Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Branch of moral science which treats of the duties which an attorney owes
to the court, to his client, to his colleagues in the profession and to the public.
It is the embodiment of all principles of morality and refinement that should
govern the conduct of every member of the bar
4 BAR VS BENCH
“Bar” refers to the legal profession.
“Bench” refers to the judiciary.
7 PRO SE?
an appearance by a lawyer in his own behalf
HELD: In the case at bar, Javellana has been arrested based on the filing of the
criminal case against him. Pursuant to the arrest, he is deemed to be under the
custody of law. As a matter of law, when a person indicted for an offense is
arrested, he is deemed placed under the custody of law. He is placed in actual
restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of
the offense. He must be detained in jail during the pendency of case against him,
unless he is authorized by the court to be released on bail or on recognizance.
The more important issue is that all prisoners whether under preventive detention
or serving final sentence CAN NOT PRACTICE THEIR PROFESSION NOR
ENGAGE IN ANY BUSINESSOR OCCUPATION, OR HOLD OFFICE, ELECTIV
EOR APPOINTIVE, WHILE IN DETENTION.
11 PRIVATE PRACTICE (OCA VS LADAGA)
FACTS: Atty. Misael M. Ladaga, Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial
Court of Makati, Branch 133, requested the Court Administrator, Justice Alfredo
L. Benipayo, for authority to appear as Zpro bono counsel of his cousin, Narcisa
Naldoza Ladaga, in Criminal Case No. 84885, entitled People vs. Narcisa
Naldoza Ladaga for Falsification of Public Document pending before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 40. While respondent’s letter-
request was pending action, Lisa Payoyo Andres, the private complainant in
Criminal Case No. 84885, sent a letter to the Court Administrator requesting for a
certification with regard to respondents authority to appear as counsel for the
accused in the said criminal case.
Atty. Ladaga admitted that he had appeared in Criminal Case No. 84885 without
prior authorization for the reason that his cousin who have no means of hiring a
lawyer is facing a member of a powerful family. The Court denied his request for
authorization to appear as counsel and directed the Office of the Court
Administrator to file formal charges against him appearing in court without the
required authorization from the Court. the Court Administrator filed the instant
administrative complaint against respondent for violating Sec. 7(b)(2) of Republic
Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees.
HELD: Private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to
be in the active and continued practice of the legal profession and that his
professional services are available to the public for a compensation, as a source
of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services. It is evident that the
isolated instances when respondent appeared as pro bono counsel of his cousin
in Criminal Case No. 84885 does not constitute the private practice of the law
profession contemplated by law.
During the occasions that the respondent appeared as such counsel before the
METC of Quezon City, he was on official leave of absence. Moreover, his
Presiding Judge, Judge Napoleon Inoturan was aware of the case he was
handling.
While respondents isolated court appearances did not amount to a private
practice of law, he failed to obtain a written permission therefor from the head of
the Department. Atty. Ladaga was reprimanded with a stern warning that any
repetition of such act would be dealt with more severely.
“………a resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the certificate of
the undersigned attorney that at any time in the future and in the event we regain
our faith and confidence, we may retrieve our title to assume the practice of the
noblest profession.”
The genesis of this unfortunate incident was a civil case entitled Yaptichay
v. Calero, in which Atty. Almacen was counsel for the defendant. The trial court
rencered judgment agains his client. On June 15, 1966 atty. Almacen receive
acopy of the decision. Twenty days later on he moved for its reconsideration but
did not notify the latter of the time and plce of hearing on said motion. Meanwhile,
onJuly 18, 1966, the plaintiff moved for execution of the judgment. For lack of
proof of service, ‘the trial court denied both motions. To prove that he did serve
on the adverse party a copy of his first motion for reconsideration, atty. Almacen
filed on August 17, 1966 a second motion for reconsideration, however, was
ordered withdrawn by the trial court on August 30, 1966, upon verbal motion of
Atty. Almacen himself, who earlier, that is, on Aug. 22, 1966 had already perfected
the appeal. Motion for reconsideration was denied by Court of Appeals.
HELD: Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and
as citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels
the acts of courts and judges.
He does not possess any discretion with respect to the matter of admission
of examinees to the bar. He does not a have any business evaluating the answers
of the examinees.
Consequently, Galang was also disbarred Sec. 2 of Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Curt of 1964, candidates for admission to the bar must be of good moral
character. Galang has a pending criminal cases of Physical Injuries, he committed
perjury when he declared under oath that he had no pending criminal case this
resulted him to revoked his license
FACTS: In 1998, Vicente Ching finished his law degree at the Saint Louis
University in Baguio City. He eventually passed the bar but he was advised that
he needs to show proof that he is a Filipino citizen before he be allowed to take his
oath. Apparently, Ching’s father was a Chinese citizen but his mother was a
Filipino citizen. His parents were married before he was born in 1963. Under the
1935 Constitution, a legitimate child, whose one parent is a foreigner, acquires the
foreign citizenship of the foreign parent. Ching maintained that he has always
considered himself as a Filipino; that he is a certified public accountant – a
profession reserved for Filipinos; that he even served as a councilor in a
municipality in La Union.
Ching did elect Filipino citizenship but he only did so when he was preparing
for the bar in 1998 or 14 years after reaching the age of majority. Nevertheless,
the Solicitor-General recommended that the rule be relaxed due to the special
circumstance of Ching.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ching should be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.
Meling explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases because retired
Judge Corocoy Moson, their former professor, advised him to settle
misunderstanding. Believing in good faith that the case would be settled because
the said Judge has moral ascendancy over them, considered the three cases that
arose from a single incident as “closed and terminated.”
Melting also Denies the charges and added that the acts do not involve
moral turpitude.
On the use of the title “Attorney,” Meling admits that some of his communications
really contained the word “Attorney” as they were typed by the office clerk. The
Office of Bar Confidant disposed of the charge of non-disclosure against Meling:
• Meling should have known that only the court of competent jurisdiction
can dismiss cases, not a retired judge nor a law professor. In fact, the
cases filed against Meling are still pending.
• Even if these cases were already dismissed, he is still required to
disclose the same for the Court to ascertain his good moral character.
HELD: 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.”
He is aware that he is not a member of the Bar, there was no valid reason
why he signed as “attorney” whoever may have typed the letters. Unauthorized
use of the appellation “attorney” may render a person liable for indirect contempt
of court.
Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Shari’a Court, is not a
matter of right but merely a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only
learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral character. The
requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission
to the practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in
the practice of law.
FACTS: Atty Froilan Melendrez filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a
Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar
Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate disciplinary penalty as a
member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar. Petitioner Alleges that Meling did not
disclose in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has three (3)
pending criminal cases both for Grave Oral Defamation and for Less Serious
Physical Injuries.
• Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against Melendrez and his wife
in front of media practitioners and other people.
• Meling also purportedly attacked and hit the face of Melendrez’ wife
causing the injuries to the latter.
• Alleges that Meling has been using the title “Attorney” in his
communications, as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the
fact that he is not a member of the Bar.
Meling explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases because retired
Judge Corocoy Moson, their former professor, advised him to settle
misunderstanding. Believing in good faith that the case would be settled because
the said Judge has moral ascendancy over them, considered the three cases that
arose from a single incident as “closed and terminated.”
Melting also Denies the charges and added that the acts do not involve
moral turpitude.
On the use of the title “Attorney,” Meling admits that some of his communications
really contained the word “Attorney” as they were typed by the office clerk. The
Office of Bar Confidant disposed of the charge of non-disclosure against Meling:
• Meling should have known that only the court of competent jurisdiction
can dismiss cases, not a retired judge nor a law professor. In fact, the
cases filed against Meling are still pending.
• Even if these cases were already dismissed, he is still required to
disclose the same for the Court to ascertain his good moral character.
HELD: 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.”
He is aware that he is not a member of the Bar, there was no valid reason
why he signed as “attorney” whoever may have typed the letters. Unauthorized
use of the appellation “attorney” may render a person liable for indirect contempt
of court.
Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Shari’a Court, is not a
matter of right but merely a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only
learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral character. The
requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission
to the practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in
the practice of law.
The full names of lawyers are found in the Rolls of Attorneys of the Supreme
Court, and in a similar list included in a Supreme Court publication entitled Law
List.
After admission to the bar (must remain in good and regular standing)
requirements:
1. Member IBP
2. Regular pay IBP dues
3. Compliant – MCLE
4. 120 hours / year free legal service
5. Faithfully observe rules and ethics of the profession
6. Subject to judicial discipline and control.
18 CONTINUING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRACTICE OF LAW AFTER
PASSING THE BAR
Under the rule, rookie lawyers are given one year after signing the roll of
attorneys to complete the required 120-hour free legal services in criminal, civil
and administrative cases. Aside from indigent litigants, also entitled to pro bono
legal aid are groups, individuals and organizations that cannot get the services of
the Public Attorney’s Office due to conflict of interest. The new lawyers may also
render their professional services for public interest cases and legal issues that
affect the society.
• Faithfully observe rules and ethics of the profession. Subject to judicial discipline
and control.
1. Cases before the MTC: Party to the litigation, in person OR through an agent
or friend or appointed by him for that purpose (Sec. 34, Rule 138, RRC)
2. Before any other court: Party to the litigation, in person (Ibid.)
3. Criminal case before the MTC in a locality where a duly licensed member of
the Bar is not available: the judge may appoint a non-lawyer who is:
4. resident of the province
5. of good repute for probity and ability to aid the accused in his defense (Rule
116, Sec. 7, RRC).
6. Legal Aid Program – A senior law student, who is enrolled in a recognized law
school’s clinical education program approved by the supreme Court may
appear before any court without compensation, to represent indigent clients,
accepted by the Legal Clinic of the law school. The student shall be under the
direct supervision and control of an IBP member duly accredited by the law
school.
7. Under the Labor code, non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any Labor
Arbiter, if
8. they represent themselves, or if
9. they represent their organization or members thereof (Art 222, PO 442, as
amended).
10. Under the Cadastral Act, a non-lawyer can represent a claimant before the
Cadastral Court (Act no. 2259, Sec. 9).