Code

of
Responsibility

Professional

Canons 3 8
CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN
HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY
TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND
OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT
OF FACTS.

It is not unethical for a lawyer to make

known his legal services. However, he must
do so only by using true, honest, fair
dignified and objective information or
statement of facts.
He must not resort to false and misleading
information; and even if such information is
true, the manner of making it known must
not be undignified and demeaning to the
legal profession.
The practice of law is not a trade like the
sale of commodities to the general public
where the usual exaggerations in trade,
when the other party had the opportunity to
know the facts, are not in themselves
fraudulent (Art. 1340, NCC).

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.

Self-praises or false claims on qualifications

or quality of legal services are unethical.
Thus, a lawyer should not pretend to a
prospective client just to get the latters
trust and confidence that he is a seasoned
trial lawyer when in truth he is not or had
not even prosecuted or defended a case yet
in his lifetime.
Any false pretense by a lawyer intended to
defraud, mislead and deceive or to tout on
his qualifications or quality of hiss legal
service is unethicalwhether done by him
personally or trough another with his
permission.
As what the Supreme Court has decided in
the case of In Re: Tagorda (53 Phil. 37), the
use off a card by a lawyer containing self-

1 | Canons 3-8

laudatory statements about his ability is

condemned.
In Re: LUIS B. TAGORDA (G.R. No. L-32329
March 23, 1929)
FACTS: In 1928, Luis Tagorda was a
provincial board member of Isabela. Before
his election, he campaigned that he is a
lawyer and a notary public; that as a notary
public he can do notarial acts such as
execution of deeds of sale, etc.; that as a
lawyer, he can help clients collect debts;
that he offers free consultation; that he is
willing to serve the poor.
When he won, he wrote a letter to the
barrio lieutenant of Echague, Isable
advising the latter that even though he was
elected as a provincial board member, he
can still practice law; that he wants the
lieutenant to tell the same to his people;
that he is willing to receive works regarding
preparations of sales contracts and
affidavits etc.; that he is willing to receive
land registration cases for a charge of three
pesos.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tagorda is guilty of
malpractice.
HELD: Yes. Tagorda admitted doing the
foregoing acts. The practice of soliciting
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The
most
worthy
and
effective
advertisement possible, even for a young
lawyer, and especially with his brother
lawyers, is the establishment of a wellmerited reputation for professional capacity
and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced,
but must be the outcome of character and
conduct. Solicitation of business by circulars
or
advertisements,
or
by
personal
communications
or
interviews
not
warranted
by
personal
relations,
is
unprofessional. It is equally unprofessional
to procure business by indirection through
touters of any kind, whether allied real
estate firms or trust companies advertising
to secure the drawing of deeds or wills or
offering
retainers
in
exchange
for
executorships or trusteeships to be

influenced
by
the
lawyer.
Indirect
advertisement for business by furnishing or
inspiring newspaper comments concerning
the manner of their conduct, the magnitude
of the interests involved, the importance of
the lawyers position, and all other like selflaudation, defy the traditions and lower the
tone of our high calling, and are intolerable.
It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer
advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare
cases where ties of blood, relationship or
trust make it his duty to do so.
Tagordas liability is however mitigated by
the fact that he is a young inexperienced
lawyer and that he was unaware of the
impropriety of his acts. So instead of being
disbarred, he was suspended from the
practice of law for a month.
Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name,
no false, misleading or assumed name
shall be used. The continued use of the
name
of
a
deceased
partner
is
permissible provided that the firm
indicates in all its communications that
said partner is deceased.

A group of lawyers who desires to establish

a partnership may adopt a firm name.
However no false name or misleading or
assumed name shall be used in such name.
No name not belonging to any of the
partners or associates may be used in the
firm name for any purpose.
If a partner died, the name of the deceased
may still be used, provided that there is an
indication that that said partner is already
dead.
The use of a cross after the name of the
deceased partner is sufficient indication. It
is advisable though that the year of the
death be also indicated.
This rule, in effect is an abandonment of
the Ruling in Sycip case.
Name of a partner in law firm should be
dropped if appointed as judge; other
positions.
Main law office and branch office do not
constitute two law firms (Ouano Arrastre
Services, Inc. Vs Aleonar 202 SCRA 619)
o Said firm has a main office in Makati
and a branch office in Cebu City. Both

2 | Canons 3-8

operates under one and the same

name. Having represented itself to
the public as comprising a single
firm, said firm should not be allowed
to pretend that its main branch and
its branch office in effect constitute
separate law firms, with separate and
distinct
personalities
and
responsibilities.
Death of a partner does not extinguish the
client-lawyer relationship with the law firm.
(B.R. Sebastian Enterprises Inc vs. CA 206
SCRA 28)
o The responsibility of the other
member/s of the firm to the
petitioner as counsel remained until
withdrawn in the manner provided by
the Rules of Court.
Negligence of a member in the law firm is
negligence of the firm (Antonio vs. CA 153
SCRA 592).
o The Petitioners herein believed that
they were deprived of their day in
court when the respondent Court of
Appeals denied their motion for
reconsideration. Such motion was
filed
beyond
the
reglementary
period; alleging that their counsel of
record
abandoned
them
and
migrated to the United States
without at least informing them that
a decision was rendered against
them.
In this case, Mr. Obligar, representing
himself as the messenger of Atty
Funelas (former counsel), received a
copy of the decision on January 6,
1987. This decision became final and
executory on January 22, 1987. Thus,
the motion for reconsideration filed
by the petitioners on February 23,
1987, could not be acted upon on the
merits and could only be noted by
the respondent Court of Appeals. It
was properly denied.
The negligence attributed by the
petitioners to their then counsel, Atty.
Funelas, is not excusable. Clear and
as it can be seen from the pleadings
filed that the petitioners' counsel of

record is the law office of Funelas

Perez and Associates and not Atty.
Funelas alone. Atty. Funelas signed
the documents in his capacity as the
representative of the said law firm.
It is safe to presume that a law firm
which registered and represented
itself as such, with at least two
named partners, is composed of at
least two lawyers. And if it is true
that this law office was earlier
dissolved, concrete evidence must be
presented in order that these
presumptions may be rebutted.
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.

Reason for the rule is:

1. To prevent the law firm or partners from
making use of the name of the public
official to attract legal business; and
2. To avoid suspicion of undue influence
(report of IBP Committee, p. 16)
Officers not allowed to practice law are,
among others:
1. Judge;
2. President of PH;
3. Members of Constitutional Convention;
4. Members of congress;
5. Members of cabinet;
6. Members of Judicial and Bar Council;
7. Governors;
8. Mayors;
9. Prosecutors;
10.Solicitors; and
11.Others specially disqualified by law or
regulations.

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.

A lawyer who seeks publicity to attract legal

business is debasing the legal profession,
especially so, if he pays something of value
for it.
Indirect advertisements for professional
employment such as furnishing or inspiring

3 | Canons 3-8

newspaper comments or procuring his

photograph in connection with causes in
which the lawyer has been or is engaged
and all other self-laudation, offend the
traditions and lower the tone of the
profession.
BEST ADVERTISEMENT FOR A LAWYER the
establishment of well-maintained reputation
for professional capacity and fidelity to trust
(Director of Religious Affairs VS. Bayot, 74
Phil. 579).
o FACTS:
In
June
1943,
Bayot
advertised in a newspaper that he
helps people in securing marriage
licenses; that he does so avoiding
delays and publicity; that he also
makes marriage arrangements; that
legal consultations are free for the
poor;
and
that
everything
is
confidential. The Director of Religious
Affairs took notice of the ad and so
he sued Bayot for Malpractice.
Bayot
initially
denied
having
published the advertisement. But
later, he admitted the same and
asked for the courts mercy as he
promised to never repeat the act
again.
ISSUE: Whether or not Bayot is guilty
of Malpractice.
HELD: Yes. Section 25 of Rule 127
expressly provides among other
things that the practice of soliciting
cases at law for the purpose of gain,
either personally or thru paid agents
or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The advertisement he caused to be
published is a brazen solicitation of
business from the public. . It is
highly unethical for an attorney to
advertise his talents or skill as a
merchant advertises his wares. The
Supreme Court again emphasized
that best advertisement for a lawyer
is the establishment of a wellmerited reputation for professional
capacity and fidelity to trust. But
because of Bayots plea for leniency
and his promise and the fact that he
did not earn any case by reason of

the ad, the Supreme Court merely

reprimanded him.
CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE
IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL
SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR SUPPORTING
EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM AND IN THE
IMPROVEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE.

Through collective efforts, lawyers can

contribute to the enhancement of the
system by:
1. Presenting position papers or resolutions
for the introduction of pertinent bills in
Congress;
2. Petitions with the Supreme Court for the
amendment of the Rules of Court or
introduction of New Rules; and
3. Petitions with the IBP and other forums
which have any relevant influence to the
system.
Experienced
legal
practitioners
and
professors of law may write legal
publications or books as an avenue of
improving the legal system.

CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP

ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS,
PARTICIPATE
IN
CONTINUING
LEGAL
EDUCATION
PROGRAMS,
SUPPORT
EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS
IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE
PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS
AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING THE LAW
AND JURISPRUDENCE.

The Bar has been integrated for the

attainment of the following objectives:
1. Elevate the standards of the legal
profession;
2. Improve the administration of justice;
and
3. To enable the bar to discharge its public
responsibility more effectively.
In order to keep themselves abreast of legal
developments, the lawyer must walk with
the dynamic movements of the law and
jurisprudence.
He must acquaint himself at least with the
newly promulgated laws, the recent
decisions of the Supreme Court and of the
significant decisions of the Court of
Appeals.

4 | Canons 3-8

The lawyers life is one continuous and

laborious study, otherwise, his skill and
knowledge of the law and related
disciplines will lag behind and become
obscure due to obsoleteness.
Judges by the nature of their functions,
must keep abreast with the laws, rulings,
and decisions of the Supreme Court
It is the bounden duty of counsel as lawyer
in active law practice to keep abreast of
decisions of the Supreme Court particularly
where
issues
have
been
clarified,
consistently reiterated, and published in the
advance
reports
of
Supreme
Court
decisions and in such publications as the
Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA)
and law journals. (De Roy vs. CA, 157 SCRA
757)
o FACTS: De Roy was the owner of a
burnt building. The firewall of said
building collapsed on the house of
Luis Bernal thereby killing his
daughter. Bernal sued De Roy. Bernal
won in the trial court. Eventually, De
Roy appealed and the Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the
trial court. De Roy received a copy of
the decision on August 25, 1987.
Under the Rules, they have 15 days
to file a motion for reconsideration.
On September 9, 1987, the last day
for them to file said MFR, De Roys
counsel filed a motion for extension
of time to file a motion for
reconsideration which was denied by
the Court of Appeals. The Court of
Appeals ruled that pursuant to the
case of Habaluyas Enterprises vs
Japzon (August 1985), the fifteen-day
period for appealing or for filing a
motion for reconsideration cannot be
extended.
De Roy assailed the denial as she
alleged that her counsel was ignorant
of the rule laid down in the
Habaluyas Case; that said rule should
not be made to apply to the case at
bar owing to the non-publication of
the Habaluyas decision in the Official
Gazette.

ISSUE: Whether or not De Roys

contention is correct.

HELD: No. It is the bounden duty of

counsel as lawyer in active law
practice to keep abreast of decisions
of the Supreme Court particularly
where issues have been clarified,
consistently
reiterated,
and
published in the advance reports of
Supreme Court decisions (G.R.s) and
in such publications as the Supreme
Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) and
law journals.
In decreeing the integration of the
Philippine Bar, the Supreme Court has given
renewed significance to the obligation to:
1. Encourage and foster legal education;
2. Devise and maintain a program of
continuing legal education; and
3. Conduct campaigns to educate the
people on their legal rights and
obligations, on the importance of
preventive legal service, and on the true
functions of the Filipino lawyer.
To keep the lawyers, specially practicing
lawyers, abreast with the law and
jurisprudence, continuing legal education
should be made mandatory by the Supreme
Court.

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.

A prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer and

as such, he should seek equal and impartial
justice.

The interest of a prosecutor in a criminal

prosecution is not to win a case but to see
that justice is done. Such as by seeing to it
that the accused is given a fair and
impartial trial and not deprived of any of his
statutory or constitutional rights.

It is reprehensible for a prosecutor

whether private or publicto suppress facts
capable of establishing the innocence of the
accused or to conceal witnesses who can
equally establish the accuseds innocence
of the crime charged.

CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY

TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES
IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.

The Canons and Rules in the Code of

Professional Responsibility promulgated on
June 21, 1988 are not intended for the
private practitioners alone.
They shall govern the acts off all lawyers
including those in the service of thee
Government like the Solicitors of the OSG.
A lawyer does not shed his professional
obligations upon is assuming public office.
However, lawyers who are incumbent
judges and magistrates shall be governed
in the performance of their official functions
by the Code of Judicial Conduct which
became effective on October 20, 1989.
All public officials and employeesjudges,
prosecutors, solicitors and other lawyers in
the government service are equally

5 | Canons 3-8

governed by the Coded of Conduct and

Ethical Standards Under R.A. 6713.
Lawyers in the government service are also
prohibited to engage in the private practice
of their profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided that such
practice will not conflict with their official
functions.
The prohibition will continue for one year
after their separation from the public office.

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.

Government lawyers do not shed their

professional obligations in assuming public
positions.

Under Section 4, RA 6713, public officials

are required to uphold the public interest
over and above personal interest; must
discharge their duties with the highest
degree of excellence, professionalism,
intelligence and skill.

If a lawyer in concurrently allowed to

engage in the practice of law, he should not
use his public position to enhance his
private practice of law or a private business
of his.

In Vitriolo, et al. v. Dasig, A.C. No. 4984, 448

Phil 199 [2003], the SC said that: Promotion
of private interests includes soliciting gifts
or anything of monetary value in any
transaction requiring the approval of his
office or which may be affected by the
functions of his office. A lawyer in public
office is expected not only to refrain from
any act or omission which might tend to
lessen the trust and confidence of the
citizenry in government, she must also
uphold the dignity of the legal profession at
all times and observe a high standard of
honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a
lawyer in government service is a keeper of
the public faith and is burdened with high
degree of social responsibility, perhaps
higher than her brethren in private practice.

It is unethical for a government lawyer to

remain silently connected with a Law firm
and solicit cases for the said firm with
referral fees or monthly retainers for the
purpose.

Generally,
a
lawyer
who
holds
a
government office may not be disciplined
as a member of the Bar for misconduct in
the discharge of his duties as a government
official.

Exception: if the misconduct is of such

character that affects his qualification as a
lawyer.

Gonzales-Austria, et al. vs. Abaya (176

SCRA 634):
o

Complaints for dishonesty and grave

misconduct and for disbarment was
filed against Atty. Ligaya GonzalesAustria, then Clerk of Court of Branch
52, RTC Palawan for having allegedly
forged the signature of Judge Abaya
in a probation order dated April 22,
1986 in Criminal Case.

Here, the SC stated that, generally

speaking, a lawyer who holds a
government office may not be
disciplined as a member of the bar
for misconduct in the discharge of his
duties
as
a
government
official. However, if that misconduct
as a government official is of such a
character as to affect his qualification
as a lawyer or to show moral
delinquency, then he may be
disciplined as a member of the bar
on such ground.
Atty. Austria's misconduct as Branch
Clerk of Court to affect her
qualification as a member of tile Bar,
for precisely as a lawyer, she ought
to have known the illegality of the
act complained of.
Atty. Austria was suspended as a
member of the Bar for a period of
one year.

Collantes vs. Renomeron (A.C. No. 3056.

August 16, 1991 A.C. No. 3056. August
16, 1991)
A disbarment case was filed against Atty.
Renomeron, Registeer of Deeds of
Tacloban.
Atty.
Renomeron
suspended
the
registration of the documents pending
compliance by V & G with a certain
"special arrangement" between them,
which was that V & G should provide
him with a weekly round trip ticket from
Tacloban to Manila plus pocket money
per trip, or, in lieu thereof, the sale of
respondent's Quezon City house and lot
by V & G or GSIS representatives.
Because of V & G's failure to give him
pocket money in addition to plane fare,
respondent
imposed
additional
registration requirements.
Issue: whether the respondent register
of deeds, as a lawyer, may also be
disciplined by this Court for his
malfeasances as a public official.
Ruling: Yes. According to the SC the
Code of Professional Responsibility

6 | Canons 3-8

applies to lawyers in government service

in the discharge of their official tasks
(Canon 6). Just as the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
requires public officials and employees
to process documents and papers
expeditiously (Sec. 5, subpars. [c] and
[d] and prohibits them from directly or
indirectly having a financial or material
interest in any transaction requiring the
approval of their office, and likewise
bars them from soliciting gifts or
anything of monetary value in the
course of any transaction which may be
affected by the functions of their office
(Sec. 7, subpars. [a] and [d]), the Code
of Professional Responsibility forbids a
lawyer to engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01,
Code of Professional Responsibility), or
delay any man's cause "for any corrupt
motive or interest" (Rule 103).

A government lawyer may leave the

government service in various ways:
retirement, resignation, expiration of the
term of office, dismissal or abandonment.

Whichever way he leaves his service, he is

prohibited by the Rule from engagement or
employment in connection with any matter
in which he had intervened in said service.

Violation of restriction is tantamount to

representing conflictive interest.

In PNB vs. Cedo (A.C. No. 3701 March 28,

1995): By accepting engagement or
employment against his former employer
(PNB) in transactions which he formerly
handled while still an officer of said bank,
Atty. Cedo violated the Rule and was
suspended for 3 years.

In PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. (455

SCRA 568), the SC ruled that the applicable
meaning of the term intervention is used
in the Code of Professional Ethics is that it
is an act of a person who has the power to
influence the subject proceedings. The evil
sought to be remedied by the Code do not
exist where the government lawyer does
not act which can be considered as
innocuous such as drafting, enforcing, or
interpreting
government
or
agency
procedures, regulations or laws or briefing
abstract principles of law.

Atty. Renomeron was disbarrerd from the

practice of law.

A government lawyer, who under the law, is

required to represent the Government, any
of its agencies or officers, should not refuse
to appear for them.

In the case of Enriquez Sr. vs. Gimenez

[G.R. No. L-12817, April 29, 1960], the court
stated that Bias or prejudice and animosity
or hostility on the part of a fiscal not based
on any of the conditions enumerated in the
law and the Rules of Court do not constitute
a legal and valid excuse for inhibition or
disqualification.3 And unlike a practising
lawyer who has the right to decline
employment,4 a fiscal cannot refuse the
performance of his functions on grounds
not provided for by law without violating his
oath of office, where he swore, among
others, "that he will well and faithfully
discharge to the best of his ability the
duties of the office or position upon which
he is about to enter. . . ."

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.
7 | Canons 3-8

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES

UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF
THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT
THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.01 - 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.

Requirements for applicants for admission

as a member of the bar: (rule 138, RRC)
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 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.

If the false statement or suppression of

material fact is discovered before the
candidate could take the bar examinations,
he will be denied permission to take the
examinations.

If it was discovered after the candidate

passed the examinations, but before having
taken his oath, he will not be allowed to
take his oath as a lawyer.

It must be stressed, the oath may only be

taken before the Supreme Court by a
person authorized by the court to engage in
the practice of law (People vs. de luna et
al GR 10236-48)

People vs. de Luna: Several persons took an

oath of office as Attorneys-at-Law before a
Notary Public.
The SC held that: appellees knew that they
did not pass the bar examination. Although
they, likewise, sought admission to the Bar
under the provisions of Republic Act No.
972, known as the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953,
they were subsequently notified of the
resolution of this Court denying said
petition. Inasmuch as the oath as lawyer is
a prerequisite to the practice of law and
may be taken only, before the Supreme
Court, by those authorized by the latter to
engage in such practice, the resolution
denying the aforementioned petition of
appellees herein, implied, necessarily, a
denial of the right to said oath, as well as a
prohibition of or injunction against the
taking thereof. When, this notwithstanding,
appellees took the oath before a notary
public, and formally advised this Court, not
only of such fact, but also, that "they will
practice in all the court of the Philippines."

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.

Consequences for violation of the Rule:

8 | Canons 3-8

If the discovery was made after the

candidate has taken his oath as a lawyer,
his name will be stricken from the Roll of
Attorneys.

In Re: Ramon Galang (66 SCRA 282)

In 1966, when Galang took the Bar
examinations for the fourth time, the
application form prepared by the Court for
use of applicants required the applicant to
reveal all his criminal cases whether

involving moral turpitude or not. In

paragraph 4 of that form, the applicant is
required under oath to declare that "he has
not been charged with any offense before a
Fiscal, Municipal Judge, or other officer; or
accused of, indicted for or convicted by any
court or tribunal of any crime involving
moral turpitude; nor is there a pending case
against him" (Adm. Case No. 1163, p. 56,
rec.). Yet, respondent Galang continued to
intentionally withhold or conceal from the
Court his criminal case of slight physical
injuries which was then and until now is
pending in the City Court of Manila; and
thereafter repeatedly omitted to make
mention of the same in his applications to
take the Bar examinations in 1967, 1969
and 1971.

Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, is

guilty of fraudulently concealing and
withholding from the Court his pending
criminal case for physical injuries in 1962,
1963, 1964, 1966, 1967, 1969 and 1971;
and in 1966, 1967,1969 and 1971, he
committed perjury when he declared under
oath that he had no pending criminal case
in court. By falsely representing to the
Court that he had no criminal case pending
in court, respondent Galang was allowed
unconditionally
to
take
the
Bar
examinations seven (7) times and in 1972
was allowed to take his oath.
Under
the
circumstances
in
which
respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman
E. Galang, was allowed to take the Bar
examinations and the highly irregular
manner in which he passed the Bar, the SC
have no other alternative but to order the
surrender of his attorney's certificate and
the striking out of his name from the Roll of
Attorneys.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
DISBARMENT OF TELESFORO A. DIAO, vs.
SEVERINO G. MARTINEZ (A.C. No. 244): The
Diaos name was stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys for false pretenses on his
educational attainment. He misrepresented
that he finished Associate in Arts Degree
when in truth he had no such degree.

9 | Canons 3-8

Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take

the bar examinations; but due to his false
representations, he was allowed to take it,
luckily passed it, and was thereafter
admitted to the Bar. Such admission having
been obtained under false pretenses must
be, and is hereby revoked. The fact that he
hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial.
Passing such examinations is not the
only qualification to become an attorney-atlaw; taking the prescribed courses of legal
study in the regular manner is equally
essential.

If the crime concealed is a crime not

involving moral turpitude: When the
applicant concealed a charged of a crime
against him but which crime does not
involved moral turpitude, this concealment
nevertheless will be taken against him. It is
the fact of concealment and not the
commission of the crime itself that makes
him morally unfit to become a lawyer. When
he made a concealment, he perpetrated
perjury (In re: Galang, 66 SCRA 282; Heron
S. Meling Case, 431 SCRA 1460).

Prohibition against candidates: 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.

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.

A lawyer shall make no recommendation or

endorsement of any applicant for admission
to the bar, if he knows that the applicant is
not qualified to become a member of the
bar for lack of good moral character, lack of

It is his duty to society to do something to

prevent such applicant from taking the bar
examinations.

A lawyer should maintain the standard of

moral fitness required of him when he
applied for admission to the Bar.

Public policy demands that any person

seeking admission to the bar shall possess
such degree of learning and proficiency in
law as is necessary for due performance of
the duties of the attorney.

The moral turpitude for which an attorney

may be disbarred
may consist of
misconduct in either his professional or
nonprofessional activities.

A lawyer who commits an unlawful act

though not related to the discharge of his
professional duties as a member of the Bar,
which puts his moral character in serious
doubt, renders him unfit to continue in the
practice of law (Melendrez vs Decena).

Avoidance of Scandalous Conduct: In Toloso

vs Cargo (171 SCRA 21), the court held that
a member of the Bar and officer of the
court is not only required to refrain from
adulterous relationships or the keeping of
mistresses but must also behave himself as
to avoid scandalizing the public by creating
the belief the he is flouting those moral
standards.

educational requirements or other relevant

attribute.

His support to an applicant must be solely

based on FITNESS, both INTELLECTUAL and
MORAL.

The act of supporting the application to the

Bar any person known to him to be
unqualified constitutes gross misconduct in
office (Rule 138, Sec. 27, RRC).

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.

A lawyer must at all times conduct himself

properly as not to put into question his
fitness to practice law.

If good moral character is a qualification for

the privilege to enter upon the practice of
law, it is essential during the continuance of
the practice and the exercise of the
privilege (Quingwa vs Armando Puno, 19
SCRA 439).
Petitioner
Quingwa
filed
a
verified
complaint charging Armando Puno, a
member of the Bar, with gross immorality
and
misconduct.
Respondent
took
petitioner to a hotel and succeeded in
having sexual intercourse with her. She
submitted to respondent's plea for sexual
intercourse
because
of
respondent's
promise of marriage. When she got
pregnant, respondent refused to fulfill his
promise of marriage; and refused to
recognize the child as his own.

10 | C a n o n s 3 - 8

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT

HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND
CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL
COLLEAGUES,
AND
SHALL
AVOID
HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING
COUNSEL.

Lawyers are officers of the court whether

they are incumbent judges, prosecutors or
legal practitioners.

To maintain the dignity of the legal

profession,
lawyers
must
conduct
themselves honorably, fairly and candidly
toward each other.

They shall avoid resulting to harassing

tactics against their opposing counsels.

Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his

professional
dealings,
use
language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper.

Disrespectful,
abusive
and
abrasive
language,
offensive
personalities,
unfounded accusations or intemperate
words tending to obstruct, embarrass or

influence the court in administering justice

or to bring it into disrepute have no place in
a pleading. Their employment serves no
useful purpose and on the contrary
constitutes direct contempt or contempt in
facie curiae (Surigao Mineral Reservation
Board vs Cloribel 31 SCRA 1; Lim Se vs
Argel 70 S 378)
Surigao Mineral Reservation
Cloribel (31 SCRA 1)

Board

Examples of disrespectful language:

o

Labelling a judge as corrupt in a

motion for inhibition;

Calling an
bobo; or

A lawyer stating that justice is

blind and also deaf and dumb.

vs

In 1968, the Supreme Court promulgated a

unanimous decision (24 SCRA 491; G.R. No.
L-27072) which was not favorable to
MacArthur International Minerals Co. The
latters lawyer, Atty. Vicente Santiago then
filed a motion for reconsideration.
Said lawyer made use of language that are
disrespectful and contemptuous to the
Court like "it seems many of our judicial
authorities believe they are chosen
messengers of God", "corrupt in its face"
and insinuating favoritism and partisanship
of the members of the Court, notable Chief
Justice Concepcion and Justice Castro due
to alleged interest in the case.
The
language
employed
by Santiago
degrades the administration of justice
which transgresses Section 3 (d) of Rule 71
of the Rules of Court as well as Sec. 20 (f)
of Rule 138 of the RoC which states that "a
lawyer's language should be dignified in
keeping with the dignity of the legal
profession". He is also expected to observe
and maintain the respect due to the courts
of justice and judicial officers but their acts
resulted in the contrary and are intended
to create an atmosphere of distrust. The
inadvertence of Santiago's use of words
can't be used as a shield to absolve him of
any misdeeds.

A lawyers language should be forceful but

dignified, emphatic but respectful as
befitting an advocate and in keeping with
the dignity of the legal profession (In re:
Climaco, 55 SCRA 107).

The lawyers arguments, whether written or

oral, should be gracious to both court and
opposing counsel and be of such words as
may be properly addressed by one

11 | C a n o n s 3 - 8

gentleman to another (Torres vs. Javier, 470

SCRA 408).

adverse

counsel

as

Lack or want of intention is no excuse for

the disrespectful language employed.
Counsel cannot escape responsibility by
claiming that his words did not mean what
any reader must have understood them as
meaning (Rheem of the Philippines vs.
Ferrer, 20 SCRA 441).

However, when the use of strong language

has been impelled by the same language
used by the Judge, the lawyer cannot be
blamed (Fernandez vs. Hon. Bello).

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.

It is highly unethical for a lawyer to exert

efforts directly or indirectly, in any way,
encroach
upon
the
professional
employment of another.

As soon as a client retains a counsel, and

had not dismissed the latter, efforts on the
part of another lawyer to take him as a
client constitutes an act of encroaching
upon the employment of another lawyer.

Competition among attorneys is contrary to

the long established etiquette of the legal
profession. No self-respecting practitioner,
will ever voluntarily tender his services in
pending matters then being conducted by
other counsel, and will not obtrude criticism
on acts of a partys attorney.

If, however, the first lawyer was already

dismissed or dispensed with by the client,

the entry of the appearance of another

lawyer in the case is not encroachment
upon the business of another lawyer (Laput
vs. Ramontique, 6 SCRA 45).

A lawyer should not negotiate with the

other who is represented by a counsel
(Likong vs. Lim, 235 SCRA 414).

However, a lawyer may interview any

witness or prospective witness for the
opposing side. But he should avoid any
suggestion calculated to induce the witness
to suppress or deviate from the truth.

Any person who seeks relief against an

unfaithful or neglectful lawyer may
approach another lawyer for proper advice
and assistance. Any advice or assistance
extended after proper verification is not
encroaching upon the business of another
lawyer for such act is justified under the
circumstances. A lawyer shall not abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
defiance of the law or at the lessening
confidence in the legal system.

12 | C a n o n s 3 - 8