 138 Sec 20 (g) Finally, he must decline to conduct a civil cause or to make a defense when convinced that it is intended merely to harass or injure the opposite party or to work oppression or wrong (Canon 30 CPEthics)

Canon 16. A lawyer shall hold in trust all monies and properties of his client that may come into his possession. Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. Rule 16.04. A Lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice.
Neither, shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client. It consists of two (2) parts: 1. Borrowing prevent from taking advantage of influence over the client;


2. Lending lawyer in effect acquires an interest in the subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its outcome either of which may lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that of his client. (O Connell v Superior Court of SF 97 ALR 918). Hence, becomes a money-making trade and not a profession (Aya v Bigornia 57 Phil 8 (1932) etc)

Canon 18. A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Canon 19. A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01. A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminial charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
Duty to comply with clients lawful request vs. Duty to restrain client from impropriety In matters of law, it is the client who should yield the lawyer and not the other way around. He shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case. (Rule 19.03) In short, a lawyer is not a gun for hire (Millare v Montero 62 SCAD 518, SCRA 1 6 (1995)

Rule 19.02. A lawyer who received information that his client has, in the course of the representation, perpetuated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the rules. Canon 20. A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. Rule 20.01. A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his fees:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) the time spent and the extent of the service rendered or required; the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; The importance of the subject matter; The skill demanded; The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proferred case; The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs; The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the service; The contingency or certainty of compensation; The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and The professional standing of the lawyer.

Quantum Meruit as much as he deserves when no contract as to fees; or, PIE (1) Professional standing of lawyer, (2) importance of the subject matter or controversy and (3) extent of services rendered

Rule 20.03. A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and consent of the client, accept any fee, reward, costs, commission interest, rebate or forwarding allowance or other compensation whatsoever related to his professional employment from anyone other than the client.


Rule 20.04. A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resport to judicial action only to prevent imposition, inju stice or fraud.
Suit in assumpsit the action filed by a lawyer against his client for collection of attorneys fees.

Canon 21. A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated. Canon 22. A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. Rule 22.01. A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases:
a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with the matter he is handling; b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and rules; c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the client; d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively; e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement; f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and g) Other similar cases.


Canon 5. THE DEFENSE OR PROSECUTION OF THOSE ACCUSED OF CRIME It is the right of the lawyer to undertake the defense of a person accused of crime, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused; otherwise, innocent persons, victims only of suspicious circumstances, might be denied proper defense. Having undertaken such defense, the lawyer is bound, by all fair and honourable means, to present every defense that the aw of the land permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty but by due process of law. Must not hurriedly endorse to plead guilty.

Canon 6. ADVERSE INFLUENCE AND CONFLICTING INTERESTS It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this Canon, a lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose. The obligation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge his secrets or confidence forbids also subsequent acceptance of retainers or employment from others in matters adversely affecting any interest of the client with respect to which confidence has been reposed.



3. NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT (Bangalore Draft) CANON 1: INDEPENDENCE a. Exercise judicial function independently; b. Independence from judicial colleagues; c. Refrain from influencing the outcome of litigations and administrative cases; d. Shall not allow family, social or other relationships to influence judicial conduct; e. Free from inappropriate connections and influence from the executive and legislative branches; f. Independent in relation to society; g. Encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties; h. Exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct. Dalliance with Dwendes threat to a judges impartiality Judges are expected to be guided by the rule of law and to resolve cases before them with judicial detachment. The acceptance by the public of legitimacy of the judicial process and the binding effect of court decisions is mostly dependent on the judges adherence to such judicial behavior. The psychological finding of mental unfitness, when taken together with Floros claimed dalliance with dwendes, poses a serious challenge to such required judicial detachment and impartiality and would eventually erode the publics acceptance of the judiciary as the rational guardian of the law, if not make it an object of ridicule. ( Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Floro. AM. No. RTJ-99-1460. August 11, 2006) Media Influence Mass media has the duty to fearlessly but faithfully inform the public about events and persons. However, when a case has received wide and sensational publicity, the trial court should doubly be careful not only to be fair and impartial but also to give the appearance of complete objectivity in its handling of the case. (Concurring Opinion, J. Gutierrez: Go v. CA. GR. No. 101807. February 11, 1992) Judges right to be heard on a matter of public concern; duty not to influence any litigation As regards going on the air to express ones opinion over a matter of public concern respondent Judge cannot be held to answer administratively simply because he was only exercising his constitutional right to be heard in a petition for the redress of grievances. As a consumer and as a member of the body politic, it was his right, nay his duty to air what he honestly believed to be an incipient irregularity. However, his two telephone calls to Judge Achilles L. Melicor who was presiding the court where the petition to stop the governor was pending, definitely violates the Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly Section 3 of Canon I, which states that Judges shall refrain from the influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency. (Concerned Boholanos for law and Order v. Judge Dionisio R. Calibo, Jr., AM. No. RTJ-01-1621, September 27, 2007)

CANON 2: INTEGRITY a. Ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer; b. His behavior and conduct must reaffirm the peoples faith in the integrity of the judiciary; c. Shall take or initiate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for any unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware. Misconduct Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by 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, which must be proved by substantial evidence. Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple. Records fail to indicate that those additional elements are present here. (Atty. Jacinto v. Judge Layosa and Clerk III Buenaventurs. AM. No. RTJ-02-1743. July 11, 2006) Compliance with Resolutions It is an imperative for judges to comply with resolutions issued by the Court. A resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request and should not be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. (Gaspar v. Judge Adaoag. AM. No.MTJ-04-1565. August 16, 2006) No dichotomy of morality for a public official The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his performance of his judicial duties but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual. There is no dichotomy of morality; a public official is also judge by his private morals. (Jamin v. De Castro, AM. No. MTJ-05-1616. October 17, 2007) CANON 3: IMPARTIALITY a. Shall perform their duties without favor, bias or prejudice; b. Shall ensure that their conduct, both in and out of court, mantains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants; c. Shall, so far as reasonable, conduct themselves as to minimize occasions to be disqualified from hearing or deciding cases; d. Shall not comment on a proceeding before them or make any comment in public that might affect the fair trial of any person or issue. Two kinds of Inhibition The judge a quo is not disqualified to hear and decide the case. Rule 137 contemplates two kinds of inhibition: compulsory and voluntary. In the first paragraph, compulsory disqualification conclusively assumes that a judge cannot actively or impartially sit on a case for the reasons therein stated. The second paragraph, concerning the voluntary inhibition, leaves to the jud ges discretion whether he should desist from sitting in a case for other just and valid reasons with only his conscience to guide him. (Amarillo, Jr. v. The People of the Philippines and Hermo. G.R. No. 153650. August 31, 2006) Compulsory inhibition:

a. The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; b. The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a material witness in the matter in controversy; c. The judge or a member of his or her family, has an economic interest in the outcome of the matter in controversy; d. The judge served as executor, administrator guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or matter in controversy or a former associate served as counsel during the association or the judge or lawyer were material witnesses therein; e. The judges rulling in a lower court is the subject of review; f. The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth civil degree or to counsel within the fourth civil degree; g. The judge knows that his spouse or child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary or otherwise, in the subject matter of controversy. Inhibition; Utang na Loob Inhibition is not allowed at every instance that a friend, classmate, associate or patron of a residing judge appears before him as a counsel for one of the parties to a case. Utang na Loob, per se, should not be a hindrance to the administration of justice. Nor should recognition of such value in Philippines society prevent the performance of ones duties as a judge. However, where as in the case, the judge admit that he may be suspected of surrendering to the persuasions of utang na loob or he may even succumb to it considering that he and the members of his family, no less, shall ever remain obliged in external gratitude to Justice Reyes, the negative answer to the question of Judge Elizaga yields to exceptions in extraordinary cases. (Judges Masadao and Elizaga Re: Criminal Case No. 4964-M) Duty to Sit When all judges would be disqualified, disqualification will not be permitted to destroy the only tribunal with power in the premises. The doctrine operates on the principle that a biased judge is better than no judge at all. Under such circumstances, it is the duty of the disqualified judge to hear and decide the controversy, however disagreeable it may be (Parayno v. Meneses. GR. No. 112684. April 26, 1994) CANON 4: PROPRIETY It is improper for a judge to confiscate a drivers license for a traffic violation. A judge shall avoid impropriety and appearance of impropriety in all of his activities. His everyday life should be beyond reproach. He violated it by encroaching upon police functions. If he had lunch with a litigant who has a pending case before his court. Neither is it ethical to be seen placing his bet on certain horses. A judge may only serve as the executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary for the estate, trust or person of a member of the immediate family (spouse and relatives within the second degree of consanguinity), and when only if such service will not interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties. (Rule 5.06, Old Code) Judges also citizens


While judges are not expected to live a hermit-like existence or cease functioning as citizens of the Republic, they should remember that they do not disrobe themselves of their judicial office upon leaving their salas. (Sison v. Caoibes, Jr. AM. No.RTJ-03-1771. May 27, 2004) CANON 5: EQUALITY Examination by a Judge The propriety of a judges queries is determined not necessarily by their quantity but by their quality and in any event, by the test of whether the defendant was prejudiced by such questioning. (People v. Guambor. GR. 152183. January 22, 2004) Riding the Car of the Litigant Respondent ought to know that by riding the car of defendant therein, he openly exposed himself and office he holds to suspicion, thus impairing the trust and faith of the people in the administration of justice. (Cabreana v. Judge Avelino. AM. 1733-CFI. September 30, 1981) CANON 6: COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE a. Judicial duties take precedence over all other activities; b. To devote professional activity to judicial duties; c. To take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for the proper performance of judicial duties; d. To keep informed about relevant developments in international law; e. To perform all judicial duties efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness; f. To maintain order and decorum in all proceedings, be patient, dignified and courteous to all with whom he deals in an official capacity. All judges should always observe courtesy and civility. They should be termperate, patient, and courteous both in conduct and language. (Judge Pineza, etc., vs. Aruelo, etc., AM No P-01-1522, July 30, 2002) Mitigating circumstances for a judges delay Be that as it may, valid reasons that a judge may have for such delay like poor health, old age, heavy caseload, among others, do not totally absolve him from liability but only serve to mitigate the penalty, (OCA v. Judge Crispin C. Laron, AM No. RTJ-0-1870. July 9, 2007) Inefficient court personnel not a valid defense Judges cannot escape administrative liability by pointing to lapses, absences or negligence of court personnel under them. (Eugenio Juan R. Gonzales v. Judge Lizabeth G. Torre, AM. No. MTJ-06-1653, July 30, 2007) Extension If, for some valid reason, a judge cannot comply with the required deadline, he should seek an extension to avoid administrative sanctions. (Office of the Court Administrator v. Alon. AM. No. RTJ-06-2022. June 22, 2007) Gross Ignorance of the Law


For liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge in the performance of official duties must not only be found to be erroneous but must be established to have been done with bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some similar motive. Moreover, the fact that a judge failed to recognize a basic or elementary law or rule of procedure would not automatically warrant a conclusion that he is liable for gross ignorance. What is significant is whether the subject order decision or actuation of the judge unreasonably defeated the very purpose of the law or rule under consideration and unfairly prejudiced the cause of the litigants. (Alberto Sibulo v. Judge Lorinda S. Toledo-Mupas AM. No. MTJ-07-1686, June 12, 2008) When Good Faith is not a Defense Good Faith of fallible discretion inheres only within the parameter of tolerable judgment and does not apply where the issues are so simple and the applicable legal principles evident and basic as to be beyond the possible margin of error. (Poso v. Mijares. RTJ-02-1693. August 21, 2002) DISCIPLINE OF JUDGES Discipline of Retired Judges for Acts Committed prior to his Appointment The fact that a judge has retired or has been separated from the service does not necessarily divest the court of its jurisdiction to determine the veracity of the allegations of the complaint, pursuant to its disciplinary authority over the members of the bench, as held in Gallos v. Cordero. A judge may be disciplined for acts committed prior to his appointment to the judiciary. In fact, Rule 139-B expressly provides for his circumstance. It need to be shown that the judge continued doing the acts or acts complained of. (Heck v. Santos. AM. RTJ-01-1657. February 23, 2004) Administrative Sanction, Exceptional Remedy It is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality that the door to an inquiry into his criminal, civil, or administrative liability may be said to have opened or closed. (RE: Administrative Matter No. 05-8244-MTC (records of cases which remained in the custody of Retired Judge Romulo G. Carteciano, Municipal Trial Court, Los Banos, Laguna, [AM No. MTJ-07-1664. February 18, 2008])

4. RULES OF COURT a. Rule 138. Attorneys and Admission to Bar (Sections 1-37) b. Rule 138-A. Law Student Practice Rule
Requirements: a. Must successfully completed his 3rd year of the regular 4 year curriculum. An incoming 4th year, so much so that if enrolled in an executive class where the completion would take a period of 5 years, not qualified;

b. Must be enrolled in the clinical legal education program as approved by SC in a recognized school;


c. Appearance must be pro bono or one without compensation;

d. Clients should be indigents accepted by the legal clinic of the law school;

e. Appearance must be at all times accompanied and supervised by a supervising attorney accredited by the law school.

* under the direct control and supervision of a member of the IBP duly accredited by the law school must be STRICTLY construed because public policy demands that legal work should be entrusted only to those who possess tested qualifications, sworn to observe the rules and ethics of the legal profession and subject to disciplinary control.

c. Rule 139-A. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines

Disciplinary Proceedings

Rule 139-B. Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys (Sections 1-20)

1. Power vested with SC (Art VIII Sec 5 (5) to suspend and/or disbar; 2. Lower courts like CA, RTC may suspend but not disbar and any suspension may be revoked, extended or modified (REM) by the SC; 3. Disbarment act of the court (SC) in withdrawing from an attorney the right to practice law. It is an administrative proceeding instituted to revoke the license to practice his profession by reason of misconduct Suspension act of the court (SC, CA, RTC) prohibiting an attorney from practicing law for a certain period (also termed as QUALIFIED DISBARMENT);

Two primary objects: 1. To compel the attorney to deal fairly and honestly with his clients; 2. To remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proven him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney.

Common grounds for suspension or disbarment: 1. Deceit; 2. malpractice or other gross misconduct in office; 3. grossly immoral conduct; 4. conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; 5. violation of oath of office; 6. willful disobedience of any lawful order of any superior court; 7. corrupt or willful appearance as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so.

A disbarment proceeding is sui generis or a class by itself because of the following reasons (Bar Examination question) Ci-Do-C-I-Due-Mo-Co


1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

neither Civil nor a Criminal proceeding; Double jeopardy cannot be availed of as a defense; Confidential; Imprescriptible; Due process in itself; can be initiated Motu propio by SC or IBP; can proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of Complainant.

Thus; a. Acquittal in a criminal case is not a bar to disciplinary proceedings (Gatchalian Promotions vs. Atty. Naldosa, AC 4017, 29 Sept. 1999, 113 SCAD 184); b. Pardon by offended party will not automatically result in dismissal of the disbarment (Cordova v. Cordova, AC 3249, 29 Nov. 1989); c. Respondent in disbarment case enjoys the legal presumption of innocence until contrary is proved, the burden lies with the complainant (Atienza v. Evangelista, 80 SCRA 338); d. Disciplinary proceedings shall be private and confidential in nature except that the final order of the court shall be made public as in other cases coming before the court; e. Not necessarily a permanent disability may be reinstated by motion or petition and once reinstated has the same rights and privileges.

IN CASE OF PRIVATE PRACTITIONERS (LAWYERS NOT IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE) RULE 139-B DISBARMENT AND DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEYS Proceedings for disbarment, By the INTEGRATED BAR OF By the SUPREME COURT motu suspension or discipline of THE PHILIPPINES upon the proprio attorneys may be taken by: verified complaint of any person 1. COMPLAINT: shall The IBP Board of Governors state clearly and may initiate and prosecute concisely the facts the proper charges against complained of, erring attorneys: supported by affidavits a. Motu proprio and/or substantiating b. Upon referral by SC documents, six copies c. Upon referral by of the verified Chapter Board of complaint shall be Officers filed with the IBP d. At the instance of any Secretary or any person Cheaper Secretary transmitted to the IBP Board of Governors for assignment to an investigator. (Sec. 1) 2. INVESTIGORS The National Grievance Upon the initiation of the Investigator(s): an IBP complaint, the Supreme Court member or, when special may refer the case for the circumstances so warrant, a investigation to the Solicitor panel of three investigators General, or any officer of the appointed by the Board of Supreme Court or judge of a Governors from among the lower court. (Sec.13) IBP members to investigate the complaint (Sec. 2 & 3)



if not meritorious, the Board of Governors shall dismiss the complaint upon the recommendation of the investigator. (Sec. 5) If meritorious, the respondent shall be served with a copy requiring him to answer within 15 days from service. (Sec. 5). The answer shall be verified; the original and five (5) legible copies of the answer shall be filed with the investigator(s) (Sec. 6) Investigation shall proceed in the same manner as provided in Sections 6-11. If referred, the Solicitor General or other investigator designated by the Supreme Court shall proceed with the investigation and make a report to the Supreme Court (Sec. 14)




Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to answer, the investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the investigation of the case. He shall have power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths. The respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend himself. If he fails to appear despite notice, the investigator may proceed ex pane. The investigation shall be terminated within three (3) months from commencement which period may be extended. (Sec. 8) Made by the investigator(s). submitted to the Board of Governors within 30 days from termination of the investigation, which shall contain his findings and recommendations together with the evidence. (Sec. 10) The Board of Governors shall have the power to review the decision of the investigation. Its decision shall be promulgated within a period not exceeding 30 days. If the decision is a finding of guilt of the charges, it shall issue a resolution with findings, recommendations, and

The review of the report of investigation shall be conducted directly by the Supreme Court. (Sec. 13)


records which shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action. (Sec. 12) Note: a resolution exonerating the respondent shall be considered as termination unless upon petition of the complainant or other interested party filed with the Supreme Court within 15 days from notice of the Boards decision. (Sec. 12)

NOTE: Motion for Reconsideration of the IBP decision shall be afforded the parties: 1. The IBP must first afford a chance to either party to file a motion for reconsideration of the IBP resolution containing its finding and recommendations within 15 days from notice of receipt by the parties thereon; 2. If a motion for reconsideration has been timely filed by an aggrieved party, the IBP must first resolve the same prior to elevating to this court the subject resolution together with the whole record of the case; 3. If no motion for reconsideration has been filed within the period provided for, the IBP is directed to forthwith transmit to this Court for final action, the subject resolution together with the whole record of the case; and 4. A party desiring to appeal from the resolution of the IBP may file a petition for review before this court within 15 days from notice of said resolution sought to be reviewed. (Ramientas v. Atty. Reyala. AC. No. 7055. July 2006) IN CASE OF ATTORNEYS IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE (AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1, 2ND PARAGRAPH OF RULE 139-B) B.M. NO. 1615, SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 The court Resolve to AMEND the second paragraph Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, clarified by Circular No. 3-89 dated February 6, 1989 as follows: xxx The IBP shall forward to the Supreme Court for appropriate disposition all complaints for disbarment, suspension and discipline file against incumbent Justices of the Court of Appeals, Sandigangbayan, Court of Tax Appeals and judges of lower courts whether or not they are charged singly or jointly with other responedents, and whether or not such complaint deals with acts unrelated to discharge of their official functions. The same procedure shall be observed with


respects to complaints filed against retired justices and judges. All similar complaints against lawyers still in the government service, whether filed directly with the IBP or transmitted to the IBP or transmitted to the IBP by the Office of the Solicitor General, shall first be referred to the Court for appropriate action. Indeed, as an immediate off-shoct of the matter at hand, the Court, by Resolution dated September 5, 2006, approved in principle the amendment of SC Circular No. 3-89 such that the IBP is henceforth required to forward to the Court for appropriate disposition all complaints for disbarment and disciplined filed with the IBP against all justices and judges, sitting or retired, for acts and/or omissions committed during their tenure in the judiciary ( Intl: Militia of the People against Corruption and Terrorism v. chief Justice Davide (Ret.). AC. No. 719. January 23, 2007) Opinion: The above mentioned amendment modified only the provisos in Section 1, second paragraph of Rule 139-B. Thus, the following are the implications: a. The IBP may initiate a complaint motu proprio but may not prosecute or hear cases against justices, judges (whether sitting or retired) and lawyers still in the government service: b. The Supreme Court has primary jurisdiction over complaints against justices, judges (whether sitting or retired) and lawyers still in the government service; CIRCULAR NO. 3-89 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 xxx The Resolution, as well as the Court Resolution dated November 29, 1988, is an interpretation of Section 1, second paragraph of Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court Who are attorneys in the government service? Should be understood as members of the Court of Appeals, the Sandigangbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals and Judges of the lower courts. In general, the court is here referring to those who perform judicial functions and before whose courts the member of the IBP appears in the exercise of their profession. xxx The court addresses n\below the matters which need clarification set out in Hon. Garcias letter: (1) The IBP (Board of Governor and Commission on Bar Discipline) shall forward to the Supreme Court for appropriate action all cases involving justices and judges of lower courts, whether or not such complaints deal with acts apparently unrelated to the discharge of their official functions, such as acts of immorality, estafa, crimes against persons and property, etc. (2) In principle, the Supreme Court would not assign complaints filed with it against justices and judges of the lower courts to the IBP for investigation after the Supreme Court shall have found a probable cause in such charges. As a matter of long standing practice, the Court has assigned complaints against Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Judges to an Executive Judge, against Regional Trial Courts judges to a Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation, while a complaint against a member of the

Court of Appeals would probably be assigned to a member of the Supreme Court for investigation, report and recommendation. (3) The IBP shall refer to the Supreme Court all cases filed against judges, including complaints charging judges jointly with practicing lawyers, whether filed directly with the IBP or transmitted to the IBP by the Office of the Solicitor General. The Supreme Court will examine these complaints individually and on a case by case basis. The court may refer such a case for joint investigation to an Executive Judge of a Regional Trial Court or to a justice of the Court of Appeals. There may, however, be instances when the case against the practicing lawyer may be separable and conveniently referred to the IBP for investigation. NOTE: Criminal Complaint NOT within the Scope of Circular No. 3-89 in relation to Rule 139-B Rule 139-B refers to Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys which is administrative and not criminal in nature. The cases refered to in Circular No. 3-89, are administrative cases for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys, including justices of appellate courts and judges of the lower courts. Under this Circular the Court has directed the IBP, not the Trial Court to refer to the Supreme Court for appropriate action all administrative cases filed with IBP against justices of appellate courts and judges of lower courts. The Court has vested the IBP with the power to initiate and prosecute administrative cases against erring lawyers. Circular No. 3-89 does NOT refer to criminal cases against erring justices of Appellate courts or judges of lower courts. Trial courts retain jurisdiction over the criminal aspect of offenses committed by justices of appellate courts and judges of lower courts. The case filed against Judge Hurtado is not administrative case filed with the IBP. It is a criminal case filed with the trial court under its jurisdiction as prescribed by law (Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Sardido. A.M. No. MTJ-01-1370. April 25, 2003). As mandated by the Constitution, the Court exercises the exclusive power to discipline administratively justices of appellate courts and judges of lower courts.

Question: Bar 2000 pp. 55 UP Law What is a champertous contract? Is it valid Answer: One where a lawyer agrees to conduct the litigation on his own account and to pay the expenses thereof, and to receive as his fee a portion of the proceeds of the judgment. It is contrary to public policy and invalid because it violates the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and his client. In effect, he is investing in the case with the expectation of making a profit. The practice of law is a profession and not a business venture. Question: Distinguish between a champertous contract and a contingent fee contract? Answer: A contingent fee contract is an agreement in which the lawyers fee, usually a fixed percentage of what may be recovered in the action, is made to depend upon the success in the effort to enforce or defend the clients right. It is a valid agreement. It is different from a champertous contract in th at the lawyer does not undertake to shoulder the expenses.