Você está na página 1de 5

Table 1






Related Canons/Lawyers Oath Cited/Others

I. Law as a
The Path of the L aw
(Oliver Wendell
Passion for Justice (J.
Pompe yo D iaz)

Pangan v. R amos,
A.C. N o. 1053,
August 31, 1981

Santa Pangan - petitioner, mistre ss of Ramos Santa Pangan filed before this Court a verified complaint charging re spondent Atty. Dionisio Ramos
W/N Pa ngan should be suspended
Dionisio Ra mos - respondent, guilty of
with gross immorality, the la tte r ha ving misrepresented himse lf as still "single" when he started
for gross immoral conduc t
bigamy, used name other than a uthorized name courting complainant, proposed marriage to her and finally succe ede d in marrying her even with full (bigamous relationship) and
consciousne ss that his first marriage to his first w ife was still valid and subsisting.Respondent denied willful disre gard of lawful orders.
the material alle gations thereof for being without legal or factual ba sis, praye d for the dismissal of the
compla int for failure to state cause of action against re spondent.Fa cts based on Solicitor Generals
Investigation and Le gal Officers Investigation-Respondent wa s admitte d to the Philippine Bar in
1964. -He wa s legally married to and living w ith Editha Enc arnado-Both c omplainant and respondent
were officema tes in the O ffice of Councilor Lito Puya t, City Ha ll, M anila since 1967.-With the
conve nience thus offered, respondent, representing himself to be "single," began courting complainant,
proposed civil marriage to he r to be later followed with a church celebration after which they will live
togethe r as husband a nd wife. -they had carnal knowledge of eac h other in various hotels in M anila ,
particula rly the Golden Gate M otel and Sale m Motel. Sometime -in June 1970, complainant informed
responde nt tha t she was pregnant. -Whe reupon, both agreed to get a quick marriage. Accordingly,
compla inant and respondent filed their respective applic ations for a marriage license and ba se d
thereon, they obtained a marriage lic ense issue d on June 16, 1970 and cele brated their marriage before
Minister Isidro D iz on on June 18, 1970. A fter the marria ge, complainant and respondent agreed to
have a church marriage before they live together a s husband and wife, although they continued to have
se xual trysts. Re spondent w as invited by complainant to meet the latter's mother to whom responde nt
expressed his de sire to marry complainant, to w hich proposa l complainant's mothe r agreed, provided
responde nt bring his parents with him to a sk for complainant' s hand. Severa l w eeks had passed and
responde nt faile d to bring his parents to c ompla inant's home. Complainant and her mother beca me
suspic ious.T hey made inquiries about the persona l status of respondent and the y ultimately discovered
that re spondent w as a lready married to one Editha E nca rnado. After discove ring that respondent was a
married man, c ompla inant resigned from her job as receptionist from the office of Councilor Lito
Puyat. She stopped having intimate relationship w ith re spondent and beca use of the humiliation and
embara ssment she suffere d before her friends and offic emate s, she filed the present disba rment case.
Solicitor Celia Reye s ac quitted respondent of the charges of bigamy on grounds of insufficiency of
evidence, for ha ving contracted the sec ond marriage w ith the compla inant.Report of Office of Solic itor
GeneralRamos guilty a s charged, w ith a rec omme ndation for suspension from the practice of law for a
period of thre e (3) yea rs, pursua nt to Se ction 7, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.L egal Offic erInvestigatorSubmitted his report concurring in the findings of the Solic itor G ene ral, although he
recommended a pe nalty of a minimum five-year suspension from the prac tic e of la w, with prospect for
the imposition of a total disbarment from the practice of law, as the Court finds fit a nd appropriate.His
ClaimHe tried to prove, through his affidavit subscribed before Asst. City Fisc al Primitivo Pe aranda
of M anila , that he never misrepresented himself to be "single" a nd that complainant knew at the outset
of his married sta tus; that it was purely complainant' s w ish to ca rry on a love affair with him a s
described in his a ffidavit; that he was threatened and forced to sign blank marriage contra ct forms and
applications for marriage lic ense by the brothers of the complainant w ho are alle gedly notorious police
characters; that his signature in the marriage c ontrac t w as forged and fa lsified; that the marriage
contrac t w as only celebra ted as a cover-up of the pre gnancy of the c omplainant; and tha t the
disbarment proceedings were initiated by compla inant be cause he refused to elope with complainant
and aba ndon his wife Editha E ncarnado and he stopped giving he r mone y and avoided se eing he r
again.Second Issue : U nauthorized U se of Na meH e w as a lso seve rely RE PRIMAN DED w ith warning
that a re petition of the sa me ove rt act ma y warrant his suspension or disbarment from the practice of
la w. The re primand wa s administere d because responde nt use d the name "Pedro D ionisio Ramos" in
conne ction with Criminal Ca se N o. 35906. H e ave rre d that he had a right to do so because in his Birth
Certifica te his na me is "Pedro Dionisio Ramos," and his parents are Pedro Ramos and Carmen Dayaw,
and that the D.D. in "Pedro DD Ramos" is but an abbre viation of "Dionisio Daya w" his other given
name and maternal surname. The Court opined that respondent in e ffe ct resorted to de ception. H e
demonstrate d "lack of c andor in dealing with the courts. Counsel for complainant filed its motion to
expedite disposition of the c ase, further alleging that re spondent Ramos is still using the name of Pe dro
Dionisio Ramos and PDD Ramos in tw o pleadings filed before the Court of First Instance of M anila,
disregarding the Resolution of this Court dated Septembe r 7, 1979. 6 Respondent admitted the
allega tions of complainant's counse l but alle ged tha t he signed the pleadings inadve rtently be cause of
poor eyesight.

Amador Z . M alha bour - complaina ntAtty.

HY2LB Shipping and Manage ment Services, Inc., (HY2LB Shipping), a loca l manning agency, hired W/N he was Sarmiento should be
Alberti R. Sarmiento - lawyer of the Public
compla inant as electric ian for M /V Gold Faith, a vessel owned by N ew Ocea n Ltd., a foreign princ ipal suspe nded for his de ceitful
Attorneys Office (PAO)-counsel in National
based in Hongkong. The employment c ontrac t w as for a period of 12 months a nd that complainants
La bor Relations Commission (N LRC)- counsel monthly salary would be six hundred US dollars ($600.00). He had to work 48 hours a we ek with 30%
of Malhabour even a fter retiring from PAO
overtime pa y.He rendered servic e on board the vessel for four months and nine days only.HY2LB
Shipping asked him to disemba rk on the ground that the foreign princ ipal wa s reducing its personne l.
He filed with the Philippine Overse as E mployme nt and Administration Office (PO EA), a Complaint
for Illegal Dismissal against HY 2LB Shipping, New Oce an L td., and Premier Insurance and Surety
Corporation.POE A Adjudication Office rendered judgme nt in favor of complainant w ith the following
payment:1. The sum of US$4,680.00 representing the une xpired portion of the contract;
The sum of US$220.00 representing the unpaid salary of c omplainant; and
The sum of US$774.00 representing the fixe d overtime pay of complainant.Appeal by HY2LB NLRC rendered its Dec ision a ffirming the POEA judgmentMotion for Reconsidera tion deniedPetition
for Certiorari in CoA: dismissed H Y2L B Shippings petition, holding that in affirming the PO EA
judgment, the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion.Motion for Reconsideration invoking Section
10 of R.A. No. 8042-CoA modified its decision: complaina nt is entitle d to only three (3) months salary
considering tha t this is the lesser amount of his one year e mployment contra ct; and overtime pay sinc e
this was provide d in the parties contract of employme nt.Ma lhabour a sked Sarmiento to file a Motion
for Reconside ration - the latter merely filed a Notice to File M otion for Reconsideration with
Manifestation to File an Appeal in case Same is DeniedSarmiento asked M alha bour to acc ept decision
beca use filing a motion w ill just prolong the litigationM alha bour filed a motion for rec onsideration
himse lf - denie d for being late for 43 daysM alha bour asked Sarmiento to file a Petition for Certiora ri in
SCSa rmie nto agreed but delayed its filing: denied petition for being lateSarmie nto se nt a letter dated
April 7, 2000 to the NLRC stating tha t he was given a Spec ial Powe r of Attorney authorizing him to
receive the judgment a ward. He the n file d a Motion for E xecution alleging that c ompla inant dec ided to
te rminate the case and will no longer file a motion for re consideration of the Fe bruary 15, 2000
Resolution of the Court of Appeals
He rece ived a check from NL RC in the amount of P99,490.00 whic h he deposite d with the E cology
Bank, Banawe Bra nch, unde r his personal ac count.M alha bour came to know of the NL RC Order date d
June 6, 2000 directing the NLRC cashier to release to respondent the sum of P99,490.00 representing
the money judgment.M alhabour a sked for assista nce from Presidential Anti-Organiz ed Crime Task
Force.He filed with the NBI a complaint for estafa thru falsific ation of a public doc ument. This was
refe rre d to the Office of the City Prosec utor of Quezon City.N BI confrontation: respondent paid
compla inant P40,000.00 a s partial payment of the P60,000.00 a warded to the latter.Almost 7 months
la ter, respondent pa id complainant only P10,000.00, leaving a balanc e of P10,000.00.Ma lhabour filed
a c ase for disbarment against SarmientoResponde nt allegedcase arose from a quarrel betw een a clie nt
and his counseltha t a fter the promulgation of the CoA Decision, HY2LB Shipping filed with this Court
a P etition for Revie w of Certiorari; that at this time, he (re spondent) filed with the NLRC a Motion for
Exe cution; that the N LRC partially granted his motion by issuing a che ck in the amount of
P100,000.00 by virtue of a Spe cial Pow er of Attorney signed by complainant; that pursuant to their
agreement that their shares in the a ward is on a 40-60 ratio, he (responde nt) kept compla inants share of
P60,000.00;and that he was ready to give complaina nt his share but he did not make any demand a nd
Malhabour v.
refused to rec eive the balanc e on June 30, 2001.Ca se refe rre d to IBP. IBP Report a nd Re comme ndation
Sarm ie nto, A.C. No.
Findings:Complainant did not a gree with the modified dec ision of the CoA and instructe d re spondent
5417, March 31, 2006
to file a Petition for Ce rtiorari with SC. All the w hile and without his knowledge and consent,
responde nt filed a Motion for Execution with the NL RC who aw arded c omplainant the amount of One
Hundred T housa nd Pesos (P100,000.00). Re spondent a dmitted that he w as a ble to e nca sh the c hec k
awarded to complainant by virtue of a Specia l Power of Attorney which c omplainant denies ha ving
exec uted. Upon receipt of the money, he took it upon himself to divide the mone y into 60-40 ratio
beca use complainant owed him his attorneys fees; how ever, he failed to inform c ompla inant
beforeha nd of his plan, and only when compla inant filed a crimina l c omplaint against him tha t
responde nt pa id complainant and on installme nt basis at that. Respondent in fact still ha s a balance of
Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). Respondent cla ims that complainant e xce ede d and abuse d his
goodness and kindness but it is the othe r way a round.
Rec ommendationRespondent be suspended from the pra ctice of law and as a me mber of the Bar for
one yearIBP Board of Governors:
Adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of Investigating Commissioner Ma ala.

Atty. Isma el G. K han, Jr., - Assistant Court

Administrator and Chief of the Public
Information Office, -file the admin complaint

Dionisio Ramos is guilty of grossly immora l c onduct which wa rra nts proper a ction from In the light of the fore going, the Court finds that
this Court. His ow n declarations in his affidavit corroborate this imputation of
respondent committe d a grossly immora l a ct, a s
immorality. Re spondent frankly admitted having carnal relations with complainant for
found both by the Solic itor G ene ral and this Court's
seve ral time s. Wha t is more, respondent claimed that he wa s threa tene d and forc ed by
L ega l O ffic er-Investigator, and as rec ommended by
complaina nt' s brothe rs to celebra te the marriage dated June 18, 1980, but in the same
the Solic itor G ene ral, respondent is hereby suspended
breath, he admitted ha ving ca rna l a ffa irs with complainant after the celebration of the
from the practice of law for a period of three (3)
ma rria ge. Worse still, respondent misrepre se nted his civil sta tus as "single ", courted
years, for gross immorality, and an additional one (1)
complaina nt, propose d marriage to her know ing his legal impediments to marry
year for his willful disre gard of a lawful order against
complaina nt, respondent' s motives were clearly and grossly immora l w on her
his using an unauthorized na me, in serious disrespect
confidence and married her w hile his first marriage to his present wife still validly
of this Court.
subsists.It is of importance that members of the anc ient and lea rned profession of law
must conform with the highest standards of morality. As sta ted in paragraph 29 of the
Canons of Judicial E thics: "The lawyer should aid in guarding the Bar against the
admission to the profession of ca ndida tes unfit or unqualifie d because deficient in either
mora l c haracter or education. He should strive at all times to uphold the honor and to
ma intain the dignity of the profession a nd to improve not only the law but also the
administration of justice ."T he standards of legal profession are not satisfied by conduct
which mere ly ena bles one to escape the pena lties of the crimina l la w. Moreover, this
Court in disba rment proceedings is ac ting in an e ntirely different c apa city from that
which courts assume in trying crimina l ca se s. This Court ha s already severely
reprimanded respondent from using a name other than a uthorized name in the "Roll of
Attorneys" and was warne d that a repetition of the same overt ac t may wa rra nt his
suspension of disbarment from office in the future. Re spondent repeated the same overt
act of using an unauthorize d name in two pleadings filed before the Court of First
Instanc e of M anila. H is explanation that he had done so inadvertently because of poor
eye sight a ppears unsatisfactory. H e should have employed more c aution and prudenc e in
filing pleadings before courts considering the fa ct that he had alre ady bee n warned and
reprimanded by this Court. Respondent's conduc t, thus, sugge sts lack of c andor and
respect in his dea ling w ith this Court. He has violated his oath of office of assuming the
duty of good faith and honorable dealings with the court, of being respectful to it and of
be ing obedient to its rules and lawful orders.

the a ct of respondent of contra cting the second marria ge (eve n his ac t in

ma king love to another woma n while his first w ife is still alive and their
ma rria ge still valid and existing) is contra ry to honesty, justice , decency
and morality. Responde nt made a moc kery of ma rriage which is a sacred
institution de manding respe ct and dignity.A s stated in paragra ph 29 of the
Canons of Judicial E thics: "The lawyer should aid in guarding the Bar
against the admission to the profe ssion of candidate s unfit or unqualified
because deficient in eithe r mora l c haracter or education. He should strive
at all times to uphold the honor a nd to ma intain the dignity of the
profession and to improve not only the law but also the administration of
justic e."la ck of candor a nd respect in his dealing with this Court. He has
violated his oath of office of assuming the duty of good fa ith and
honorable dealings with the c ourt, of being respec tful to it and of being
obedient to its rule s and la wful orders.

Respondent failed to comply with Canon 1 Rule 1.01-He c ommitted dec eit by making it WHE REFORE, re spondent Atty. Alberti R.
CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the la ws of the
appea r tha t complainant exec uted a Spe cial Pow er of Attorney a uthorizing him
Sa rmie nto is here by declared guilty of violation of
land and promote re spect for law a nd lega l processes.
(respondent) to file with the NLRC a Motion for Execution and to c ollec t the money
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Profe ssiona l
judgment awarde d to the former. -Worse, after rece iving from the N LRC c ashier the
Responsibility a nd is SUS PENDE D from the practic e Rule 1.01 A lawyer sha ll not e ngage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
check a mounting to P99,490.00, he retained the amount. It was only w hen complaina nt of law for a period of one (1) yea r effective
deceitful conduc t.L awyers are servants of the court: make himself more an
reported the matter to the NBI that respondent paid him P40,000.00 as pa rtial pa yment of imme diately.
exemplar for others to e mulate and should not engage in unlawful,
the a ward. -There still re mains an outstanding balance of P10,000.00. -Respondent has
dishonest, immoral or dece itful c onduct.Law yers are expec ted at all times
no right to retain or appropriate unilate rally his la wyers lie n by dividing the money into
to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from
60-40 ratio. Such c onduct is indicative of la ck of inte grity and propriety.As a law yer,
any act or omission whic h might le ssen the trust and confide nce reposed
respondent is the serva nt of the law a nd belongs to a profession to w hich socie ty has
by the public in the fidelity, hone sty, and integrity of the le gal profession.
entruste d the administration of law and the dispe nsation of justic e.-He should make
Me mbership in the legal profession is a privilege .
himself more an exemplar for others to emulate and should not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or dece itful conduct.
Demand for integrity and good moral charac ter of me mbers of the Bar-La wyers a re
expec ted at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the le gal profession and refrain
from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence re posed by the
public in the fidelity, honesty, a nd integrity of the legal profession.
Membership in the legal profession is a privilege.-Whenever it is made to appe ar that an
attorney is no longe r worthy of the trust and confidence of the public, it be comes not only
the right but also the duty of this Court, which made him one of its offic ers and gave him
the privilege of ministe ring within its Ba r, to withdra w the privilege.Re spondents conduct
ble mished not only his integrity as a member of the Bar, but also that of the legal
profession. -His conduct fell short of the exacting standa rds expected of him as a
guardian of law and justic e.

Paid adve rtisement in Philippine Daily InquirerANNUL ME NT OF MA RRIAGE Specialist 532W/N Simbillo violated the said
4333/521-2667.a staff member of the Public Informa tion Offic e of the Supreme Court, ca lled up the
Ca nons/rules thus should be
published tele phone number and pretende d to be an interested party. -M rs. Simbillo: claimed that her suspe nded
husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in handling a nnulment c ases a nd can guarantee a court
decree within four to six months, provided the ca se w ill not involve se paration of property or custody
of c hildren. -Her husband charges a fee of P48,000.00, half of w hich is payable at the time of filing of
the case and the other half a fter a decision thereon has be en rendered.Similar adve rtiseme nts were
published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of T he
Philippine Star.Atty Khan filed a n administrative complaint against Atty. Riz alino T. Simbillo for
improper advertising a nd solicitation of his legal services, in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility a nd Rule 138, Se ction 27 of the Rule s of Court.Responde nts
side-H e admitted the acts imputed to him-Argued that adve rtising and solicita tion per se a re not
prohibited acts; tha t the time has come to c hange our views about the prohibition on advertising and
solicitation; that the intere st of the public is not served by the absolute prohibition on law yer
advertising; that the Court c an lift the ban on law yer advertising; and that the rationale behind the
deca des-old prohibition should be abandoned. -He prayed that he be exonerated from all the cha rges
against him and that the Court promulgate a ruling that adve rtiseme nt of lega l servic es offered by a
la wyer is not contrary to law, public policy and public order as long as it is dignifiedCase referred to
IBP for investigation, report and recommendation-pa ssed Resolution No. XV-2002-306: finding
responde nt guilty of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Rule 138, Sec tion 27 of the Rule s of Court, and suspende d him from the practic e of la w for one (1)
year w ith the warning that a repetition of similar ac ts would be dea lt w ith more severely. Filed an
Urgent M otion for Rec onsideration: de nied by IBPInstant petition for Certiora ri-the parties were
required to manifest whether or not the y were willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of
the pleadings.-Compla inant: sta ted that he is not submitting any a dditional ple ading or evide nce a nd is
submitting the case for its e arly resolution on the basis of pleadings and re cords thereof.-Re spondent:
filed a Supplemental Memorandum on June 20, 2003.

Court agree d with IBP ResolutionsPractice of law is not a busine ss.-It is a profession in WHE REFORE, in view of the foregoing, re spondent
which duty to public service, not mone y, is the primary conside ration.-L awyering is not RIZAL INO T. SIMBIL LO is found G UILTY of
prima rily meant to be a money-making venture, a nd law advocacy is not a capital that
viola tion of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of
ne cessarily yields profits.-T he gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary
Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27
consideration.-The duty to public service a nd to the a dministration of j ustice should be of the Rules of Court. He is SU SPEND ED from the
the primary conside ration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal intere sts or
pra ctice of law for ONE (1) YEAR effective upon
what they owe to the mselves.While he profe sses re pentance and begs for the Courts
receipt of this Re solution. H e is likewise STE RN LY
indulgence, his contrition rings hollow considering the fact that he a dvertised his legal
WARN ED that a repetition of the same or similar
services again after he plea ded for compassion and afte r claiming that he ha d no inte ntion offense will be de alt w ith more se verely.
to viola te the rules.-E ight months after filing his answer, he again advertised his legal
services in the August 14, 2001 issue of the Buy & Se ll Free Ads New spaper.-Ten months
later, he c aused the same advertisement to be published in the O ctober 5, 2001 issue of
Buy & Sell.-Such a cts of respondent are a delibe rate and contemptuous a ffront on the
Courts authority.
Advertising himself as a se lf-styled Annulment of Marriage Spe cialist-He wittingly or
unwittingly erode s and undermines not only the sta bility but also the sanctity of an
institution still considered sacrosanct despite the contempora ry climate of pe rmissivene ss
in our society.-In assuring prospective clients that an annulment may be obta ined in four
to six months from the time of the filing of the ca se , he in fa ct enc ourages pe ople, w ho
might have otherw ise been disinclined and w ould have refrained from dissolving their
ma rria ge bonds, to do so.Solicitation of legal busine ss is not altogether proscribed,
however, for solic itation to be proper-it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal
profession. -if it is made in a modest and dec orous manne r, it would bring no injury to the
lawyer and to the bar.[20] -the use of simple signs stating the name or names of the
lawyers, the offic e and residence address and fields of practice , as well as advertiseme nt
in legal periodica ls bearing the same brief data, are permissible. -E ven the use of c alling
cards is now acceptable.-Publica tion in re putable la w lists, in a manner c onsiste nt with
the standards of conduct imposed by the ca non, of brief biographical and informa tive
da ta is likewise allowable.Ulep vs. L egal Clinic, IncSuch data must not be misleading
and m ay include only a statem ent of the lawy ers nam e and the names of his professional
associate s; addresses, te lephone num bers, cable addresses; branches of law practice d;
date and place of birth and admission to the bar; schools attended with dates of
graduation, degrees and other educ ational distinctions; public or quasi-public office s;
posts of honor; legal authorships; legal teaching positions; m embership and offices in
bar associations and com mittees the reof, in legal and sc ientific societies and le gal
fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the name s and addresses of
refere nces; and, with their written consent, the names of clie nts regularly
represented.T he law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that
purpose ;-it cannot be a me re supplemental feature of a paper, m agazine, trade journal or
pe riodical which is published princ ipally for other purposes.-A lawyer may not properly
publish his brief biographical and informative data in a daily pape r, magazine, trade
journal or socie ty program.-Nor may a lawye r permit his name to be publishe d in a law
list the conduct, m anageme nt, or contents of whic h are calculated or likely to dec eive or
injure the public or the bar, or to lowe r dignity or standing of the profe ssion.
The use of an ordinary simple profe ssiona l c ard is also permitted. The c ard may c ontain
only a statement of his name, the name of the law firm which he is connected w ith,
address, telephone number a nd specia l bra nch of la w practiced. The publica tion of a
simple announcement of the opening of a la w firm or of c hange s in the partnership,
associa tes, firm name or office address, being for the conve nience of the profession, is
not objectionable . He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone direc tory but not
under a de signation of special branch of law.

Barcenas, through her employee Rodolfo Sa n Antonio (Sa n Antonio), entrusted to Atty. Alvero the
W/N there was an attorney-client
amount of P300,000.00, whic h the latter was supposed to give to a certa in Amanda Gasta to re dee m
relationship w hich would cause
the rights of his decea se d fa ther as tenant of a ricefield located in Bara ngay San Benito, Victoria,
him to be suspe nded from his
Laguna. -Receipt of the money evidenc ed by an acknowledgment receipt-In the sa id re ceipt, Atty.
Alvero said that he would deposit the mone y in court be cause Amanda Gasta refused to a ccept the
sa me.Barc ena s found out that Atty. Alvero was losing a lot of money in cockfights thus Barcenas
investigate d if money is still intact with him-He pre tended to borrow P80,000.00 from the P300,000.00
and promised to return the amount w hen ne ede d or as soon as the ca se w as set for hearing. -Atty.
Alvero replie d: Aka la nyo ba a y ma dali kunin ang pera pag na sa korte na? -Barcenas discovered that
Atty. Alvero did not deposit the mone y in court, but instead converted and used the same for his
personal nee ds.-Atty. Atty. Alvero admitted the rec eipt of the P300,000.00 and promised to return the
money through letters sent promising to pa yback the money.-Despite repeated de mands, Atty. Alve ro
failed to re turn the sa me.-Barcenas prayed tha t Atty. Alvero be disba rre d for being a disgrac e to the
le gal profession.IBP-CBD ordere d Atty. Alvero to submit his Answer to the complaint.-Claimed that he
did not know Barcenas prior to the filing of the instant complaint nor did he know that San Antonio
was an employe e of Barcenas. -He alleged that he came to know Ba rcenas only when the latter went to
him to borrow P60,000.00 from the amount entrusted to Rodolfo San Antonio who entrusted to
responde nt.-Claimed that San Antonio w as reluctant to grant the request because it might jeopardize
the main and principal cause of ac tion of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudic ation Board
(DARAB) c ase. -Admitted that he rece ived an a mount of P300,000.00 from Sa n Antonio, though he
claime d that said money was the principal cause of a ction in the reconveyance action.Stre sse d tha t
there was no lawye r-c lie nt re lationship be tw een him a nd Ba rcenas. -He, however, insisted that the
la wyer-client rela tionship betw een him and Sa n Antonio still subsisted as his se rvice was ne ver
se vered by the latter.-He further emphasized that he had not breached the trust of his c lient, since he
had, in fac t, manifested his willingness to return the said a mount as long as his law yer-client
relationship with San Antonio subsisted. -Finally, Atty. Alvero prayed that the instant complaint be
Separate Affidavit by Sa n Antonio-H e indeed sought Atty. Alveros professional services conce rning an
agricultura l la nd dispute. -A tty. Alve ro made him believe that he needed to provide a n amount of
P300,000.00 in order to file his complaint, as the sa me would be deposited in court. Hindi pwedeng
hindi kasaba y ang pera sa pagpa-file ng papel dahil tubusan yan, kung sa kaling ipatubos a y na sa korte
na ang pera . -Believing that it was the truth, San Antonio wa s forced to borrow money from Barcenas
in the a mount of P300,000.00.-Subsequently, San Antonio gave the said amount to Atty. Alvero, in
addition to the professional fee s, as shown by an acknowledgment rece ipt. -They tried to ge t the money
that they gave to Atty. Alve ro a fter they found out tha t the latter lost a big amount of mone y in
cockfighting. -Atty. Alvero de cline d and later on, they found out that Atty. Atty. Alve ro lied to them
since the mone y was ne ver deposited in court but was instea d use d for his personal needs. -For several
times, Atty. Alvero promised to re turn the money to them, but consistently faile d to do so.Atty. Alvaro
failed to attend the ma ndatory conference despite noticeIBP RecommendationA tty. Alve ro be
suspe nded from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year for gross misconduct. Atty. Alvero was,
likewise, ordered to immediately account for and re turn the amount of P300,000.00 to Barcenas a nd/or
Rodolfo San Antonio-T he record does not show a nd no evidence was presented by re spondent to
prove that the amount of P300,000 which w as entrusted to him was alre ady returned to complaina nt or
Rodolfo San Antonio-U p to the time of the filing of the instant c omplaint, no such deposit or
consignme nt took plac e a nd no evidence was presented that respondent deposited the amount in
court.The fa ct is respondent promise d to return the amount,but he failed to do so. -The failure
therefore of re spondent to account for and return the amount of P300,000 entrusted or given to him by
his client c onstitute gross misc onduct and would subject him to disciplinary action under the Code.
IBP Board of G overnors adopted and a pprove d with modification as to penalty the Report and
Rec ommendation of the IBP-CBD .-Atty. Alvero be suspended from the practice of law for two (2)
years and, likewise, -ordere d him to ac count for and return the amount of P300,000.00 to complainants
within thirty (30) days from receipt of notic e

We sustain the findings and rec ommendations of the IBP-CBD.Undoubte dly, Atty. Alvero ' WH EREFORE , Notice of Resolution No. X VIIIRule 1.01 of Canon 1 a nd Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Ca non 16 of
breached Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the
2008-342 da ted July 17, 2008 of the IBP-CBD Board the Code of Professional Re sponsibility, which readCANON 1. A
Code of Professional ResponsibilityA tty. Alve ro pre se nted no evidence that he had
of Governors, which found respondent Atty. Anorlito LAWYER SHAL L UPHOL D THE CON STIT UTION, OBEY TH E
indeed de posited the amount in or consigned it to the court. Ne ither was there any
A . Alve ro G UILTY of gross misconduct, is
evidence that he had returned the amount to Barcenas or Sa n Antonio.There is likewise a A FFIRME D. H e is here by SU SPENDE D for a period LE GAL PROCESS.
clear breac h of lawyer-c lient relations-When a lawyer receives money from a client for of two (2) ye ars from the practic e of law, effective
a pa rticular purpose, the lawyer is bound to re nder an accounting to the client showing
upon the receipt of this D ecision. He is w arned that a Rule 1.01. A la wyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immora l or
tha t the money was spent for a partic ular purpose. -If he does not use the money for the repetition of the same or a similar act will be dea lt
deceitful conduc t.
inte nded purpose, the law yer must immediately return the money to his client.-These,
w ith more severely.
Atty. Alvero faile d to do.-Even if it we re true that no attorney-clie nt re lationship existed
be tween them, c ase law ha s it that an attorney may be removed, or othe rwise disc iplined,
not only for malpractic e and dishonesty in the profession, but also for gross misconduct
not connected with his professional duties, making him unfit for the office and unw orthy
Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or property colle cted or
of the privileges w hich his license and the la w confe r upon himJurisprudence dic tates
re ceive d for or from the clie nt.
tha t:A lawyer w ho obtains possession of the funds and properties of his client in the
Rule 16.02. A lawyer shall kee p the funds of eac h client sepa rate and apart
course of his profe ssiona l e mployment shall delive r the same to his c lient (a) when they
from his ow n and those of others kept by him.
be come due, or (b) upon dema nd. In the instant case, responde nt fa iled to a ccount for and
Rule 16.03. A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client
return the P300,000.00 despite complaina nts repeated de mands.Atty. Alveros fa ilure to
when due or upon demand. However, he sha ll have a lien ove r the funds
immediately ac count for a nd return the money w hen due and upon demand-violated the
and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his unlawful
trust reposed in him-demonstrate d his lack of integrity and moral soundness, a nd fe es and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafte r to his c lient. He
warranted the imposition of disciplinary action. -gave rise to the presumption that he
sha ll also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions
converte d the money for his own use, a nd this act constituted a gross viola tion of
he has secured for his client as provide d for in the Rule s of Court.Sec tion
professional ethics a nd a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.
27, Rule 138 of the Rule s of Court, which provides:
They constitute gross misconduct and gross unethical behavior for which he may be
suspended, following Sec tion 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of CourtFinal Note : the practice
Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspe nsion of attorneys by Supreme Court,
of law is not a right, but a privile ge. -It is granted only to those of good moral
grounds therefor. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspe nded
charac ter. -The Ba r must maintain a high standard of honesty and fa ir de aling.-For the
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
practice of law is a profession, a form of public trust, the performance of which is
ma lpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
entruste d to those w ho are qua lified a nd who possess good moral chara cter. -Those who
conduct, or by rea son of his c onvic tion of a c rime involving moral
are unable or unw illing to comply with the responsibilities a nd meet the standards of the
turpitude, or for a ny violation of the oath which he is required to take
profession are unw orthy of the privile ge to pra ctice law.
before the admission to practice , or for a willful disobedie nce a ppearing as
attorney for a party without a uthority to do so.

C.E. PIATT, Chie f of Police of M anila Perfecto Perfecto Abordo, a member of the Philippine Bar, acce pted the offer of two individuals to sell him a
W/N Abordos acts c ould
Abordo - re spondent
quantity of opium, a prohibited drug, a nd agreed to pay P1.50 per tin for the opium.-Abordo was
constitute ground for disciplina ry
picked up by one of the individuals who ha d ma de him the opium proposition, and w as taken whe re
they found a numbe r of persons a waiting the m in a n automobile.
-A c an wa s disclosed to Abordo as c ontaining opium, a nd believing that it w as opium, he de livered to
one Ca brales the amount of P600 in payment of the stuff.
-The can was loaded in the automobile whic h brought Abordo to the sce ne of the delivery, -in returning
to Manila another a utomobile overtook the m and the parties riding therein, pretending to be
constabulary soldiers, told Abordo to stop.-Instead Abordo drew his re volve r and commanding the
driver of the car he was able to evade his pursuers and to arrive safely at his home.-Once in his home
Abordo e xamine d the contents of the can a nd found it to contain fake opium a nd sa nd. -Abordo
reported to the L uneta Polic e Station of Manila that he ha d been robbed of P600.-Two individua ls we re
la ter arrested, c harged with the crime of estafa , and convicte d.Abordo admits that he entered into the
transa ction but states that his ac ts dont affect his status a s attorney.-he is sincerely sorry for it a nd
vows not to repeat-His defense : there be ing no e vidence in the record establishing the relationship of
attorney and client betw een the respondent and the ma lefac tors", and - the ac t c omplained of not
having be en committed in the exercise of his profession of a ttorney-at-law"-the acts he committed
could not affect his status as a ttorney-at-law and could not, therefore , constitute a ground for
Piatt v. Abordo, 58
disciplinary action.
Phil 350, September
1, 1933

Although Section 21 of the Code of Civil Proc edure e numerates the grounds for the
It is the order of the court that the responde nt
an a ttorney will be remove d not only for malpra ctice and dishonesty in his
suspension or disbarment of a la wyer, a member of the bar may be suspende d or removed Pe rfe cto Abordo be suspended from the practic e of
profession, but also for gross misc onduct not connected with his
from his office as lawyer for other tha n statutory grounds. -General rule, a c ourt will not law for a period of one yea r to begin on September 1, professional duties, whic h shows him to be unfit for the office and
assume jurisdiction to discipline one of its office rs for misconduct alleged to be
unworthy of the privileges whic h his lice nse and the law confer upon
committed in his priva te c apa city.
him."Of all classes and professions, the lawy er is most sac re dly bound to
-E xce ption to the rule: an attorne y will be removed not only for malpra ctice and
uphold the laws
dishonesty in his profession, but a lso for gross misc onduct not connected with his
professional duties, whic h shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the
privile ges which his license and the law confer upon him. Courts are not curators of the
mora ls of the bar.-T he profe ssion is not compelled to ha rbor a ll persons whatever their
charac ter, w ho are fortunate enough to keep out of prison. -A s good c haracter is an
essentia l qualification for admission of an attorney to pra ctice, when the attorne y's
charac ter is bad in such re spect as to show that he is unsafe and unfit to be entrusted w ith
the powers of an a ttorney, the c ourts reta in the power to discipline him.

Khan v. Simbillo,
A.C. N o. 5299 & G.R.
No 157053, August
19, 2003

Reynaria Barcenas-filed a ca se w ith IBP:

Commission on Bar Discipline-employe r of
Rodolfo Sa n Antonio
Atty. Anorlito A. Alvero-responde nt-to whom
money was entrusted

Barcenas v. Alvero,
A.C. N o. 8159, April
23, 2010

Rule 2.03. A lawye r shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
prima rily to solicit legal business.
Rule 3.01. A lawye r shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudule nt,
mislea ding, deceptive, undignifie d, self-laudatory or unfair statement or
claim regarding his qualifications or legal servic es.
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court sta tes:
SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court,
grounds therefor. A me mber of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
ma lpractice or other gross misconduc t in such office, grossly immora l
conduct or by re ason of his conviction of a crime involving mora l
turpitude, or for a ny violation of the oath which he is required to take
before the admission to practice , or for a willful disobedie nce a ppearing as
attorney for a party without a uthority to do so.Elements distinguish the
legal profession from a business:
1. A duty of public service, of whic h the e molument is a by-product, and
in w hich one ma y attain the highest eminence without making much
2. A relation as an officer of th e c ourt to the administration of justice
involving thorough sinc erity, integrity and relia bility;
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiducia ry;
4. A relation to colle agues at the bar chara cteriz ed by candor, fairness,
and unw illingness to resort to curre nt business methods of adve rtising and
encroachme nt on their practice , or dealing directly w ith their clients.

The intention to flaunt the law w as present e ven if consummation of the overt act was
not accomplishe d.-In the eye s of the canons of professional ethics whic h govern the
conduc t of attorneys, the act was as reprehensible as if it had be en brought to a succ essful
culmination."Of all classes and professions, the lawy er is most sac re dly bound to
uphold the laws to this doctrine we give our unqualified support.Solicitor-Generalsubmits that the re spondent should be re primande d and wa rned that a repetition of similar
conduc t in the future w ill be de alt with more se verely. Such lenie ncy on the part of the
Supre me Court w ould serve merely to condone a pernicious example set by a member of
the bar, and would result in action entire ly ina dequate conside ring the aggra vated na ture
of the ca se . -In this respect we are not w ithout judic ial precedents to guide us.-We think
the instant c ase gra ve, and meriting as severe a sentence.

II. P ractice of Law

Aspects of
Practice of
L aw
In Re Cunanan, 94
Phil 543
Alawi vs. Alauya, 268
SCRA 628
Arce v. PNB, 62 Phil
In Re Sycip, 92 SCRA
Linsa ngan v.
Tolentino, A.C. No.
6672, Septe mber 4,
Lorenzana v. Fa jardo,
A.C. No. 5712, June
29, 2005
Villanueva v.
Gonzale s, A.C. No.
7657, Februa ry 12,
Spoused Tejada: was taken advanta ged of by
Atty Pa lana
Atty Pa lana : took advantage of his legal
knowledge a nd extracted money from the
spouse s and did not deliver his legal

Spouses Tejada v.
Palana, A.C. No. 7434,
August 23, 2007

Ja n 2001, re spondent law yer Pa lana took adva ntage of his knowledge as a lawyer and represented to
W/N Atty Pa lana should be
the petitioners that he has an alle ged pa rcel of land cove red by a T ransfer Certificate Title (TCT) a nd suspe nded for fra ud for asking
sa id tha t he needs 100,000 pesos to reconstitute the torrents title on the sa me
P100,00 to financ e the
Respondent induced pe titioners with sw eet promises a nd assura nce s. And also said that they sha ll e arn reconstitution when in fact it
an amount of P70,000 from the P100,000.
wont cost more than P20,000.
Respondent law yer shall pa y ba ck petitioners the security amount of P100,000
And for aggravating his conduct
Under the clear terms of their agree ment, respondent lawyer Antoniutti K. Palana solemnly a ssure d
by ignoring the direc tives of IBP.
petitione r spouses that he will reconstitute , deliver the reconstituted title and give the P170,000.00 to
the petitioners spouses a ll w ithin a period of thre e months reckoned from their execution of the ir
written agreement dated Ja nuary 12, 2001
Respondent law yer intentionally evaded a ll his obliga tions a fter getting the P100,000
All his assurance s that he had a torrens title, he will reconstitute the same and delive r an a mount of
P170,000.00 to petitioner spouses were a ll fraudulent
Legal demands had already be en made to respondent law yer to fulfill all his moral and lega l
responsibilities to petitioner spouses but all of said de mands simply we nt unheeded
Despite due notice, responde nt fa ile d to file his answer to the complaint as require d by the
Commission on Ba r Discipline of the IBP. Respondent likewise faile d to a ppear on the sche duled date
of the ma ndatory conference despite due notice

Supre me Court c onsidered respondent's failure to answe r the c omplaint and his failure to Respondent Atty. Antoniutti K. Palaa is hereby
Law ye rs Oath
appea r in four hearings below as evidenc e of his flouting resista nce to a lawful orde r of SU SPENDE D from the practic e of la w for a pe riod - In violation of his sworn duty as a lawyer to do justice to e very ma n
the c ourt, and illustrate his despicie ncy to his oath of offic e in violation of Section 3, Rule of six (6) months a nd is ordere d to settle his loan
Code of Professional Responsibility
138 of the Rules of Court
obligation to petitioners-spouses Amador a nd
- CANO N 1 - A law yer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
Thus, for re spondent's misconduc t, the Inve stigating Commissioner recommende d
Rosita T ej ada within tw o (2) months from the date of land and promote re spect for law
respondents suspension for a period of thre e (3) months
this Decision's promulgation
and for legal processes.
- Rule 1.01 - A law yer shall not engage in unla wful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduc t
- Rule 1.02 - A law yer shall not counsel or abet activities aime d at defiance
of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.
- CANO N 7 - A law yer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of
the le gal profession, and support
the a ctivitie s of the Inte grated Bar.
- Rule 7.03 - A law yer shall not engage in conduct tha t a dversely refle cts
on his fitness to practic e law, nor should he, whethe r in public or private
life, beha ve in a sc andalous ma nner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Ca yetano v. Monsod,
201 SCRA 210

Christian M onsod: nominated by Preside nt

Respondent Christian M onsod was nominate d by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of
W/N M onsod ha s been practicing Moder n D efinition of the P rac tice of Law
Corazon C. Aquino to the position of chairman chairma n of the COM EL EC
law for 10 ye ars
of the COM EL EC
Petitioner oppose d the nomination because allege dly M onsod does not posses required qua lification of
- The practic e of law means any activity, in or out of court, w hich requires the application
Caye tano: questioned Monsods qualification having be en engage d in the practice of law for at least te n ye ars
of law, legal proc edure , knowledge, training a nd experienc e
as a practicing law yer for 10 years
The 1987 constitution provides in Se ction 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on Ele ctions
composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners
PH Law yers Associa tion v. Agrava
How eve r, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who
The prac tice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it
have be en engage d in the practice of law for at least te n ye ars.
embrace s the preparation of pleadings and other papers inc ident to actions and special
proceedings, the management of such ac tions and proceedings on be half of clients before
judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to c lients, and all
ac tion take n for them in m atters connected with the law incorporation service s,
assessment and condem nation services contem plating an appe arance before a
judicial body, the fore closure of a mortgage , enforce ment of a creditor's claim in
bankruptcy and insolvency proc eedings, and conduc ting proce edings in attachment, and
in matters of estate and guardianship have been he ld to c onstitute law practic e, as do the
preparation and drafting of legal instruments, whe re the work done inv olves the
de termination by the trained legal mind of the legal effec t
of facts and conditions

T he contention that Atty. M onsod does not posse s the Law as a Pr ofession
require d qualification of having engage d in the
- Knowledge and application of legal principles and technique s to se rve
pra ctice of law for at least ten years is inc orrect since the interest of another with his c onsent (Blac ks)
A tty. Monsods past work experience as a lawyer- Not limited to appearing, advising, assisting in litiga tion, but include s
e conomist, a la wyer-mana ger, a lawyer-entrepreneur preparation of pleadings and other papers (Blacks)
of industry, a lawye r-negotiator of contracts, and a
- For valuable considera tion, e ngages in advising, representing, as
law yer-legislator of both rich and the poor verily
advocate defe nding rights of clients
more tha n satisfy the constitutional requirement for - Work done involves determination by the trained legal mind of the legal
the position of CO MEL EC chairman, The respondent effect of facts and conditions (Phil Law yers Associa tion)
has been engaged in the practice of law for at least
ten years doe s In the view of the foregoing, the
petition is DISMISSE D

- Atty. M onsod has been a member of the Philippine Bar since 1960, and has bee n a
me mber of the Inte grated Bar of the Philippines sinc e its inception in 1972. He has also
be en paying his professional fees as a lawyer for more than ten years
- Atty. M onsods past work a s a law yer-economist, lawyer-manager, la wyer-entre preneur,
lawyer-negotia tor of contracts, and lawyer-legislator of both the ric h and the poor more
tha n satisfy the constitutional requireme nt that he has been engaged in the practice of law
for at least ten years

Duties and
of the
Lawyer' s O ath
Stemmerik v. M as,
A.C. No. 8010, June
16, 2009
Oliva res v. Villalon,
A.C. No. 6323, April
13, 2007
Galic ia no - Clerk of Court of the RTC of
Bambang, Nueva Vizc aya
Atty. Castro - la wyer who ba dmouthed and
embarrassed the cle rk of court in her own

Complainant Atty. Galiciano is a Clerk of Court of the RTC of Bambang N ueva Vizcaya informed
W/N Atty. Castro is
- Fined in the amount of P10,000 w ith a w arning tha t any similar infraction with be dealt T hrough his acts of constantly checking the
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, direc tly or indirec tly, encroach upon the
responde nt tha t the re cord had not yet bee n tra nsmitte d sinc e a certificate true copy of the decision of administrative ly liable for
with more severely
transmittal of the records of Civil Case No. 784,
professional employment of another la wyer, howe ver, it is the right of any
the CA should first be pre se nted to serve as ba sis for the transmittal of the records to the court of origin misconduct due to encroaching the
respondent broke the Code of Professional
lawyer, without fear or fa vor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
Respondent retorted scornfully, Who will c ertify the CAs De cision? You mean to say, I w ould have to lega l functions of the counsel of
Responsibility since he is not the counsel of record
seeking relief aga inst unfa ithful or neglectful counsel.
go to Ma nila to get a certified true copy? Re spondent replied, T hen you should have notified me of the record in which he is not the
a nd there being no a uthorisation from e ither the
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflec ts on
the said requirement. That w as tw o we eks ago and I have be en freque nting your office since the n, but counse l a nd for acting rudely
partie s to represent the m, responde nt had no right to his fitness to practic e law, nor shall he w hether in public or private life ,
you neve r bothe red to notify me. Complainant re plied, It is not our duty, Sir, to notify you of the said towa rds an officer of the court
impose his will on the clerk of c ourt
behave in a sca ndalous manner to the disc redit of the legal profession.
requireme nt. Compla inant replied, t is not our duty, Sir, to notify you of the sa id re quirement.
A ccording to jurisprudence, responde nt ought to have CANON 8 - A L AWYE R SHA LL CONDU CT H IMSE LF WIT H
Respondent then a nswered, You me an to sa y it is not your duty to remand the record of the case?
realised that this sort of public behaviour can only
Complainant responded, No, Sir, I mean, its not our duty to notify you that you have to submit a copy
bring down the lega l profe ssion in the public
go the CAs de cision. Re spondent a ngrily declared in Ilocoano, You mean to say you don' t c are
e stimation and erode public respect for it. Which
anymore? . H e then turne d and left the office , banging the door on his way out to show his anger. T he
viola tes Rule 7.09, Canon 8 and Rule 8.01
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional de alings, use language
banging of the boor was so loud it w as heard by the people at the adjacent RTC, Branch 30 w here a
which is abusive, offensive or otherw ise improper.
hearing was taking plac e.
After a few mins., respondent returned to the office, still enra ged, and pointe d his finger at
compla inant and shouted, Vulva of your mothe r! If you are harbouring ill fee lings a gainst my clie nt,
don' t turn your ire on me !. Compla inant was shocke d at the responde nts words but still managed to
reply, I don' t eve n know your client, sir. Re spondent left the offic e and as he passed by complainants
window, he a gain shoute d, Vulva of your mother, you w oman!
Complainant suffe red acute embarrassment at the incident, as it happe ned in her offic e of w hich she
was, a nd still i, the head and in from of her sta ff.

- Atty Reye s - la wyer of X u, who wa s

scammed by Pan by not re turning his
investment in a non-existe nt fac tory
- Chong - c ounsel of Pan

Atty Reyes alleges tha t in Jan 1998, his servic es w ere enga ged by one Zonggi X u, a ChineseW/N the civil c ase was groundless Commissioner Sa n Jua n maintained that the collection suit with damages had bee n file d Suspended for 2 years
Taiwanese, in a busine ss adventure that went a wry. Xu investe d P300,000 on a Cebu-ba se d seafood
and only filed to exa ct venge anc e purpose ly to obta in leverage against the estate case. There wa s no need to implead
factory being set up by Pan, another Chinese-Taiwa nese residing in Zamboanga City. E ve ntually
complaina nt and Prosecutor Salanga , since they had ne ver participated in the business
finding out that there was no established factory.
transactions between Pan and X u. In doing so, respondent viola ted his oath of office and
When X u asked for his mone y ba ck Pan be came hostile ; thus, seeking lega l a ssistance.
Canon 8
Xu file d a complaint for estate against Pan, w ho was represented by the Respondent.
Respondent filed an urgent motion to qua sh the w arrant of arrest. And also filed with the RTC of
Zamboanga a vicil compliant for the collection of a sum of money a nd damages a s we ll a s for the
dissolution of a business ve nture against c omplaint, Xu and Prosec utor Salanga.
Respondent explaine d that it w as Pa n who had decided to institute the civil action against Atty. Reyes.
Respondent cla imed he would suggest to his client to drop the civil ca se , if c omplainant would move
for the estafa case.
He claimed that there was no ba sis for the case and only filed it for venge anc e.
The 3rd division of the court referred to the ca se to the IBP for inve stigation

Law ye r's Oath

Not to wittingly nor willingly promote or sue any groundless, fa lse or
unlaw ful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same

Atty Bagabuyo - Se nior prose cutor in

Mindana o

Judge Buyer inhibited himself from trying the case due to se nior prose cutor Bagabuyos harsh
insinuation stating that he Lacks the cold neutrality of an impartia l magistrate, by allegedly
suggesting the filling of the motion to fix the amount of bail bond
Case w as transferred to Judge Tan who favourably resolved the M otion to Fix the Amount of Bail
Bond, and fixed the amount of the bond at P40,000
Respondent filed a motion for reconsidera tion to the CA
Instea d of availing himself judicia l reme dies, respondent ca use the publica tion of a n article regarding
the order granting ba il to the ac cused on the M indanao G old Star Daily sa ying tha t the judge is
displa ying judicia l a rroganc e that Tan e rre d in his dec ision a nd j udge Buyer inhibited himself for an
unclear reason
The w riter of the artic le a dmitted that the respondent was his only source
The trial court a lso stated that the respondent was intervie wed in a ne ws program and on a radio
program. H e allegedly called Judge Tan a judge who does not know the law, a liar, and a doc tor w ho
does not accord to due process to the people
Respondent did not show up for the conte mpt trial but the c ourt gave him a chance to be he ard
Respondent denied the allegations and asserted tha t he was just exercising his constitutional right of
free dom of spe ech, and that it was not mea nt to offend or malign, and wa s without ma lice

The trial court sta ted that it is empowered to suspend respondent from the pra ctice of law Suspe nded for 1 ye ar with a stern wa rning that the
under Sec. 28, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court [12] sinc e he opte d to be silent; thus, it
repetition of a similar offe nce shall be dealt with
he ld that the requirement of due process has been sa tisfied
more seve rely
Office of the bar confidant found that the artic le and the radio inte rviews constitute grave
violation of oath of office by respondent.
Law yers are licensed offic ers of the courts. M embership to the bar imposes certa in
obligations Ca non 11 to observe and ma intain respect due to the courts a nd to judicial
officers a nd should insist on similar conduct by others. Rule 11.05, law yers shall
submit grievances aga inst a judge to proper authorities only.

Law ye r's Oath

to conduct himself a s a law yer a ccording to the best of his knowledge and
secretion with good fide lity as well to the court as to his clients
Code of Professional Responsibility
Rule 11.05 - A la wyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the
proper authorities only
Rule 13.02 - A lawye r shall not make public statements in the media
re garding a pending ca se te nding to arouse public opinion for or against a

PAN ELCO - institution being represented by

or client of M ontemayor
Montemayor - lawyer of PAN ELCO

Administrative c omplaint filed by PANE LCO charging Atty. Monte mayor with negligence that cause d WO N Montemayor is guilty of
fina ncia l losses that re ache d approx P16M
gross negligenc e in handling
PANE LCO alleged that MO NTEM AYOR w as neglige nt in handling the ff:
complainants case
Rural Power Corp v. PANE LCO - PAN ELCO loss more tha n P2M due to failure to file required
number of copie s of Writ of E xec ution
ECCO -ASIA v. PANEL CO - considered by the CA as abandone d case due to failure to se rve and file
Appellants brie f de spite lapse of 2 grante d motion of extensions. This ca se resulte d to the loss of
PANE LCO amounting to P13.8M
Montemayor informed petitioner and when confronted all he can say was, napabaya an ko tong ka so
ano gagawin na tin?
PANE LCO was left into a dire financial situa tion, w hich cause d difficulty in meeting its monthly
power bills w ith NAP OCOR
Montemayor wa s filed to comme nt but afte r be ing grante d an extension of 15 days, he still failed to
file one. Thus, was de emed by the court to have w aive d suc h.
Referred to IBP. IBP Commissioner wa nted him to be disbarred while the IBP-BOG moved for
suspe nded inde finitely

Afte r a careful consideration of the records of the instant case, the court agrees with the DISBARRED
IBP in its findings and conclusion that responde nt has been remiss in his responsibilitie s.
According to jurisprude nce , A lawyer who performs his duty with dilige nce a nd cantor
not only protects the intere st of his clie nt; he also serves the ends of justic e, does honour
to the va r, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the le gal profession.


Rule 12.03 - A lawye r shall not, afte r obtaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda or brie fs, le t the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so
Rule 18.03 - A lawye r shall not negle ct a lega l matter e ntrusted to him, and
his negligence in c onne ction therewith shall re nder him liable

Complainant Justo alleged that sometime in April 2003, she engaged the services of respondent Atty. WO N there was repre se nting
Galing in connec tion with dishonore d checks issued by Manila City Councilor Arlene W. Koa (M s.
conflic ting interests which violates
Koa ). After she paid his professional fees, the respondent drafte d and sent a le tter to M s. Koa
the code of profe ssiona l
demanding payment of the checks.
Respondent advise d complainant to wait for the lapse of the period indicated in the demand letter
before filing her complaint
On 10 July 2003, complaina nt filed a criminal compla int against Ms. Koa for estafa a nd violation of
Bata s Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila
On 27 July 2003, she received a copy of a Motion for Consolidation filed by responde nt for and on
behalf of Ms. Koa, the acc used in the criminal ca se s, and the latters daughter Karen Torra lba (Ms.
Torralba). Furthe r, on 8 August 2003, respondent appe ared as counse l for Ms. K oa before the
prosecutor of M anila
Complainant submits that by repre se nting conflicting interests, responde nt violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility
Respondent denied the allegations aga inst him. H e admitted that he drafted a de mand lette r for
compla inant but argue d that it wa s made only in defe rence to their long standing friendship and not by
reason of a professional engagement as professed by complainant. H e denied receiving any
professional fee for the services he rendered.
It was allegedly their unde rstanding that complainant would have to retain the services of another
la wyer. He alle ged that complainant, based on that agree ment, e ngaged the services of Atty. Manuel A.
To bolster this c laim, respondent pointed out that the compla int file d by complaina nt against M s. Koa
for estafa and violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was based not on the demand letter he drafted but on the
demand letter pre pared by Atty. M anuel A. Ao
He maintained that the filing of the M otion for Consolidation w hich is a non-adversa rial ple ading does
not evidence the e xistence of a lawye r-clie nt re lationship
L ikew ise , his a ppearanc e in the j oint procee dings should only be construed as an effort on his part to
assume the role of a mode rator or arbiter of the parties
He insisted that his ac tions w ere merely motivate d by an intention to help the pa rties achieve a n out of
court settlement and possible rec onciliation. He re ported tha t his efforts proved fruitful insofar as he
had cause d Ms. Koa to pay complainant the amount of P50,000.00 in settlement of one of the tw o
chec ks \
Respondent averred that the failure of Ms. Koa and Ms. Torralba to make good the other che cks
caused a lot of consterna tion on the part of complaina nt. This alle gedly led he r to vent her ire on
responde nt and file the insta nt administrative case for conflict of interes

Law yer-client relationship:

A ccordingly, the Court re solved to S USPEND Atty.
can exist notwithstanding the close friendship betwee n complainant and respondent. T he Rodolfo T. Galing from the practice of law for one
rela tionship was established the mome nt complainant sought legal advic e from
(1) year, with a WARN ING that a repetition of the
respondent rega rding the dishonored checks. By drafting the dema nd letter respondent
same or similar offense will wa rrant a more severe
further affirmed such relationship. The fac t that the demand letter was not utilized in the penalty.
criminal c ompla int filed and that responde nt was not eventually e ngaged by complainant
to represent her in the criminal cases is of no moment. As observed by the Inve stigating
Commissioner, by referring to complainant Justo as my c lient in the dema nd letter sent to
the defaulting debtor[10], respondent admitted the existenc e of the lawyer-client
rela tionship. Such admission e ffec tively estoppe d him from claiming otherwise.
Under Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, la wyer shall not
repre se nt conflicting inte rests exc ept by written consent of all concerne d given after a full
disclosure of the facts. Respondent was therefore bound to re fra in from representing
pa rties with c onflicting intere sts in a c ontroversy. By doing so, w ithout showing a ny
proof that he had obtaine d the written consent of the conflicting pa rties, respondent
should be sanctione d
It behooves lawyers not only to ke ep inviolate the clients confide nce , but also to avoid
the a ppearanc e of treachery and double-de aling for only then c an litigants be enc ouraged
to entrust their se crets to their law yers, which is of pa ramount importa nce in the
administration of justice

Rule 15.03. - A la wyer shall not re present conflicting interests exc ept by
writte n consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts

Galicinao v. Castro,
A.C. No. 6396,
October 25, 2005

Re yes v. Chong, Jr.,

A.C. No. 5148, July 1,

Re : Suspe nsion of
Atty. Bagabuyo, A.C.
No. 7006, October 9,

Montemayor, A.C. No.
5739, Septe mber 12,

Justo v. Galing, A.C.

No. 6174, Nove mber
16, 2011

W/N Atty. Ba guba yo should be

suspe nded from prac tic e due to
maligning the integrity and
independence of the court and its

Eugenia M endoza - complainant-Mail sorter a t Disbarment case of Deciembre for his a cts of fraudulently filling up blank postdated checks without
W/N Atty D eciembre should be
Central Post OfficeA tty. Victor V. D eciembre - her authority and using the same for filing unfounded crimina l suits a gainst her.She borrowe d from
suspe nded for acts not conside red
re spondent
Rodela Loans, Inc., through responde nt, the amount of P20,000.00 payable in six months a t 20%
atty-client relationship
interest, secure d by 12 bla nk che cks, with numbers 47253, 47256 to 47266, draw n against the Postal
Bank. -She w asnt able to pay her debts during the due date s but she made remittances to re spondent's
Metrobank account from Novembe r 11, 1998 to Ma rch 15, 1999 in the total sum of P12,910.00.Claiming that the amounts remitted were not enough to cover the penalties, intere sts and othe r charges,
responde nt warned complaina nt that he would deposit Postal Che ck No. 47253 filled up by him on
March 30, 1999 in the amount of P16,000.00. -Afraid that re spondent might sue her in court,
compla inant made good said che ck and respondent was able to encash the same on M arch 30, 1999. The reafter, complainant ma de subseque nt pa yments to the Me trobank ac count of respondent from
April 13, 1999 to Octobe r 15, 1999, thereby pa ying re spondent the tota l sum of
P35,690.00.M endozaShe filled up tw o of the posta l c hecks she issue d in blank, Chec k Nos. 47261 and
47262 w ith the a mount of P50,000.00 ea ch and w ith the dates January 15, 2000 and Janua ry 20, 2000
respective ly, -Cla ims was in exchange for the P100,000.00 cash that complainant received on
November 15, 1999. -Complainant insisted however that she never borrowe d P100,000.00 from
responde nt-It was unlike ly tha t respondent would le nd her, a mail sorte r with a basic monthly sala ry of
le ss than P6,000.00, such amount. -Cla imed that respondent victimized other employe es of the Postal
Offic e by filling up, w ithout authorization, blank c hec ks issued to him as condition for
loans.D eciembre-his dealings with complaina nt were done in his private capacity a nd not as a la wyerwhe n he filed a c omplaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P. Blg.) 22 against complainant, he
was only vindicating his rights a s a private citizen. -it was complaina nt who deliberately dec eive d him
by not honoring her commitme nt to their November 15, 1999 transa ction involving P100,000.00 and
covere d by two c hec ks which bounced for the reason account close d; the October 13, 1999 transa ction
was a se parate and distinct transaction; -Mendoza filed the disbarment c ase a gainst him to get e ven
with him for filing the estafa and B.P. Blg. 22 ca se ; -claim that respondent filled up the blank c hec ks
issued by complainant is a complete lie; -the truth wa s that the checks referred to were a lready fille d up
whe n complainant affixed her signature there to; -it wa s unbelievable that complainant w ould issue
blank checks, a nd that she was a mere low-salarie d employee , since she wa s able to maintain several
chec king ac counts; -and if he really intende d to defraud complainant, he would have writte n a higher
amount on the c hecks instead of only P50,000.00.Ca se Referred to IBP-Report finding respondent
guilty of dishonesty and recommended responde nt's suspension from the practice of law for one year.adopte d and approved by the IBP Boa rd of Governors in its Resolution dated October 19, 2002.Motion for Re con: de nied - already with SC-Court's Second Division issued a Resolution remanding
the case to the IBP for the conduct of formal investigation, as the Report of Commissione r Reyes was
based merely on the plea dings submitted.-hearing was again conducted, then Funa (investigating
commissioner of IBP) relea se d another report finding him guilty of gross misc onduct and violation of
the Code of CPR, re comme nded suspension for 3 yearsFunas Reportalthough complainant's total
obligation to respondent wa s only P24,000.00, sinc e the loan obta ined by compla inant on Octobe r 13,
1998 was P20,000.00 a t 20% intere st paya ble in six months, by April 13, 1999, however, compla inant
had actually paid respondent the total amount of P30,240.00. Thus, even though the payme nt was
irregularly given, re spondent a ctually earned more than the agreed upon 20% interest. -More over, the
amounts of P50,000.00 as well as the name of the payee in the subje ct c hec ks were all typewrittenMe ndoza v.
Commissioner Funa a lso ga ve crede nce to complaina nt's claim that it was re spondent's modus
Deciembr e, A.C. No.
operandi to de mand a ce rtain amount as settlement for the dropping of estafa complaints against his
5338, February 23,
borrowe rs.-Oddly though, Responde nt ne ver narrate d that Complainant obtained a second loan on
November 16, 1999 in his Answ er [dated January 18, 2000] and in his Position Paper [da ted Oc tober
8, 2001]. He did not even discuss it in his Motion for Reconsideration dated Decembe r 20, 2002,
although he attac hed the Resolution of the QC Prosec utor's Office. Clearly, the November 16, 1999
transa ction was a me re concoction that did not actually occur. -Clea rly, this is a non-existent
transa ction.Respondent forgot to factor in the interest. If Complainant ga ve Responde nt P100,000.00
in checks, Respondent should be giving Complainant a n amount less tha n P100,000.00. This e xposes
his story as a fabrication.-We take note further that Complainant is a mere mail sorte r earning less tha n
P6,000.00 per month. Who would lend P200,000.00 to an employee earning suc h a salary, now adays,
and not eve n secure such a loan w ith a writte n document or a collatera l? It de fies realitie s of finance,
economy a nd business. It even defie s common sense .

Code of Professional Responsibility


The Court agree s with the findings of the IBP, but finds that disbarment a nd not just
WHE REFORE, Atty. Victor V. D eciembre is here by CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the la ws of the
indefinite suspension is in order.The practice of law is not a right but mere ly a privile ge found GUILTY of G RO SS M ISCON DUCT and
land and promote re spect for law a nd lega l processes.
be stowed by the State upon those who show tha t they possess, and continue to posse ss, V IOL ATION of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7,
the qualifications require d by law for the conferment of suc h privilege . A high sense of Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Re sponsibility. Rule 1.01. - A lawyer sha ll not e ngage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
mora lity, honesty and fair dealing is e xpected and re quired of members of the ba r. They H e is DISBARRE D from the practic e of la w and his deceitful conduc t.
must conduct themselves with gre at propriety, and their be havior must be beyond
name is ordere d stricken off the Roll of Attorne ys
reproach anywhere a nd at all times.The fact that the re is no attorney-clie nt re lationship in e ffec tive immediately.
xx xx
this case and the transactions entere d into by respondent we re done in his private capacity
cannot shield respondent, as a lawye r, from liability.
CANON 7 A lawyer shall a t a ll times uphold the integrity and dignity of
the le gal profession and support the ac tivities of the integrated bar.
A la wyer may be disc iplined for acts committed even in his priva te capa city for ac ts
xx xx
which tend to bring reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favora ble
opinion of the public.[28] Indeed, there is no distinc tion as to whether the transgression is
Rule 7.03. A lawye r shall not engage in conduct that adverse ly reflects on
committed in a lawye r's priva te life or in his professional ca pac ity, for a law yer may not
his fitness to practic e law, nor should he, whethe r in public or private life,
divide his pe rsonality a s an attorne y at one time a nd a mere citizen at anothe r.In this c ase,
behave in a sca ndalous manner to the disc redit of the legal profession.
evidence abounds that respondent ha s failed to live up to the standa rds require d of
me mbers of the legal profession.Considering these circumstances and the sequenc e of
da tes w hen respondent filed his criminal cases against complainant, and complainant her
disbarment case aga inst respondent, what truly appea rs more believable is complainant' s
claim that re spondent w as merely utiliz ing the blank checks, filling them up, and using
the m as ba ses for c riminal cases in order to harass c ompla inant.It is a lso observed that the
present c ase was not the only instance when respondent committe d his wrongful a cts.
The Court, in imposing the penalty of indefinite suspension on respondent, found his
propensity for employing deceit and misrepresentation as re prehe nsible a nd his misuse of
the filled up c hecks, loathsome.Previous case filed against him was dismisse d sinc e it did
not involve attorney-client relationship. As c orrectly observed by Commissione r Funa,
such conclusion is e rroneous, for a lawye r may be disciplined even for acts not involving
any attorney-client relationship.As ma nifeste d by the se c ases, respondent's offenses a re
ma nifold. -First, he dema nds e xce ssive pa yme nts from his borrow ers; the n he fills up his
borrow ers' blank checks w ith fictitious amounts, fa lsifying commercial documents for his
ma terial gain; -and the n he uses said checks a s bases for filing unfounded crimina l suits
against his borrowers in order to harass the m.
-Such a cts manifest respondent' s perversity of character, meriting his severa nce from the
legal profession.While the pow er to disba r is e xercised w ith great caution and is withheld
whene ver a lesse r pe nalty could ac complish the end desire d,[36] the seriousne ss of
respondent' s offense compels the Court to wield its supreme power of disbarment.
Inde ed, the Court will not hestitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed
brotherhood of lawye rs whe re the evidence calls for it.-T his is because in the exercise of
its disciplinary powe rs, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for
his actuations as an officer of the Court, w ith the end in view of preserving the purity of
the le gal profession and the proper and honest administration of justic e by purging the
profession of members w ho by their misconduc t have proved themselves no longer
worthy to be entruste d with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an
As responde nt' s misconduct brings intolerable dishonor to the legal profession, the
seve rance of his privilege to practice law for life is in orde r.

IBP Boa rd of Governors issued resolution adopting/approving Funas report-Respondent' s gross

misconduc t a nd for practically found guilty of c ommitting the sa me set of fac ts alleged in AC 5365,
Atty. Victor V. Deciembre is hereby SUSPEND ED IN DEFINIT ELY from the practice of law to be
se rved successively after the lifting of Responde nt' s Indefinite Suspension.

Rodolfo M . Berna rdo, Jr - complainantIsmael

F. Me jia, - accused-previously disbarred in
1992-seeking reinsta teme nt 15 ye ars after

Be rnar do v. Me jia,
A.C. N o. 2984,
August 31, 2007

Petition for review of Administrative Case No. 2984 with plea for reinstate ment in the practice of law W/N M ejia should be reinstated as
filed by Ismael F. M ejia (M ejia) who is already seve nty-one years old and barred from the practice of lawye r
la w for fifteen years.On January 23, 1987, Rodolfo M. Bernardo, Jr. accused his retained a ttorney,
Ismae l F. M ejia, of the following administrative offenses:
1) misappropriating and converting to his personal use:
a) part of the sum of P27,710.00 e ntrusted to him for payment of re al estate taxes on prope rty
belonging to Berna rdo, situate d in a subdivision known as Valle Verde I; a nd
b) part of another sum of P40,000.00 entrusted to him for payment of taxes and expe nses in connec tion
with the registration of title of Be rnardo to another property in a subdivision known as Valle Verde V;
2) falsification of ce rtain documents, to wit:
a) a spec ial power of attorney dated March 16, 1985, purportedly executed in his fa vor by Bernardo b)
a deed of sa le date d October 22, 1982 (A nnex O , par. 48, id.); and
c) a de ed of assignment purportedly executed by the spouse s Tomas and Remedios Pastor, in
Berna rdos favor
3) issuing a chec k, knowing tha t he was without funds in the bank, in payment of a loan obtained from
Berna rdo in the amount of P50,000.00, and thereafter, replacing said check with others known also to
be insufficiently funded. O n July 29, 1992, the Supreme Court En Banc rendered a Decision Per
Curiam,WHER EFO RE, the Court DE CLARE S the [sic] responde nt, Atty. Ism ael F. Mejia, guilty of all
the charges against him and hereby imposes on him the penalty of DISB AR MENT. Pending finality of
this judgm ent, and effective imm ediately, A tty. Ismael F. Mejia is hereby SUSPENDE D from the
practice of law. Let a copy of this Decision be spread in his rec ord in the Bar Confidants Office , and
notice the reof furnished the Integrate d Bar of the Philippines, as well as the Court Administrator who
is DIRECTE D to inform all the Courts c oncerned of this Decision.Mejia filed a Petition praying that
he be allow ed to reengage in the prac tice of law. -O n July 6, 1999, the Supreme Court En Ba nc issue d
a Resolution denying the pe tition for reinstateme nt.On Ja nuary 23, 2007, M ejia file d the present
petition for review of Administrative Case No. 2984 w ith a ple a for reinstatement in the prac tic e of
la w. No comme nt or opposition was file d against the petition.Whether the applica nt shall be reinstated
in the Roll of Attorneys re sts to a grea t e xtent on the sound discre tion of the Court. The action will
depend on whether or not the Court dec ides tha t the public interest in the orderly and impartial
administration of justice will continue to be preserved even with the applicants reentry as a c ounselor
at la w. The applica nt must, like a candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a
person of good moral chara cter, a fit and proper person to practice law.

Mejia a cknowledged his indiscretions in the la w profession. -Fifteen yea rs had alrea dy
WHE REFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition The Court will take into consideration the applicants:charac ter and
elapsed since Mejia s name w as dropped from the Roll of Attorne ys.
for reinsta teme nt in the Roll of Attorneys by Ismael F. standing prior to the disbarment,
-At the age of seventy-one, he is begging for forgive ness and ple ading for reinstateme nt. M ejia is hereby GRANT ED.
the nature and c haracter of the charge/s for whic h he was disbarred,
-Ac cording to him, he has long re pented and he has suffere d enough. -T hrough his
his conduct subsequent to the disba rme nt, and
reinstatement, he wants to leave a le gac y to his c hildren and redeem the indignity tha t
the time that has elapsed betwee n the disbarment and the applica tion for
the y ha ve suffered due to his disbarment.
re instatementThe pra ctice of law is a privilege burdened w ith conditions. Adhe rence to the rigid standa rds of me ntal fitness,
Afte r his disbarment, he put up the Mejia L aw Journal, a publica tion containing his
-maintena nce of the highe st degree of mora lity and -faithful c ompliance
religious and soc ial writings. He also organized a religious organiz ation and named it El
with the rules of the legal profession
Cristo M ovement and Crusade on Mira cle of Heart a nd Mind.
are the continuing requirements for enj oying the privilege to practice
The Court is inclined to grant the present petition. -Fifteen years has pa ssed since M ejia
was punished with the seve re pena lty of disba rment. -A lthough the Court does not lightly
take the bases for Mejia s disbarment, it a lso cannot close its eye s to the fact that M ejia is
alre ady of a dvanced years. -While the age of the petitioner and the length of time during
which he ha s endured the ignominy of disbarment are not the sole mea sure in allowing a
pe tition for reinstatement, the Court take s cogniza nce of the rehabilitation of M ejia. Sinc e his disbarment in 1992, no other transgre ssion has bee n attributed to him, and he
ha s shown remorse. Obviously, he has le arned his lesson from this e xperience, and his
punishment has laste d long enough. -Thus, while the Court is ever mindful of its duty to
discipline its erring offic ers, it also know s how to show compassion whe n the penalty
impose d has a lready served its purpose. After all, pe naltie s, suc h as disbarment, are
impose d not to punish but to correc t offenders.
We re iterate, howe ver, and remind petitioner that the practice of law is a privilege
burdened w ith conditions. Adherenc e to the rigid standards of mental fitness,
ma intenance of the highest de gree of morality a nd faithful c ompliance with the rule s of
the le gal profession are the continuing requireme nts for enjoying the privilege to practic e

The Court will take into consideration the a pplicants:c haracter and standing prior to the disbarment,
the nature and chara cter of the c harge/s for which he wa s disbarred,
his conduct subseque nt to the disbarment, a nd
the time that has e lapsed be tween the disbarment and the application for reinsta te ment

In Re Supr eme Court

Resolution dated 28
April 2003 in G.R.
Nos. 145817 and
145822 (A .C . No.
6332, Apr il 17, 2012)


Rule 138
Academic Proficiency
bachelors degree
pass all courses leading to LLB or equivalent
go through required review classes
pass the bar (alawi vs allay)
Pass the Sharia bar: not full-fledged attorney
Before they can use the title attorney, still need to take Phil. Bar
2. Good Moral Character
required to submit affidavit during application
highest standards of morality regardless of time (Garrido) (in re prosecutor Bagabuyo) or capacity
(Piatt v Abordo)
Officer of the court - active participant in the administration of justice (canon 29 in Pangan vs.
3. Maintain Good standing
IBP dues (professional Membership)
Professional tax (due to local government)
faithful observance of rules and ethics
continually subject to judicial disciplinary control

Sec 27-29 Courts of First Instance can moved to suspend Lawyer

Only SC/appellate court could suspend

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 (Article VIII, 1987 Constitution) (In
Re Cunanan)
Membership is a privilege
Must be worthy of trust and confidence of the public
Otherwise, right and duty of the court (admission) to withdraw the privilege (discipline)
Re-entry to the bar
In Re Mejia: Character and standing prior to disbarment, nature of charges conduct past disbarment;
time elapsed
Discipline; to correct, not to punish

Grounds to suspend/disbar an attorney

Violation of oath

allegiance to the republic
support constitution + obey laws and legal orders
do no falsehood (nor consent)
not promote or sue any groundless, false, unlawful suit (or give aid or consent)Client
delay no man for money or malice
conduct self as lawyer according to best of knowledge and discretion


Of all classes and profession, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to upload the laws (Piatt, citing Ex
Parte Wall)
obey constitution, inspire respect for and obedience to the law
violation of the law, distortion of the law to cater to personal, selfish motives, misuse/abuse of legal
knowledge (Mendoza)
2. Practice of law is public service, not a business
elements (see Khan)
Contact (see in re Sycip)
Practical consideration, advertisement, (khan) solicitation of business - ambulance chasing, barratry,
champerty (Linsangan), reasonable compensation (Arce)
3. Exercise rights with propriety without malice or vindictiveness or under harm to anyone (Alawi vs
Rule 38 sec 24


Uphold the dignity and authority of the court
should not promote distrust in the administration of justice; submit grievances to the proper
authorities only (In Re Prosecutor Bagabuyo)
suspicion and insinuations strike not only at the reputation of the court, but at the integrity of their
decision as we'll well founded and constructive criticism is welcome, but not statements that erode
the peoples faith in the judicial system (in re court reso dated 28 april 2003, citing Estrada vs SB,
censure of Paguia)
2. Candor, truthfulness and respect in dealing with the Court (Pangan vs. Ramos)
Advocates Language - emphatic but respectful, convincing but not deregatory, illuminating but not
offensive (In Re Court Reso dated 28 April 2003)
3. No groundless, false or unlawful suit
Duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of Justice (Olivares vs. Villain)


Uphold the dignity of the legal profession; courtesy, fairness and candor toward fellow lawyers
(Galicinao vs. Castro)
Conduct selves honourably and fairly; avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel (Reyes vs
Quality of justice dispensed by the courts depends upon the integrity of the bar (in Re Cunanan)
When integrity of the member of the bar is challenged (Sps Tejada)
Meet the issue and overcome evidence
Show how he/she maintains degree of morality


Attorney-client relationship: FIDUCIARY
independence of mind undivided attention to the case (Linsangan)
Hold money and property in trust, submit an accounting (Malhabour) (Barcenas vs Alvero)
Do no falsehood (Stermerick)
Should not represent conflicting interest (Justa vs. Galing) - except by written consent of all
concerned after full disclosure of all facts; TEST OF CONFLICT
Sec 26 Rule 138
2. Serve clients with competence and diligence (Villanueva vs. Gonzales)
delay no man for money or malice
fidelity to cause of client, represent client with zeal within bounds of the law (PANELCO)
protect interest of client, serves end s of justice; does honour to the bar; helps maintain respect of the
community to the legal profession
However, fidelity to the client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and justice (Olivares vs.
Villalon) - should not promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit
3. Profession, not a business, impressed with public interest
Must not charge exorbitant or unconscionable fees
Subject to the guidelines for reasonable compensation (Arce) Subject Matter
Extent of Services
Professional Standing

Cayetano vs. Monsod (many definitions)
Knowledge and application of legal principles and techniques to serve the interest of another with
his consent (Blacks)
not limited to appearing, advising, assisting in litigation, but includes preparation of pleadings and
other papers (Blacks)
for valuable consideration, engages in advising, representing, as advocate defending rights of clients
Work done involves determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and
conditions (Phil Lawyers Association)
Padilla, dissent: active, habitual, repeated or customary action
Padilla, dissent, citing CA memo: habituality, compensation, application of legal principle, practice
or procedure; attorney-client relationship
2. Lorenzana: Habitually and customarily holding ones self to the public as a lawyer
3. (Aguirre vs Rana): Referring to self as counsel

Rule 138 Sec 1-20

Sec 20
Sec 21
Sec 25 - Liabilities
Sec 26 - how to change lawyers
Sec 27-30 Discipline of Lawyers
Sec 37 Liens, compare with case which talks about champerty

Read the Canons

Notes on Passion of Justice, Path of Law

RULE 138
Attorneys and Admission to Bar

Section 1. Who may practice law. Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in
accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
Section 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be
a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and resident of the Philippines; 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.
Section 3. Requirements for lawyers who are citizens of the United States of America. Citizens of the United States of America
who, before July 4, 1946, were duly licensed members of the Philippine Bar, in active practice in the courts of the Philippines and in
good and regular standing as such may, upon satisfactory proof of those facts before the Supreme Court, be allowed to continue such
practice after taking the following oath of office:
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in the Philippines, do solemnly swear
that I recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as
the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not
wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man
for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of may knowledge and discretion with all good
fidelity as well as to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion. So help me God.
Section 4. Requirements for applicants from other jurisdictions. Applicants for admission who, being Filipino citizens, are
enrolled attorneys in good standing in the Supreme Court of the United States or in any circuit court of appeals or district court
therein, or in the highest court of any State or Territory of the United States, and who can show by satisfactory certificates that they
have practiced at least five years in any of said courts, that such practice began before July 4, 1946, and that they have never been
suspended or disbarred, may, in the discretion of the Court, be admitted without examination.
Section 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. All applicants for admission other than those referred to in the two
preceding section shall, before being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that they have regularly studied law for four
years, and successfully completed all prescribed courses, in a law school or university, officially approved and recognized by the
Secretary of Education. The affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by a certificate from the university or school of law, shall be
filed as evidence of such facts, and further evidence may be required by the court.
No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has satisfactorily completed the following courses in a law school or
university duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private international
law, political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics.
Section 6. Pre-Law. No applicant for admission to the bar examination shall be admitted unless he presents a certificate that he
has satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he began the study of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an
authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-year high school course, the
course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences with any of the following subjects as major or field of
concentration: political science, logic, english, spanish, history and economics.
Section 7. Time for filing proof of qualifications. All applicants for admission shall file with the clerk of the Supreme Court the
evidence required by section 2 of this rule at least fifteen (15) days before the beginning of the examination. If not embraced within
section 3 and 4 of this rule they shall also file within the same period the affidavit and certificate required by section 5, and if
embraced within sections 3 and 4 they shall exhibit a license evidencing the fact of their admission to practice, satisfactory evidence
that the same has not been revoked, and certificates as to their professional standing. Applicants shall also file at the same time their
own affidavits as to their age, residence, and citizenship.
Section 8. Notice of Applications. Notice of applications for admission shall be published by the clerk of the Supreme Court in
newspapers published in Pilipino, English and Spanish, for at least ten (10) days before the beginning of the examination.
Section 9. Examination; subjects. Applicants, not otherwise provided for in sections 3 and 4 of this rule, shall be subjected to
examinations in the following subjects: Civil Law; Labor and Social Legislation; Mercantile Law; Criminal Law; Political Law
(Constitutional Law, Public Corporations, and Public Officers); International Law (Private and Public); Taxation; Remedial Law
(Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence); Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (in Pleadings and Conveyancing).
Section 10. Bar examination, by questions and answers, and in writing. Persons taking the examination shall not bring papers,
books or notes into the examination rooms. The questions shall be the same for all examinees and a copy thereof, in English or
Spanish, shall be given to each examinee. Examinees shall answer the questions personally without help from anyone.
Upon verified application made by an examinee stating that his penmanship is so poor that it will be difficult to read his answers
without much loss of time., the Supreme Court may allow such examinee to use a typewriter in answering the questions. Only
noiseless typewriters shall be allowed to be used.
The committee of bar examiner shall take such precautions as are necessary to prevent the substitution of papers or commission of
other frauds. Examinees shall not place their names on the examination papers. No oral examination shall be given.
Section 11. Annual examination. Examinations for admission to the bar of the Philippines shall take place annually in the City of
Manila. They shall be held in four days to be disignated by the chairman of the committee on bar examiners. The subjects shall be
distributed as follows: First day: Political and International Law (morning) and Labor and Social Legislation (afternoon); Second
day: Civil Law (morning) and Taxation (afternoon); Third day: Mercantile Law (morning) and Criminal Law (afternoon); Fourth day:
Remedial Law (morning) and legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (afternoon).
Section 12. Committee of examiners. Examinations shall be conducted by a committee of bar examiners to be appointed by the
Supreme Court. This committee shall be composed of a Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall act as chairman, and who shall be
designated by the court to serve for one year, and eight members of the bar of the Philippines, who shall hold office for a period of
one year. The names of the members of this committee shall be published in each volume of the official reports.
Section 13. Disciplinary measures. No candidate shall endeavor to influence any member of the committee, and during
examination the candidates shall not communicate with each other nor shall they give or receive any assistance. The candidate who
violates this provisions, or any other provision of this rule, shall be barred from the examination, and the same to count as a failure
against him, and further disciplinary action, including permanent disqualification, may be taken in the discretion of the court.
Section 14. Passing average. In order that a candidate may be deemed to have passed his examinations successfully, he must have
obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling below 50 per cent in any subjects. In determining the
average, the subjects in the examination shall be given the following relative weights: Civil Law, 15 per cent; Labor and Social
Legislation, 10 per cent; Mercantile Law, 15 per cent; Criminal Law; 10 per cent: Political and International Law, 15 per cent;
Taxation, 10 per cent; Remedial Law, 20 per cent; Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises, 5 per cent.
Section 15. Report of the committee; filing of examination papers. Not later than February 15th after the examination, or as soon
thereafter as may be practicable, the committee shall file its report on the result of such examination. The examination papers and
notes of the committee shall be filed with the clerk and may there be examined by the parties in interest, after the court has approved
the report.
Section 16. Failing candidates to take review course. Candidates who have failed the bar examinations for three times shall be
disqualified from taking another examination unless they show the satisfaction of the court that they have enrolled in and passed
regular fourth year review classes as well as attended a pre-bar review course in a recognized law school.
The professors of the individual review subjects attended by the candidates under this rule shall certify under oath that the candidates
have regularly attended classes and passed the subjects under the same conditions as ordinary students and the ratings obtained by
them in the particular subject.
Section 17. Admission and oath of successful applicants. An applicant who has passed the required examination, or has been
otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the bar, shall take and subscribe before the Supreme Court the corresponding oath of
Section 18. Certificate. The supreme Court shall thereupon admit the applicant as a member of the bar for all the courts of the
Philippines, and shall direct an order to be entered to that effect upon its records, and that a certificate of such record be given to him
by the clerk of court, which certificate shall be his authority to practice.
Section 19.Attorney's roll. The clerk of the Supreme Court shall kept a roll of all attorneys admitted to practice, which roll shall
be signed by the person admitted when he receives his certificate.
Section 20. Duties of attorneys. It is the duty of an attorney:

(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines.

(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;

(c) 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.
(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth and honor,
and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;
(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept no
compensation in connection with his client's business except from him or with his knowledge and approval;
(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless
required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged;
(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any man's cause, from any
corrupt motive or interest;
(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed;

(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of
the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due
process of law.
Section 21. Authority of attorney to appear. an attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he
appears, and no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client, but the presiding judge may,
on motion of either party and on reasonable grounds therefor being shown, require any attorney who assumes the right to appear in a
case to produce or prove the authority under which he appears, and to disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the name of the
person who employed him, and may thereupon make such order as justice requires. An attorneys wilfully appear in court for a person
without being employed, unless by leave of the court, may be punished for contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in
his official transactions.
Section 22. Attorney who appears in lower court presumed to represent client on appeal. An attorney who appears de parte in a
case before a lower court shall be presumed to continue representing his client on appeal, unless he files a formal petition
withdrawing his appearance in the appellate court.
Section 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients. Attorneys have authority to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in
relation thereto made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure. But they cannot, without
special authority, compromise their client's litigation, or receive anything in discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in cash.
Section 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees. An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no
more than a reasonable compensation for his services, with a view to the importance of the subject matter of the controversy, the
extent of the services rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys as
expert witnesses as to the proper compensation, but may disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on its own professional
knowledge. A written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the court to be
unconscionable or unreasonable.
Section 25. Unlawful retention of client's funds; contempt. When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of his client after
it has been demanded, he may be punished for contempt as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in his official transactions;
but proceedings under this section shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution.
Section 26. Change of attorneys. An attorney may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding, by the written consent
of his client filed in court. He may also retire at any time from an action or special proceeding, without the consent of his client,
should the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of
substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be entered on the docket of the court in place of the former one, and
written notice of the change shall be given to the advance party.
A client may at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his place, but if the contract between client and attorney has
been reduced to writing and the dismissal of the attorney was without justifiable cause, he shall be entitled to recover from the client
the full compensation stipulated in the contract. However, the attorney may, in the discretion of the court, intervene in the case to
protect his rights. For the payment of his compensation the attorney shall have a lien upon all judgments for the payment of money,
and executions issued in pursuance of such judgment, rendered in the case wherein his services had been retained by the client.
Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. A member of the bar may be removed or
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office,
grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which
he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for
the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
Section 28. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance. The Court of Appeals or a Court of First
Instance may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named in the last preceding section, and after such suspension
such attorney shall not practice his profession until further action of the Supreme Court in the premises.
Section 29. Upon suspension by the Court of Appeals or Court of First Instance, further proceedings in Supreme Court. Upon
such suspension, the Court of Appeals or the Court of First Instance shall forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of
the order of suspension and a full statement of the facts upon which the same was based. Upon the receipt of such certified copy and
statement, the Supreme Court shall make a full investigation of the facts involved and make such order revoking or extending the
suspension, or removing the attorney from his office as such, as the facts warrant.
Section 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or suspension. No attorney shall be removed or suspended from the practice of
his profession, until he has had full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against him, to produce witnesses in
his own behalf, and to be heard by himself or counsel. But if upon reasonable notice he fails to appear and answer the accusation, the
court may proceed to determine the matter ex parte.
Section 31. Attorneys for destitute litigants. A court may assign an attorney to render professional aid free of charge to any party
in a case, if upon investigation it appears that the party is destitute and unable to employ an attorney, and that the services of counsel
are necessary to secure the ends of justice and to protect the rights of the party. It shall be the duty of the attorney so assigned to
render the required service, unless he is excused therefrom by the court for sufficient cause shown.
Section 32. Compensation for attorneys de oficio. Subject to availability of funds as may be provided by the law the court may, in
its discretion, order an attorney employed as counsel de oficio to be compensates in such sum as the court may fix in accordance with
section 24 of this rule. Whenever such compensation is allowed, it shall be not less than thirty pesos (P30) in any case, nor more than
the following amounts: (1) Fifty pesos (P50) in light felonies; (2) One hundred pesos (P100) in less grave felonies; (3) Two hundred
pesos (P200) in grave felonies other than capital offenses; (4) Five Hundred pesos (P500) in capital offenses.
Section 33. Standing in court of person authorized to appear for Government. Any official or other person appointed or designated
in accordance with law to appear for the Government of the Philippines shall have all the rights of a duly authorized member of the
bar to appear in any case in which said government has an interest direct or indirect.
Section 34. By whom litigation conducted. In the court of a justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with
the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for the purpose, or with the aid an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his
litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.
Section 35. Certain attorneys not to practice. No judge or other official or employee of the superior courts or of the Office of the
Solicitor General, shall engage in private practice as a member of the bar or give professional advice to clients.
Section 36. Amicus Curiae. Experienced and impartial attorneys may be invited by the Court to appear as amici curiae to help in
the disposition of issues submitted to it.
Section 37. Attorneys' liens. An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his client which have lawfully
come into his possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid, and may apply such funds
to the satisfaction thereof. He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon all judgments for the payment of money, and executions
issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has secured in a litigation of his client, from and after the time when he shall have
the caused a statement of his claim of such lien to be entered upon the records of the court rendering such judgment, or issuing such
execution, and shall have the caused written notice thereof to be delivered to his client and to the adverse paty; and he shall have the
same right and power over such judgments and executions as his client would have to enforce his lien and secure the payment of his
just fees and disbursements.


(Promulgated June 21, 1988)



Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
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.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.

Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.
Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render legal advice to the
person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter's rights.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.


Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, selflaudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
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
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdrawal from the firm and his name shall be dropped
from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law currently.
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.



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 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private
interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.
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.



Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a material fact in
connection with his application for admission to the bar.
Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the bar of any person known by him to be
unqualified in respect to character, education, or other relevant attribute.
Rule 7.03 - 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.

Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer,
however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief
against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.



Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only
be performed by a member of the bar in good standing.
Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except:
(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the latter's death, money shall be paid
over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to persons specified in the agreement; or
(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; or
(c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan even if the plan is based in whole or
in part, on a profit sharing agreement.



Rule 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 a 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.


Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.

Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only.


Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared himself on the law and the facts of his
case, the evidence he will adduce and the order of its proferrence. He should also be ready with the original documents
for comparison with the copies.
Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.
Rule 12.03 - A 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 for his failure to do so.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes.
Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a break or recess in the trial, while the witness is
still under examination.
Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to impersonate another.
Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly inconvenience him.
Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except:
(a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument, and the like; or
(b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in which event he must,
during his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another counsel.

Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor 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.
Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another branch or agency of the government in the
normal course of judicial proceedings.



Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the latter's 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 Philippines or any of its chapters for rendition of free legal
Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent client if:
(a) he is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or competently;
(b) he labors under a conflict of interest between him and the prospective client or between a present client and the
prospective client.
Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his professional fees shall observe the same
standard of conduct governing his relations with paying 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.
Rule 15.02.- A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a
prospective client.
Rule 15.03. - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a
full disclosure of the facts.
Rule 15.04. - A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
Rule 15.05. - A lawyer when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable
results of the client's case, neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the case.
Rule 15.06. - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.
Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness.
Rule 15.08. - A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation concurrently with the practice of law shall
make clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.


Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.
Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him.
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 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client's interest 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.



Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to
render. However, he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a
lawyer who is competent on the matter.
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time
to the client's request for information.


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 criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in
any case or proceeding.
Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated
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 of Court.
Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case.


Rule 20.01 - A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his fees
(a) the time spent and the extent of the service rendered or required;
(b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
(c) The importance of the subject matter;
(d) The skill demanded;
(e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered case;
(f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs;
(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the service;
(h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;
(i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and
(j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in case of referral, with the consent of the client, be entitled to a division of fees in
proportion to the work performed and responsibility assumed.
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 resort to judicial
action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.


Rule 21.01 - A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client except;
(a) When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the consequences of the disclosure;
(b) When required by law;
(c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or associates or by judicial action.
Rule 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information acquired in the course of
employment, nor shall he use the same to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full
knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.
Rule 21.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the written consent of his client, give information from his files to an outside
agency seeking such information for auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data processing, or any similar
Rule 21.04 - A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to partners or associates thereof unless prohibited by the client.
Rule 21.05 - A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be required to prevent those whose services are utilized by
him, from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of the clients.
Rule 21.06 - A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation about a client's affairs even with members of his family.
Rule 21.07 - A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been consulted about a particular case except to avoid possible conflict of interest.


Rule 22.01 - A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following case:
(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.
Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn over all papers
and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperative with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter,
including all information necessary for the proper handling of the matter.