LEGAL ETHICS: SUMMARY OF CASE DOCTRINES

CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Marquez vs. Clores-Ramos, AM No. P-96-1182, July 19, 2000
It cannot be overemphasized that every employee of the judiciary should be an
example of integrity, uprightness and honesty. Like any public servant, he must
exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of his
official duties but in his personal and private dealings with other people, to preserve
the Courts good name and standing. This is because the image of a court of justice
is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women
who work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel. Thus, it
becomes the imperative sacred duty of each and every one in the court to maintain
its good name and standing as a true temple of justice.

The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of court personnel must be
free from any whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to his duties in the judicial
branch but also to his behavior outside the court as a private individual. There is no
dichotomy of morality; a court employee is also judged by his private morals. These
exacting standards of morality and decency have been strictly adhered to and laid
down by the Court to those in the service of the judiciary. Respondent, as a court
stenographer, did not live up to her commitment to lead a moral life. Her act of
maintaining relation with Atty. Burgos speaks for itself.

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Liangco, A.C. 5355, December

In Sps. Donato v. Atty. Asuncion, Jr. citing Yap v. Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr., this
Court explained the concept of gross misconduct as any inexcusable, shameful or
flagrant unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned with the administration
of justice; i.e., conduct prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right
determination of the cause. The motive behind this conduct is generally a
premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.

As a member of the bar and former judge, respondent is expected to be well-versed

in the Rules of Procedure. This expectation is imposed upon members of the legal

profession, because membership in the bar is in the category of a mandate for

public service of the highest order. Lawyers are oath-bound servants of society
whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics, and
whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest for truth and justice, for which
they have sworn to be fearless crusaders.

As judge of a first-level court, respondent is expected to know that he has no

jurisdiction to entertain a petition for declaratory relief. Moreover, he is presumed to
know that in his capacity as judge, he cannot render a legal opinion in the absence
of a justiciable question. Displaying an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he in
effect erodes the publics confidence in the competence of our courts. Moreover, he
demonstrates his ignorance of the power and responsibility that attach to the
processes and issuances of a judge, and that he as a member of the bar should
know.

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer

must uphold the Constitution and promote respect for the legal processes.

INEXCUSABLE IGNORANCE OF THE LAW in violation of Canons 1 and 10, Rule

10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.

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.

CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

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

Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse
them to defeat the ends of justice.

LAWYERS OATH

Sebastian vs. Calis, A.C. No. 5118. September 9, 1999

In the light of the foregoing, we find that the respondent is guilty of gross
misconduct for violating Canon 1 Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and

dishonorable. They reveal moral flaws in a lawyer. They are unacceptable
practices. A lawyers relationship with others should be characterized by the
highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor. This is the essence of the
lawyers oath. The lawyers oath is not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a
sacred trust that must be upheld and keep inviolable. The nature of the office of an
attorney requires that he should be a person of good moral character.This requisite
is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law, its continued
possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law.We have sternly
warned that any gross misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private
capacity, puts his moral character in serious doubt as a member of the Bar, and
renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.

The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who
show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law
for the conferment of such privilege.We must stress that membership in the bar is a
privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege to practice law only
during good behavior. He can be deprived of his license for misconduct ascertained
and declared by judgment of the court after giving him the opportunity to be heard.

Here, it is worth noting that the adamant refusal of respondent to comply with the
orders of the IBP and his total disregard of the summons issued by the IBP are
contemptuous acts reflective of unprofessional conduct. Thus, we find no hesitation
in removing respondent Dorotheo Calis from the Roll of Attorneys for his unethical,
unscrupulous and unconscionable conduct toward complainant.

In Re: Petition Of Al Argosino To Take The Lawyers Oath, B.M. No. 712,
March 19, 1997

We stress to Mr. Argosino that the lawyer's oath is NOT a mere ceremony or
formality for practicing law. Every lawyer should at ALL TIMES weigh his actions
according to the sworn promises he makes when taking the lawyer's oath. If all
lawyers conducted themselves strictly according to the lawyer's oath and the Code
of Professional Responsibility, the administration of justice will undoubtedly be
faster, fairer and easier for everyone concerned.

De Guzman vs. De Dios, A.C. No. 4943. January 26, 2001

As a lawyer, respondent is bound by her oath to do no falsehood or consent to its
commission and to conduct herself as a lawyer according to the best of her
knowledge and discretion. The lawyers oath is a source of obligations and violation
thereof is a ground for suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action.

Berenguer vs. Carranza, A.C. No. 716 January 30, 1969

A lawyer's oath is one impressed with the utmost seriousness; it must not be taken
lightly. Every lawyer must do his best to live up to it. There would be a failure of
justice if courts cannot rely on the submission as well as the representations made
by lawyers, insofar as the presentation of evidence, whether oral or documentary, is
concerned. If, as unfortunately happened in this case, even without any intent on
the part of a member of the bar to mislead the court, such deplorable event did
occur, he must not be allowed to escape the responsibility that justly attaches to a
conduct far from impeccable.

THE PRACTICE OF LAW

Cayetano vs. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991

Black defines "practice of law" as:

The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal
principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not
limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation,
but embraces 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. It embraces all advice to clients and all
actions taken for them in matters connected with the law. An attorney engages in
the practice of law by maintaining an office where he is held out to be-an attorney,
using a letterhead describing himself as an attorney, counseling clients in legal
matters, negotiating with opposing counsel about pending litigation, and fixing and
collecting fees for services rendered by his associate. (Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd
ed.)

The provision on qualifications regarding members of the Bar does not necessarily
refer or involve actual practice of law outside the COA We have to interpret this to
mean that as long as the lawyers who are employed in the COA are using their legal
knowledge or legal talent in their respective work within COA, then they are
qualified to be considered for appointment as members or commissioners, even
chairman, of the Commission on Audit.

ULEP vs. Legal Clinic, Inc. Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993

Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found
duly qualified in education and character. The permissive right conferred on the
lawyers is an individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to
maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to
protect the public, the court, the client and the bar from the incompetence or
dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary
control of the court.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services

shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or
statement of facts. He is not supposed to 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. Nor shall he pay or give
something of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in
return for, publicity to attract legal business. Prior to the adoption of the code of
Professional Responsibility, the Canons of Professional Ethics had also warned that
lawyers should not resort to indirect advertisements for professional employment,
such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph to
be published in connection with causes in which the lawyer has been or is engaged
or concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved,
the importance of the lawyer's position, and all other like self-laudation.

The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement of his
talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession. advertise his
talents or skill as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. The
prescription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business
rests on the fundamental postulate that the that the practice of law is a profession.

Exceptions to the rule against advertising or solicitation:

1. Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of
conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data. "Such
data must not be misleading and may include only a statement of the lawyer's
name and the names of his professional associates; addresses, telephone numbers,
cable addresses; branches of law practiced; date and place of birth and admission
to the bar; schools attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other
educational distinction; public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal
authorships; legal teaching positions; membership and offices in bar associations
and committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities; the
fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the names and addresses of references;
and, with their written consent, the names of clients regularly represented."

The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it
cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or
periodical which is published principally for other purposes. For that reason, a
lawyer may not properly publish his brief biographical and informative data in a
daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer permit
his name to be published in a law list the conduct, management or contents of

which are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to lower
the dignity or standing of the profession.

2. The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The card may
contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law firm which he is
connected with, address, telephone number and special branch of law practiced.

3. The publication of a simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of

changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the
convenience of the profession, is not objectionable.

4. He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone directory but not under a
designation of special branch of law.

Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, G.R. No. L-12426, February 16,
1959

The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it
embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and
special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of
clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to
clients, and all action taken for them in mattersconnected with the law incorporation
services, assessment and condemnation services contemplating an appearance
before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's
claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in
attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute
law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the
work done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect
of facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jr. p. 262, 263).

Practice of law under modem conditions consists in no small part of work

performed outside of any court and having no immediate relation to proceedings in
court. It embraces conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a large variety of
subjects, and the preparation and execution of legal instruments covering an

extensive field of business and trust relations and other affairs. Although these
transactions may have no direct connection with court proceedings, they are always
subject to become involved in litigation. They require in many aspects a high degree
of legal skill, a wide experience with men and affairs, and great capacity for
adaptation to difficult and complex situations. These customary functions of an
attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the administration of
justice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the question set forth
in the order, can be drawn between that part of the work of the lawyer which
involves appearance in court and that part which involves advice and drafting of
instruments in his office. It is of importance to the welfare of the public that these
manifold customary functions be performed by persons possessed of adequate
learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all times under the heavy
trust obligations to clients which rests upon all attorneys. (Moran, Comments on the
Rules of Court, Vol. 3 [1953 ed.] , p. 665-666, citing In re Opinion of the
Justices [Mass.], 194 N.E. 313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. v. Automobile Service
Assoc. [R.I.] 179 A. 139,144).

In conclusion, we hold that under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar
authorized by this Tribunal to practice law, and in good standing, may practice their
profession before the Patent Office, for the reason 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 and decisions are, under
the law, taken to the Supreme Court.

Aguirre vs. Rana, B. M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003

The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It
is limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly
ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of
integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment, and even public trust since a
lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to
practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a
privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar examinations,
if the person seeking admission had practiced law without a license.

True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyers
oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a
full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is
immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-atlaw. Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer
still had to be performed, namely: his lawyers oath to be administered by this
Court and hissignature in the Roll of Attorneys.

Burbe vs. Magulta, AC No. 99-634,June 10, 2002

Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rules 16.01 and

18.03 which state that respectively:

Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or
upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much
thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving
notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent
on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the
Rules of Court.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

The Practice of Law a Profession, Not a Business

Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law
advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood is
not a professional but a secondary consideration. 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. The practice of
law is a noble calling in which emolument is a byproduct, and the highest eminence
may be attained without making much money.

Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that lawyers

shall hold in trust all moneys of their clients and properties that may come into their
possession.


Lawyers who convert the funds entrusted to them are in gross violation of
professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public confidence in the legal
profession.

POWER TO CONTROL AND REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF LAW

In re: Cunanan, March 18, 1985

FACTS:
RA 972 Bar Fluners Act of 1953
Objectives: to admit to the Bar those candidates who suffered from:
(a) Insufficiency of reading materials and (b) inadequate preparation. By its declared
objective, the law is contrary to public interest because it qualifies 1,094 law
graduates who confessedly had inadequate preparation for the practice of the
profession.

Admission to practice of law is almost without exception conceded

everywhere to be the exercise of a judicial function. Admission to practice have also
been held to be the exercise of one of the inherent powers of the court.

If the legislature cannot indirectly control the action of the courts by requiring
of them construction of the law according to its own views, it is very plain it cannot
do so directly, by settling aside their judgments, compelling them to grant new
trials, ordering the discharge of offenders, or directing what particular steps shall be
taken in the progress of a judicial inquiry.

HELD: In decreeing the bar candidates who obtained in the bar examinations of
1946 to 1952, a general average of 70 per cent without falling below 50 per cent in
any subject, be admitted in mass to the practice of law, the disputed law is not a
legislation; it is a judgment a judgment revoking those promulgated by this Court
during the aforecited year affecting the bar candidates concerned; and 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 be so. Any attempt on the part of any of these departments
would be a clear usurpation of its functions, as is the case with the law in question.

That the Constitution has conferred on Congress the power to repeal, alter or
supplement the rule promulgated by this Tribunal, concerning the admission to the
practice of law, is no valid argument. Section 13, article VIII of the Constitution
provides:

Section 13. The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the
practice of law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall
not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. The existing laws on pleading,
practice and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes, and are declared Rules of
Court, subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. The
Congress shall have the power to repeal, alter, or supplement the rules concerning
pleading, practice, and procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the
Philippines. Constitution of the Philippines, Art. VIII, sec. 13.

RATIONALE: The public interest demands of legal profession adequate preparation

and efficiency, precisely more so as legal problem evolved by the times become
more difficult. An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital requisites for the
practice of law that should be developed constantly and maintained firmly. To the
legal profession is entrusted the protection of property, life, honor and civil liberties.
To approve officially of those inadequately prepared individuals to dedicate
themselves to such a delicate mission is to create a serious social danger. Moreover,
the statement that there was an insufficiency of legal reading materials is grossly
exaggerated.

Florence Teves Macarubbo v. Atty. Edmundo L. Mararubbo, ADM Case No.

6148, January 22, 2013

Charge: WHEREFORE, respondent Edmundo L. Macarubbo is found guilty of gross

immorality and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law. He is likewise
ORDERED to show satisfactory evidence to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
and to this Court that he is supporting or has made provisions for the regular
support of his two children by complainant. Let respondent's name be stricken off
the Roll of Attorneys.

FACTS: Respondent here has exhibited the vice of entering into multiple marriages
and then leaving them behind by the mere expedient of resorting to legal remedies
to sever them. Respondent also failed to support his children by complainant. Such
pattern of misconduct by respondent undermines the institutions of marriage and
family, institutions that this society looks to for the rearing of our children, for the
development of values essential to the survival and well-being of our communities,
and for the strengthening of our nation as a whole. This must be checked if not
stopped.

HELD: As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral
character but must also be perceived to be of good moral character and must lead a
life in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. The moral
delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such,
including that which makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution of
marriage, outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community.

In sum, respondent has breached the following precepts of the Code of Professional
Responsibility:

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

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.

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Javellana vs. DILG, et. al., G.R. No. 102549 August 10, 1992

FACTS: Javellana is an incumbent member of the City Council or Sanggunian

Panglungsod of Bago City, and a lawyer by profession who has continuously
engaged in the practice of law without securing authority for that purpose from the
Regional Director, Department of Local Government, as required by DLG
Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 in relation to DLG Memorandum Circular No. 74-58.

As to members of the bar the authority given for them to practice their
profession shall always be subject to the restrictions provided for in Section 6 of
Republic Act 5185. In all cases, the practice of any profession should be favorably
recommended by the Sanggunian concerned as a body and by the provincial
governors, city or municipal mayors, as the case may be.

c) That no conflict of interests between the practice of profession or

engagement in private employment and the official duties of the concerned official
shall arise thereby;

Five months later or on October 10, 1991, the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA
7160) was signed into law, Section 90 of which provides:

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

(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.

HELD: Petitioner's contention that Section 90 of the Local Government Code of

1991 and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 violate Article VIII, Section 5 of the
Constitution is completely off tangent. Neither the statute nor the circular trenches
upon the Supreme Court's power and authority to prescribe rules on the practice of
law. The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 simply
prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest between
the discharge of their public duties and the private practice of their profession, in
those instances where the law allows it.

Frias vs. Bautista-Lozada, A.C. No. 6656, May 4, 2006

The court held that the defense of prescription does not lie in administrative
proceedings against lawyers. And in the 2004 case of Heck v. Santos, we declared
that an administrative complaint against a member of the bar does not prescribe.

If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be emboldened to disregard
the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no
private complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being
completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer
for. It is the duty of this Court to protect the integrity of the practice of law as well
as the administration of justice. No matter how much time has elapsed from the
time of the commission of the act complained of and the time of the institution of
the complaint, erring members of the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining
arm of the Court. This categorical pronouncement is aimed at unscrupulous

members of the bench and bar, to deter them from committing acts which violate
the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the Lawyers
Oath.

The CBD-IBP derives its authority to take cognizance of administrative

complaints against lawyers from this Court which has the inherent power to
regulate, supervise and control the practice of law in the Philippines. Hence, in the
exercise of its delegated power to entertain administrative complaints against
lawyers, the CBD-IBP should be guided by the doctrines and principles laid down by
this Court.

In the Matter Of The Integration Of The Bar Of The Philippines, January 9,

1973

Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire
lawyer population of the Philippines. This requires membership and financial
support (in reasonable amount) of every attorney as conditions sine qua non to the
practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme
Court.

The term "Bar" refers to the collectivity of all persons whose names appear in the
Roll of Attorneys. An Integrated Bar (or Unified Bar) perforce must include all
lawyers.

The Court is of the view that it may integrate the Philippine Bar in the exercise of its
power, under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, "to promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the
practice of law." Indeed, the power to integrate is an inherent part of the Court's
constitutional authority over the Bar. In providing that "the Supreme Court may
adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar," Republic Act
6397 neither confers a new power nor restricts the Court's inherent power, but is a
mere legislative declaration that the integration of the Bar will promote public
interest or, more specifically, will "raise the standards of the legal profession,

improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public
responsibility more effectively."

The judicial pronouncements support this reasoning:

Courts have inherent power to supervise and regulate the practice of law.

The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege; a privilege, moreover,
clothed with public interest, because a lawyer owes duties not only to his client, but
also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation; and takes
part in one of the most important functions of the State, the administration of
justice, as an officer of the court.

Because the practice of law is privilege clothed with public interest, it is far and
just that the exercise of that privilege be regulated to assure compliance with the
lawyer's public responsibilities.

These public responsibilities can best be discharged through collective action; but
there can be no collective action without an organized body; no organized body can
operate effectively without incurring expenses; therefore, it is fair and just that all
attorneys be required to contribute to the support of such organized body; and,
given existing Bar conditions, the most efficient means of doing so is by integrating
the Bar through a rule of court that requires all lawyers to pay annual dues to the
Integrated Bar.

Freedom of Association.
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not
already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar
examinations. All that integration actually does is to provide an official national
organization for the well-defined but unorganized and in cohesive group of which
every lawyer is already a member.

Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to
attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to

vote in its elections as he chooses. The body compulsion to which he is subjected is

the payment of annual dues.

Regulatory Fee.
A membership fee in the Integrated Bar is an exaction for regulation, while the
purpose of a tax is revenue. If the Court has inherent power to regulate the Bar, it
follows that as an incident to regulation, it may impose a membership fee for that
purpose. It would not be possible to push through an Integrated Bar program
without means to defray the concomitant expenses. The doctrine of implied powers
necessarily includes the power to impose such an exaction.

Fair to All Lawyers.

Bar integration is not unfair to lawyers already practising because although the
requirement to pay annual dues is a new regulation, it will give the members of the
Bar a new system which they hitherto have not had and through which, by proper
work, they will receive benefits they have not heretofore enjoyed, and discharge
their public responsibilities in a more effective manner than they have been able to
do in the past. Because the requirement to pay dues is a valid exercise of regulatory
power by the Court, because it will apply equally to all lawyers, young and old, at
the time Bar integration takes effect, and because it is a new regulation in exchange
for new benefits, it is not retroactive, it is not unequal, it is not unfair.

Exception No. 1 of the Syllabus (Section 1, Rule 138-A, Rules of Court)

In Re: Need That Law Student Practicing Under Rule 138-A Be Actually Supervised
During Trial, Bar Matter No. 730, June 13, 1997

For the guidance of the bench and bar, we hold that a law student appearing before
the Regional Trial Court under Rule 138-A should at all times be accompanied by a
supervising lawyer. Section 2 of Rule 138-A provides.

Section 2. Appearance. The appearance of the law student authorized by this

rule, shall be under the direct supervision and control of a member of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school. Any and all pleadings,

motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be signed the by

supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic.

The phrase "direct supervision and control" requires no less than the physical
presence of the supervising lawyer during the hearing. This is in accordance with
the threefold rationale behind the Law Student Practice Rule, to wit:

1. to ensure that there will be no miscarriage of justice as a result of incompetence

or inexperience of law students, who, not having as yet passed the test of
professional competence, are presumably not fully equipped to act a counsels on
their own;

2. to provide a mechanism by which the accredited law school clinic may be able to
protect itself from any potential vicarious liability arising from some culpable action
by their law students; and

3. to ensure consistency with the fundamental principle that no person is allowed to

practice a particular profession without possessing the qualifications, particularly a
license, as required by law.

The rule clearly states that the appearance of the law student shall be under the
direct control and supervision of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
duly accredited by law schools.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, we hold that a law student appearing before the Regional
Trial Court under the authority of Rule 138-A must be under the direct control and
supervision of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by
the law school and that said law student must be accompanied by a supervising
lawyer in all his appearance.

Cruz vs. Mina, G.R. No. 154207, April 27, 2007

RULE 138-A LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE

Section 1. Conditions for Student Practice. A law student who has successfully
completed his 3rd year of the regular four-year prescribed law curriculum and is
enrolled in a recognized law school's clinical legal education program approved by
the Supreme Court, may appear without compensation in any civil, criminal or
administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer, to represent
indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school.

Sec. 2. Appearance. The appearance of the law student authorized by this rule,
shall be under the direct supervision and control of a member of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school. Any and all pleadings, motions,
briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be signed by the supervising
attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic.

The rule, however, is different if the law student appears before an inferior court,
where the issues and procedure are relatively simple. In inferior courts, a law
student may appear in his personal capacity without the supervision of a lawyer.
Section 34, Rule 138 provides:

SEC. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. In the Court of a municipality a

party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend
appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court,
a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney and his
appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.

Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts by a
non-lawyer is allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law student. As
succinctly clarified in Bar Matter No. 730, by virtue of Section 34, Rule 138, a law
student may appear, as an agent or a friend of a party litigant, without the
supervision of a lawyer before inferior courts.

CASES ON REQUIREMENT OF CITIZENSHIP

Re: Application for Admission to the Bar Vicente D. Ching, B.M. No. 914,
October 1, 1999

Under Article IV, Section 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution, the citizenship of a
legitimate child born of a Filipino mother and an alien father followed the citizenship
of the father, unless, upon reaching the age of majority, the child elected Philippine
citizenship. 4 This right to elect Philippine citizenship was recognized in the 1973
Constitution when it provided that "(t)hose who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant
to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five" are citizens
of the Philippines. 5 Likewise, this recognition by the 1973 Constitution was carried
over to the 1987 Constitution which states that "(t)hose born before January 17,
1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority" are Philippine citizens.

C.A. No. 625 which was enacted pursuant to Section 1(3), Article IV of the
1935 Constitution, prescribes the procedure that should be followed in order to
make a valid election of Philippine citizenship. Under Section 1 thereof, legitimate
children born of Filipino mothers may elect Philippine citizenship by expressing such
intention "in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before
any officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall be filed with the nearest civil
registry. The said party shall accompany the aforesaid statement with the oath of
allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines."

Cases on Requirement of Good Moral Character:

In The Matter Of The Disqualification Of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling In

The 2002 Bar Examinations And For Disciplinary Action As Member Of The
Philippine Sharia Bar, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez, B.M. No. 1154, June 8,
2004

In Bar Matter 1209, the Court stated, thus:

It has been held that good moral character is what a person really is, as
distinguished from good reputation or from the opinion generally entertained of

him, the estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where he is
known. Moral character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds to
objective reality. The standard of personal and professional integrity is not satisfied
by such conduct as it merely enables a person to escape the penalty of criminal
law. Good moral character includes at least common honesty.

Narag vs. Narag, A.C. No. 3405 June 29, 1998

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 1.01-- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
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.
Rule 7.03-- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Thus, good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law,
but a continuing qualification for all members of the bar. Hence, when a lawyer is
found guilty of gross immoral conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred.

Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or
shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members
of the community. Furthermore, such conduct must not only be immoral,
but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal
act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under
such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of
decency.

We explained in Barrientos vs. Daarol that, as officers of the court, lawyers must
not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good
moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of
the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the court is
not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of

mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by
creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards.

Advincula vs. Macabata, A.C. No. 7204, March 7, 2007

As may be gleaned from above, the Code of Professional Responsibility forbids

lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded that their possession of good moral
character is a continuing condition to preserve their membership in the Bar in good
standing. The continued possession of good moral character is a requisite condition
for remaining in the practice of law. [6] In Aldovino v. Pujalte, Jr., we emphasized
that:

This Court has been exacting in its demand for integrity and good moral
character of members of the Bar. They are expected at all times to uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission
which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity,
honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. Membership in the legal profession is
a privilege. And whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy
of the trust and confidence of the public, it becomes not only the right but also the
duty of this Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of
ministering within its Bar, to withdraw the privilege.

It should be noted that the requirement of good moral character has four
ostensible purposes, namely:
(1) to protect the public;
(2) to protect the public image of lawyers;
(3) to protect prospective clients; and
(4) to protect errant lawyers from themselves.

Immorality has not been confined to sexual matters, but includes conduct
inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity and
dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant, or shameless conduct showing moral
indifference to opinions of respectable members of the community, and an
inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare.

Villanueva vs. Sta. Ana, CBD CASE No. 251, July 11, 1995

Well-settled is the rule that good moral character is not only a condition precedent
to an admission to the legal profession but it must also remain extant in order to
maintain one's good standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity. The Code of
Professional Responsibility mandates:

CANON 1 . . . .
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
CANON 16 A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys 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.

Cordova vs. Cordova, A.M. No. 3249, November 29, 1989

After a review of the record, we agree with the findings of fact of the IBP Board. We
also agree that the most recent reconciliation between complainant and
respondent, assuming the same to be real, does not excuse and wipe away the
misconduct and immoral behavior of the respondent carried out in public, and
necessarily adversely reflecting upon him as a member of the Bar and upon the
Philippine Bar itself. An applicant for admission to membership in the bar is required
to show that he is possessed of good moral character. That requirement is not
exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar. On the
contrary, that requirement persists as a continuing condition for membership in the
Bar in good standing.

Tapucar vs. Tapucar, A.C. No. 4148, July 30, 1998

As this Court often reminds members of the Bar, they must live up to the standards
and norms expected of the legal profession, by upholding the ideals and tenets
embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility always. Lawyers must maintain
a high standards of legal proficiency, as well as morality including honesty, integrity
and fair dealing. For they are at all times subject to the scrutinizing eye of public
opinion and community approbation. Needless to state, those whose conduct
both public and private fails this scrutiny would have to be disciplined and, after
appropriate proceedings, penalized accordingly.

Keeping a mistress, entering into another marriage while a prior one still subsists, as
well as abandoning and/or mistreating complainant and their children, show his
disregard of family obligations, morality and decency, the law and the lawyers
oath. Such gross misbehavior over a long period of time clearly shows a serious
flaw in respondents character, his moral indifference to scandal in the community,
and his outright defiance of established norms. All these could not but put the legal
profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the administration of justice in
peril, hence the need for strict but appropriate disciplinary action.

Bacarro vs. Pinatacan, Adm. Case No. 559-SBC January 31, 1984
One of the indispensable requisites for admission to the Philippine Bar is that the
applicant must be of good moral character. This requirement aims to maintain and
uphold the high moral standards and the dignity of the legal profession, and one of
the ways of achieving this end is to admit to the practice of this noble profession
only those persons who are known to be honest and to possess good moral
character. "As a man of law, (a lawyer) is necessary a leader of the community,
looked up to as a model citizen" He sets an example to his fellow citizens not only
for his respect for the law, but also for his clean living. Thus, becoming a lawyer is
more than just going through a law course and passing the Bar examinations. One
who has the lofty aspiration of becoming a member of the Philippine Bar must
satisfy this Court, which has the power, jurisdiction and duty to pass upon the
qualifications, ability and moral character of candidates for admission to the Bar,
that he has measured up to that rigid and Ideal standard of moral fitness required
by his chosen vocation.

As in the Tan cases, We hold that herein respondent Pinatacan had failed to live up
to the high moral standard demanded for membership in the Bar. He had seduced
complainant into physically submitting herself to him by promises of marriage. He

even eloped with her and brought her to another place. He got her pregnant and
then told her to have an abortion When complainant refused, he deserted her.
Complainant had to track him down to ask him to help support their child born out
of wedlock, and during the few times that she was able to see him, respondent
merely made promises which he apparently did not intend to keep. On top of all
these, respondent had the audacity and impudence to deny before this Court in a
sworn Affidavit the paternity of his child by complaint.

Ventura vs. Atty. Samson, A.C. No. 9608, November 27, 2012
From the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and the admissions of
respondent himself, we find that respondents act of engaging in sex with a young
lass, the daughter of his former employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct that
warrants sanction. Respondent not only admitted he had sexual intercourse with
complainant but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that he did
nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her money. Indeed,
his act of having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife manifests his
disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of
fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he procured the act by enticing a very young woman
with money showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the dignity of the
human person and the ethics of his profession.

Respondent has violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant,
then a 13-year-old minor, who for a time was under respondents care. Whether the
sexual encounter between the respondent and complainant was or was not with the
latters consent is of no moment. Respondent clearly committed a disgraceful,
grossly immoral and highly reprehensible act. Such conduct is a transgression of the
standards of morality required of the legal profession and should be disciplined
accordingly.

Leda vs. Tabang, A.C. No. 2505 February 21, 1992

Firstly, his declaration in his application for Admission to the 1981 Bar Examinations
that he was "single" was a gross misrepresentation of a material fact made in
utter bad faith, for which he should be made answerable. Rule 7.01, Canon 7,
Chapter II of the Code of Professional Responsibilityexplicitly provides: "A
lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppression
of a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar." That

false statement, if it had been known, would have disqualified him outright from
taking the Bar Examinations as it indubitably exhibits lack of good moral character.

Respondent's lack of good moral character is only too evident. He has resorted to
conflicting submissions before this Court to suit himself. He has also engaged in
devious tactics with Complainant in order to serve his purpose. In so doing, he has
violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides
that "a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court" as well as Rule
1001 thereof which states that "a lawyer should do no falsehood nor consent to the
doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any
artifice." Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the
lawyers appearing and pleading before them. Respondent, through his actuations,
has been lacking in the candor required of him not only as a member of the Bar but
also as an officer of the Court.

Laguitan vs. Tinio, A.M. No. 3049 December 4, 1989

The Court agrees that respondent Tinio deserves to be suspended from the practice
of law but not merely because he has failed in his obligation to support the children
complainant bore him but also because for a prolonged period of time, he lived in
concubinage with complainant, a course of conduct inconsistent with the
requirement of good moral character that is required for the continued right to
practice law as a member of the Philippine Bar, Concubinage imports moral
turpitude and entails a public assault upon the basic social institution of marriage.

Guevarra vs. Atty. Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007

While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations
between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction
for such illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow
of fidelity. Even if not all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under
penal law, sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and
immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the
marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.

Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly immoral

conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and
Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In Re: Victorio D. Lanuevo, A.M. No. 1162 August 29, 1975; In Re: Ramon
E. Galang, A.C. No. 1163 August 29, 1975; In Re: HON. BERNARDO PARDO,
HON. RAMON PAMATIAN, ATTY. MANUEL TOMACRUZ, ATTY. FIDEL MANALO
And ATTY. GUILLERMO PABLO, JR., Members, 1971 Bar Examining
Committee, A.M. No. 1162
It is patent likewise from the records that respondent Lanuevo too undue advantage
of the trust and confidence reposed in him by the Court and the Examiners implicit
in his position as Bar Confidant as well as the trust and confidence that prevailed in
and characterized his relationship with the five members of the 1971 Bar
Examination Committee, who were thus deceived and induced into re-evaluating
the answers of only respondent Galang in five subjects that resulted in the increase
of his grades therein, ultimately enabling him to be admitted a member of the
Philippine Bar.

Section 2 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court of 1964, in connection,

among others, with the character requirement of candidates for admission to the
Bar, provides that "every applicant for admission as a member of the Bar must be ...
of good moral
character ... and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of
good moral character, and that no charges against him involving moral turpitude,
have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines."

Respondent Galang when he took the Bar for the first time in 1962 did not
expressly require the disclosure of the applicant's criminal records, if any.

Galang continued to intentionally withhold or conceal from the Court his

criminal case of slight physical injuries which was then and until now is pending in
the City Court of Manila; and thereafter repeatedly omitted to make mention of the
same in his applications to take the Bar examinations in 1967, 1969 and 1971.