LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

LEGAL ETHICS
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Lawyers Oath; Every lawyer, upon becoming a member of the Philippine Bar, solemnly
takes the Lawyers Oath, by which he vows, among others, that: I will delay no man for money or malice, and will
conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the
courts as to my clients.Every lawyer, upon becoming a member of the Philippine Bar, solemnly takes
the Lawyers Oath, by which he vows, among others, that: I will delay no man for money or malice, and
will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good
fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients. If he should violate the vow, he contravenes the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly its Canon 17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18, viz.:
CANON 17 A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. CANON 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
x x x x 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 clients request for information.
Attorney-Client Relationships; As an essential part of their highly fiduciary relationship, the client is entitled to the
periodic and full updates from the lawyer on the developments of the case.It is beyond debate that the
relationship of the lawyer and the client becomes imbued with trust and confidence from the moment
that the lawyer-client relationship commences, with the lawyer being bound to serve his clients with full
competence, and to attend to their cause with utmost diligence, care and devotion. To accord with this
highly fiduciary relationship, the client expects the lawyer to be always mindful of the formers cause and
to be diligent in handling the formers legal affairs. As an essential part of their highly fiduciary
relationship, the client is entitled to the periodic and full updates from the lawyer on the developments of
the case. The lawyer who neglects to perform his obligations violates Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; His unexplained disregard of the orders issued to him by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) to comment and to appear in the administrative investigation of his misconduct revealed his
irresponsibility as well as his disrespect for the IBP and its proceedings.We further underscore that the
respondent owed it to himself and to the entire Legal Profession of the Philippines to exhibit due respect
towards the IBP as the national organization of all the members of the Legal Profession. His unexplained
disregard of the orders issued to him by the IBP to comment and to appear in the administrative
investigation of his misconduct revealed his irresponsibility as well as his disrespect for the IBP and its
proceedings. He thereby exposed a character flaw that should not tarnish the nobility of the Legal
Profession. He should always bear in mind that his being a lawyer demanded that he conduct himself as
a person of the highest moral and professional integrity and probity in his dealings with others. He
should never forget that his duty to serve his clients with unwavering loyalty and diligence carried with
it the corresponding responsibilities towards the Court, to the Bar, and to the public in general.
Same; Misconduct; There can be no question that a lawyer is guilty of misconduct sufficient to justify his
suspension or disbarment if he so acts as to be unworthy of the trust and confidence involved in his
official oath and is found to be wanting in that honesty and integrity that must characterize the
members of the Bar in the performance of their professional duties.There can be no question that a
lawyer is guilty of misconduct sufficient to justify his suspension or disbarment if he so acts as to be
unworthy of the trust and confidence involved in his official oath and is found to be wanting in that
honesty and integrity that must characterize the members of the Bar in the performance of their
professional duties. Based on all the circumstances in this case, we approve the recommendation of the
IBP for the respondents suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years. Although the
Court imposed a six-month suspension from the practice of law on lawyers violating Canons 17 and 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, the recommended penalty is condign and proportionate to the
offense charged and established because his display of disrespectful defiance of the orders of the IBP
aggravated his misconduct. (Ramiscal vs. Orro, 784 SCRA 421, A.C. No. 10945 February 23, 2016)
A lawyer should advise his client to uphold the law, not to violate or disobey it. Conversely, he should
not recommend to his client any recourse or remedy that is contrary to law, public policy, public order,
and public morals. (Coronel vs. Cunanan, 766 SCRA 258, A.C. No. 6738 August 12, 2015)
Well-entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule that a lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct
committed either in his professional or private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him to be
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether his conduct renders him
unworthy to continue as an officer of the Court. Verily, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates all lawyers to uphold at all times the dignity and integrity of the Legal
Profession. Lawyers are similarly required under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the same Code not to engage in
any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct. Failure to observe these tenets of the Code of
Professional Responsibility exposes the lawyer to disciplinary sanctions as provided in Section 27, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court, as amended. (Campugan vs. Tolentino, Jr., 752 SCRA 254, A.C. No. 8725
March 11, 2015)
Atty. Victorio, Jr. could not be faulted for the perceived inattention to any other matters subsequent to the
termination of Civil Case No. Q-07-59598. Unless otherwise expressly stipulated between them at any
time during the engagement, the complainants had no right to assume that Atty. Victorio, Jr.s legal
representation was indefinite as to extend to his representation of them in the LRA. The Law Profession
did not burden its members with the responsibility of indefinite service to the clients; hence, the rendition
of professional services depends on the agreement between the attorney and the client. Atty. Victorio,
Jr.s alleged failure to respond to the complainants calls or visits, or to provide them with his
whereabouts to enable them to have access to him despite the termination of his engagement in Civil
Case No. Q-07-59598 did not equate to abandonment without the credible showing that he continued to
come under the professional obligation towards them after the termination of Civil Case No. Q-07-59598.
(Campugan vs. Tolentino, Jr., 752 SCRA 254, A.C. No. 8725 March 11, 2015)
The courts may invite experienced and impartial attorneys to appear as amici curiae to help in the
disposition of issues submitted to them. As such, the appearance of amicus curiae, whether by invitation
or by leave, has always been a matter of favor or grace, not of right or privilege. There is no right to
compel the courts to permit amici curiae to appear. This simply means that the intervention of amicus
curiae lies in the discretion of the courts, which may grant or refuse leave, according as they deem the
proffered information timely and useful, or otherwise. Where matters of public concern are involved, the
courts exercise great liberality in granting leave to appear; but where the parties are assisted by
competent counsel, leave to appear as amici curiae has been usually withheld. In general, the courts
desist from allowing the intervention as amicus curiae of anyone whose attitude appears to be partisan
(such as a person in the service of those having private interests in the outcome of the litigation). (Forest
Hills Golf and Country Club, Inc. vs. Gardpro, Inc., 739 SCRA 28, G.R. No. 164686 October 22, 2014)
The Lawyers Oath is a source of obligations and duties for every lawyer, and any violation thereof by an
attorney constitutes a ground for disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary action. The oath exhorts
upon the members of the Bar not to wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit. These are not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld
and keep inviolable. As a lawyer, therefore, Atty. Dealca was aware of his duty under his Lawyers Oath
not to initiate groundless, false or unlawful suits. The duty has also been expressly embodied in Rule
1.03, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility thuswise: Rule 1.03 A lawyer shall not, for
any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any mans cause. (Madrid vs.
Dealca, 734 SCRA 468, A.C. No. 7474 September 9, 2014)
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts empowered to appear, prosecute and defend the legal causes
for their clients. As a consequence, peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved upon them
by law. Verily, their membership in the Bar imposes certain obligations upon them. (Madrid vs. Dealca,
734 SCRA 468, A.C. No. 7474 September 9, 2014)