PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
INTRODUCTION 3. Lawyer. — Person trained in the law, and authorized to
MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE
Legal ethics, meaning. — It is the branch of moral science that
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 as
embodied in the Constitution, Rules of Court, the Code of
Professional Responsibility, Canons of Professional Ethics,
jurisprudence, moral law and special laws. (Pineda, 2009)
Legal ethics, significance. — Set of governing rules that limit the
parameters and tame the exercise of the practice of law.
It guards against the abuses and ills of the profession such as
dishonesty, deceit, immorality, negligence, slothness, lack of
diligence and many forms of malpractice of the members of the Bar.
It raises the standard of the legal profession, encourage and enhance
the respect for the law, assure an effective and efficient
administration of justice, assist in keeping and maintenance of law
with the other departments of the government. It also provides the
basis for weeding out the unfit and the misfit in the legal profession
for the protection of the public. (Pineda, 2009)
BASES OF LEGAL ETHICS
1. Canons of Professional Ethics
The canons were framed by the American Bar
Association in 1908, and were adopted in the Philippines in
1917 by the Philippine Bar. The revised canons were
adopted in the Philippines in 1946.
2. Supreme Court Decisions
3. Statutes
See Articles 1491 (5), 2208 of the Civil Code;
Article 209 of the Revised Penal Code
4. Constitution
Article VIII, Section 5 (5), 1987 Constitution
provides that the Supreme Court shall promulgate rules on
the admission to the Bar, the integration of the bar and legal
assistance to the underprivileged.
5. Treatises and Publications
Present basis of Philippine Legal Ethics. — CODE OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
The Code of Professional Responsibility was promulgated by the
Supreme Court on 21 June 1988.
DEFINITION OF TERMS COMMONLY USED
IN LEGAL ETHICS
1. Bar and bench. — Bar refers the whole body of attorneys
or members of the legal profession. Bench denotes the
whole body of judges.
2. Bar admission. — One is licensed to practice before
courts of a particular state or jurisdiction.
1 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
advise or represent others in legal matters.
4. Trial lawyer. — He personally handles cases in court,
administrative agencies, or board, for the prosecution or
defense of cases of clients.
5. Practicing lawyer. — One who is engaged in the practice
of law.
6. Client. — One who engages the services of a lawyer for
legal advice, or prosecuting or defending a suit in his behalf
and usually for a fee.
7. Attorneys-at-Law. — Officers of the court who are
empowered to appear, prosecute and defend, and upon
whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are
developed by law as a consequence
8. Attorney-in-Fact. — An agent whose authority is strictly
limited by the instrument appointing him. His authority is
provided in a special power of power of attorney or general
power of attorney or letter of attorney. He is not
necessarily a lawyer.
9. Counsel De Oficio. — A counsel, appointed or assigned
by the court, from among such members of the bar in good
standing who, by reason of their experience and ability,
may adequately defend the accused. He need not be a
lawyer.
10. Attorney Ad Hoc. — A person named and appointed by
court to defend an absentee defendant in the suit in which
the appointment is made.
11. Attorney of Record. — Attorney whose name must
appear somewhere in permanent records of a case.
12. Of Counsel. — Those who are associate attorneys, to
distinguish them from counsel of record.
13. Lead Counsel. — One who is charged with the principal
management and direction of party’s case.
14. House Counsel. — Lawyer who acts as attorney for
business though carried as an employee and not as an
independent lawyer.
15. Amicus Curiae. — It means a friend of the court. One
who has strong interest in or views on the subject matter
of an action, but not a party to the action.
16. Amicus Curiae Par Excellence. — Bar associations who
appear in court as amicus curiae.
Amicus curiae acts merely as a consultant to guide the
court in a doubtful question or issue pending before it. He
serves without compensation.
17. Bar Association. — An association of members of the
legal profession.
18. Commission On Bar Discipline. — Investigating arm of
the Supreme Court on administrative matters involving
disbarment cases against lawyers.
19. Advocate. — One who is learned in the law and duly
admitted to practice of law.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
20. Solicitor. — A government lawyer attached with the
Office of the Solicitor General.
21. Titulo de Abogado. — It means not mere possession of
the academic degree of Bachelor of Laws, but membership
in the Bar after due admission thereto, qualifying one for
practice of law.
22. Barrister. — (England) A person entitled to practice law
as an advocate or counsel in superior courts.
23. Solicitor. — (England) A person prosecuting or defending
suits in Courts of Chancery (a court which administers
equity and proceeding according to the forms and
principles of equity.
PRACTICE OF LAW
Section 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court, provides as follows:
Section 1. Who may practice law. Any person heretofore duly
admitted as a member of the bar, or thereafter admitted as such in
accordance with the provisions of this Rule, and who is in good and
regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
CONCEPT
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires
the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts
which the characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law
is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service
requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill. (Cayetano
v. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, 3 September 1991)
PRIVILEGE
The practice of law is not a property right but a mere privilege and
as such must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the court to
exact compliance with the lawyer’s public responsibilities.
While it is unquestionable that the practice of law is a privilege, it is
also in the nature of a right because the lawyer cannot be prevented
from practicing law except for valid reasons as the practice of law is
not a matter of State’s grace or favor.
PROFESSION, NOT BUSINESS
The practice of law is a profession and not a business as it is an
essential part in the administration of justice, a profession in pursuit
of which pecuniary reward is considered as merely incidental; it is a
pursuit of learned art in the interest of public service.
QUALIFICATIONS FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR
1. Citizen of the Philippines
2. At least twenty-one years of age
3. Of good moral character
4. Resident of the Philippines
5. Production before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence
(a) of good moral character and (b) that no charges
against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or
are pending in any court in the Philippines
2 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
See Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Note: With regard to the requirement of good moral character, the
candidate must hold and continue to possess it even after he has
been admitted to the legal profession.
After passing the Bar examinations, the candidate shall take his
lawyer’s oath before the Supreme Court (Section 17, Rule 138, Rules
of Court) followed later by his signing of the Roll of Attorneys — in
which Roll he is assigned a permanent number. Thereafter, he is
issued a certificate of membership by the Clerk of Court of the
Supreme Court. From this point in time, he is deemed authorized to
practice law in the Philippines (Section 18, Rule 132, Rules of Court).
QUALIFICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP IN GOOD
STANDING IN THE BAR
Membership in good standing is a continuing requirement. This
means continued membership and, concomitantly, payment of
annual membership dues in the IBP; payment of the annual
professional tax; compliance with the mandatory continuing legal
education requirement; faithful observance of the rules and ethics of
the legal profession and being continually subject to judicial
disciplinary control. (Petition for leave to resume practice of law,
Benjamin M. Dacanay, petitioner, B.M. No. 1678, December 17,
2007)
APPEARANCE BY NON-LAWYERS (LAW STUDENT PRACTICE,
NON-LAWYERS IN COURTS AND OTHER TRIBUNALS
General rule: Only those who are licensed to practice law can appear
and handle cases in court.
Exceptions:
1. In cases before the Municipal Trial Court, a party may
conduct his own case or litigation in person, with the aid
of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose.
2. Before any court, a party may conduct his own litigation
personally. But, if he gets someone to aid him, that
someone must be an authorized member of the bar. He is
bound by the same rules in conducting the trial of his case.
He cannot, after judgment, claim he was not properly
represented by counsel.
3. In a criminal case before a municipal trial court in a locality
where a duly licensed member of the Bar is not available,
the judge may appoint a non-lawyer who is a resident in
the province, of good repute for probity and ability to aid
the accused in his defense. If there are available members
of the bar, the judge cannot appoint a non-lawyer as
defense counsel for the accused.
4. 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.
5. Under the Labor Code, non-lawyers may appear before the
National Labor Relations Commission or any Labor Arbiter,
if (1) they represent themselves, or if (2) they represent
their organization or members thereof with written
authorization of the latter, or (3) they are duly accredited
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
members of any legal aid office duly recognized by the
Department of Justice, or the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines in cases referred to by the latter.
6. Under the Cadastral Act, a non-lawyer can represent a
claimant before the cadastral court.
7. Any person appointed to appear for the Government of the
Philippines in accordance with law.
8. A non-lawyer may represent a party before
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board.
Illustrative Case:
Cruz v. Mina, G.R. No. 154207, April 27, 2007
Issue: Whether petitioner Cruz, a law student, may appear before an
inferior court as agent or friend of a party litigant.
Ruling: Yes. A law student may appear before an inferior court as an
agent or friend of a party without the supervision of a member of the
bar.
The courts a quo held that the Law Student Practice Rule as
encapsulated in Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court, prohibits the
petitioner, as a law student, from entering his appearance in behalf
of his father, the private complainant in the criminal case without the
supervision of an attorney duly accredited by the law school.
Rule 138-A or the Law Student Practice Rule, provides:
RULE 138-A
LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE
Section 1. Conditions for Student Practice. A law student
who has successfully completed his 3rd year of the regular
four-year prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a
recognized law school's clinical legal education program
approved by the Supreme Court, may appear without
compensation in any civil, criminal or administrative case
before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer, to
represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the
law school.
Sec. 2. Appearance. The appearance of the law student
authorized by this rule, shall be under the direct supervision
and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines duly accredited by the law school. Any and all
pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to
be filed, must be signed by the supervising attorney for and
in behalf of the legal clinic.
However, in Resolution dated June 10, 1997 in Bar Matter No. 730,
the Court En Banc clarified:
The rule, however, is different if the law student appears
before an inferior court, where the issues and procedure
are relatively simple. In inferior courts, a law student may
appear in his personal capacity without the supervision of
a lawyer. Section 34, Rule 138 provides:
Sec. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. - In the
court of a justice of the peace, a party may
conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of
an agent or friend appointed by him for that
purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any
other court, a party may conduct his litigation
personally or by aid of an attorney, and his
3 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
appearance must be either personal or by a duly
authorized member of the bar.
Thus, a law student may appear before an inferior court as an
agent or friend of a party without the supervision of a member
of the bar.
The phrase In the court of a justice of the peace in Bar Matter No.
730 is subsequently changed to In the court of a municipality as it
now appears in Section 34 of Rule 138, thus:
the
SEC. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. In the Court of a
municipality a party may conduct his litigation in person,
with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that
purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court,
a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an
attorney and his appearance must be either personal or by
a duly authorized member of the bar.
which is the prevailing rule at the time the petitioner filed his Entry
of Appearance with the MeTC on September 25, 2000. No real
distinction exists for under Section 6, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court,
the term “Municipal Trial Courts” as used in these Rules shall include
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
There is really no problem as to the application of Section 34 of Rule
138 and Rule 138-A. In the former, the appearance of a non-lawyer,
as an agent or friend of a party litigant, is expressly allowed, while
the latter rule provides for conditions when a law student, not as an
agent or a friend of a party litigant, may appear before the courts.
PROCEEDINGS WHERE LAWYERS ARE PROHIBITED
FROM APPEARING
1. Small claims cases
a. Section 19. Appearance of Attorneys Not
Allowed. — No attorney shall appear in behalf of
or represent a party at the hearing, unless the
attorney is the plaintiff or defendant.
If the court determines that a party cannot
properly present his/ her claim or defense and
needs assistance, the court may, in its
discretion, allow another individual who is not an
attorney to assist that party upon the latter’s
consent. (2016 Revised Rules of Procedure for
Small Claims)
2. Katarungang Pambarangay
a. Section 415. Appearance of Parties in Person. —
In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings,
the parties must appear in person without the
assistance of counsel or representative, except
for minors and incompetents who may be
assisted by their next-of-kin who are not
lawyers. (Republic Act No. 7160, Local
Government Code of 1991)
SANCTIONS FOR PRACTICE OR APPEARANCE WITHOUT
AUTHORITY
1. Lawyers without authority
2. Persons who are not lawyers
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
Shari’a Bar passers are not full-fledged Philippine Bar members so
they may only practice before Shari’a courts. Both are counselors,
but only the latter is an “attorney.”
REMEDIES AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE
Sanctions against lawyers
1. Petition for injunction
2. Declaratory relief
3. Contempt of court
4. Disqualification and complaints for disbarment
5. Criminal complaint for estafa against the person who
falsely represented himself as a lawyer to the damage of
another
6. Administrative complaint against the erring lawyer or
government official
Sanctions against persons who are not lawyers
1. Declaratory relief
2. Petition for injunction
3. Contempt of court
4. Criminal complaint for estafa against the person who
falsely represented himself to be an attorney to the
damage of another
Note: A disbarred or suspended lawyer had no more authority to
appear in court as a lawyer.
PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND THE PRACTICE OF LAW
Republic Act No. 6713, “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees”
Section 3. Definition of terms. — As used in this act:
… and other administrative bodies.
(b) “Public Officials” includes elective and appointive officials and
employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non-
career service, including military and police personnel, whether or
not they receive compensation, regardless of amount.
… a. Appear as counsel before any court in any civil
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. — In addition to acts
and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the
Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute
prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee
and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
… in relation to his office
(b) Outside employment and other activities related
thereto. — Public officials and employees during
their incumbency shall not: …
(2) Engage in the private practice of their
profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided, that such practice
will not conflict or tend to conflict with their
official functions; …
PROHIBITION OR DISQUALIFICATION OF FORMER
GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS
RULE 6.03 A lawyer shall not, after leaving a government service,
accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in said service.
A government lawyer may leave the government service in various
ways: retirement, resignation, expirations of the term of office,
4 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
dismissal or abandonment. Whichever way he leaves the service, he
is prohibited by the Rule from accepting engagement or employment
in connection with any matter in which he had intervened
while in said service. (Pineda, 2009)
PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO CANNOT PRACTICE LAW OR
WITH RESTRICTIONS
ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION
1. Judges and other officials or employees of the superior
court (Section 35, Rule 138, Rules of Court)
2. Officials and employees of the Office of the Solicitor
General (Ibid.)
3. Government prosecutors
4. President, Vice President, Members of the Cabinet, their
deputies and assistants (Section 13, Article VIII, 1987
Constitution)
5. Members of Constitutional Commissions (Section 2, Article
IX-A, 1987 Constitution)
6. Members of the Judicial Bar Council
7. Ombudsman and his deputies (Section 8, Article IX, 1987
Constitution)
8. All governors, city and municipal mayors (Section 90, R.A.
No. 7160)
9. Those who by special law are prohibited from engaging in
the practice of their legal profession
RELATIVE PROHIBITION
1. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives
may personally appear as counsel before any court of
justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial
2. Sanggunian members may practice their profession,
provided that if they are members of the Bar, they shall
not:
case wherein a local government unit or any
office, agency, or instrumentality of the
government is the adverse party
b. Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein
an officer or employees of the national or local
government is accused of an offense committed
c. Collect any fee for their appearance in
administrative proceedings involving the local
government unit of which he is an official; and
d. Use property and personnel of the Government
except when the sanggunian member concerned
is defending the interest of the Government.
3. A retired justice or judge receiving pension from the
Government cannot act as counsel in any civil case in
which the Government or any of its subdivisions or
agencies is the adverse party or in a criminal case wherein
an officer or employee of the Government is accused of an
offense in relation to his office.
4. Civil service officers and employees without permit from
their respective department heads.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
LAWYERS AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE
GOVERNMENT
1. Solicitor General
2. Any person appointed to appear for the government of the
Philippines in accordance with law
LAWYER’S OATH
I, _____ of (place of birth), do solemnly swear that I will maintain
allegiance to 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 willingly nor
wittingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or
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 my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well
to the court as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this
voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion. So, help me God.
SIGNIFICANCE OF LAWYER’S OATH
By swearing the lawyer’s oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of
truth and the rule law, and an indispensable instrument in the fair
and impartial administration of justice — a vital function of
democracy, a failure of which is disastrous to society (Pineda, 2009,
citing Busiños v. Ricafort, 283 SCRA 407).
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO TAKE THE ATTORNEY’S OATH
A successful bar candidate who was allowed to sign by the Clerk of
the Supreme Court to sign the Roll of Attorney’s but was unable to
take his oath before the Supreme Court, although he paid his IBP
dues and listed as “qualified voter” in IBP affairs, cannot be admitted
to the Bar without having actually taken his oath of office as an
attorney (Ibid., citing In re: Elmo S. Abad, B.M. No. 139, March 18,
1983).
Illustrative Cases
Cayetano vs. Monsod
201 SCRA 210
Facts:
In 1991, Christian Monsod was appointed as the Chairman of the
Commission on Elections. His appointment was affirmed by the
Commission on Appointments. Monsod’s appointment was opposed
by Renato Cayetano on the ground that he does not qualify for he
failed to meet the Constitutional requirement which provides that the
chairman of the COMELEC should have been engaged in the practice
law for at least ten years. Cayetano claimed that Monsod had barely
even appeared in a courtroom for the ten years prior to his
appointment.
Monsod’s track record as a lawyer:
1. Passed the bar in 1960 with a rating of 86.55%.
2. Immediately after passing, worked in his father’s law firm
for one year.
3. Thereafter, until 1970, he went abroad where he had a
degree in economics and held various positions in various
foreign corporations.
5 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
4. In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and held executive
jobs for various local corporations until 1986.
5. In 1986, he became a member of the Constitutional
Commission.
Issues:
(1) Whether Monsod qualifies as chairman of the COMELEC.
(2) What constitutes practice of law?
Ruling:
(1) Yes. Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-economist,
a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-
negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and
the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement —
that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
(2) As noted by various authorities, the practice of law is not limited
to court appearances. The members of the bench and bar and the
informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in most developed
societies today, substantially more legal work is transacted in law
offices than in the courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do
both litigation and non-litigation work also know that in most cases
they find themselves spending more time doing what is loosely
described as business counseling than in trying cases. In the course
of a working day the average general practitioner will engage in a
number of legal tasks, each involving different legal doctrines, legal
skills, legal processes, legal institutions, clients, and other interested
parties. Even the increasing numbers of lawyers in specialized
practice wig usually perform at least some legal services outside their
specialty. By no means will most of this work involve litigation, unless
the lawyer is one of the relatively rare types — a litigator who
specializes in this work to the exclusion of much else. Instead, the
work will require the lawyer to have mastered the full range of
traditional lawyer skills of client counseling, advice-giving, document
drafting, and negotiation.
Philippine Lawyer's Association vs. Agrava
105 Phil 173
Facts:
Celedonio Agrava, Director of the Phil. Patent Office, issued a circular
announcing that an examination for the purpose of determining who
are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines
Patent Office. Members of the Philippine Bar are to take the said
examination.
Issues:
1. Whether appearance before the patent Office and the preparation
and the prosecution of patent applications constitutes or is included
in the practice of law.
2. Whether a lawyer can be qualified to apply before the Philippine
Patent Office without taking a qualification test.
Ruling:
As to the practice of law
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation
in court; it includes preparation of pleadings and other papers
incident to actions and social proceedings. What constitutes practice
of law are all advice to clients and all actions where the work done
involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal
effect of facts and conditions.
The practice of law includes such appearance before the
Patent Office, the representation of applicants, oppositors,
and other persons, and the prosecution of their applications
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
for patent, their oppositions thereto, or the enforcement of
their rights in patent cases. Practice before the Patent Office
involves the interpretation and application of other laws and legal
principles, as well as the existence of facts to be established in
accordance with the law of evidence and procedure. They call for
legal knowledge, training and experience for which a member of the
bar has been prepared.
As to the qualification test
Members of the Philippine Bar authorized by the Supreme Court to
practice law, and in good standing, may practice their profession
before the Patent Office, for the reason that much of the business in
said office involves the interpretation and determination of the scope
and application of the Patent Law and other laws applicable, as well
as the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved.
The director is hereby prohibited from requiring members of the
Philippine Bar to submit to an examination or tests and pass the same
before being permitted to appear and practice before the Patent
Office.
In Re: Al Argosino
Bar Matter No. 712
Facts:
Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar examinations held in 1993.
However, the Court deferred his oath-taking due to his previous
conviction for the death of Raul Camaligan because of the "hazing"
injuries he sustained as part of university fraternity initiation rites, of
which Argosino was held complicit.
In 1995, he petitioned the Court to take the Lawyer’s Oath after the
expiration of his original probation period. But the Court first required
him to submit evidence to establish his good moral character.
Hence, in compliance with such, Argosino submitted no less than 15
certifications/letters executed by 2 senators, 5 trial court judges, and
6 members of religious orders attesting to his good moral character.
He also submitted evidence that a scholarship foundation had been
established in honor of Raul Camaligan, the hazing victim, through
joint efforts of the latter's family and the eight (8) accused in the
criminal case. More importantly, Atty. Gilbert Camaligan, father of
Raul, after being required to comment on Argosino’s petition, said
that he has already forgiven Argosino as a Christian and left the
determination of the merit of his petition to the Court.
Issue:
In view of the evidences submitted, has Argosino demonstrated his
good moral character as to convince the Court that he is worthy of
entering the legal profession?
Ruling:
YES, the Court was persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all
efforts to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. He was given the
benefit of the doubt, taking judicial notice of the general tendency of
youth to be rash, temerarious and uncalculating. It recognized that
Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber. On the contrary,
the various certifications showed that he was a devout Catholic with
a genuine concern for civic duties and public service.
Consequently, Argosino was allowed to take the lawyer's oath on a
date to be set by the Court, to sign the Roll of Attorneys and,
thereafter, to practice the legal profession.
6 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
In Re: Borromeo
241 SCRA 405
Facts:
The respondent in this case, Joaquin T. Borromeo, who has, for some
sixteen (16) years now, from 1978 to the present, been instituting
and prosecuting legal proceedings in various courts, dogmatically
pontificating on errors supposedly committed by the courts, including
the Supreme Court. Under the illusion that his trivial acquaintance
with the law had given him competence to undertake litigation, he
has ventured to represent himself in numerous original and review
proceedings. Expectedly, the results have been disastrous. In the
process, and possibly in aid of his interminable and quite
unreasonable resort to judicial proceedings, he has seen fit to
compose and circulate many scurrilous statements against courts,
judges and their employees, as well as his adversaries, for which he
is now being called to account. In those publicly circulated writings,
he calls judges and lawyers ignorant, corrupt, oppressors, violators
of the Constitution and the laws, etc.
Issue:
Are lawyers entitled to the same degree of latitude of freedom of
speech towards the Court?
Ruling:
No. There can scarcely be any doubt of Borromeo's guilt of contempt,
for abuse of and interference with judicial rules and processes, gross
disrespect to courts and judges and improper conduct directly
impeding, obstructing and degrading the administration of justice. He
stubbornly litigated issues already declared to be without merit,
rendered adversely to him in many suits and proceedings, rulings
which had become final and executory, obdurately and unreasonably
insisting on the application of his own individual version of the rules,
founded on nothing more than his personal (and quite erroneous)
reading of the Constitution and the law; he has insulted the judges
and court officers, including the attorneys appearing for his
adversaries, needlessly overloaded the court dockets and sorely tried
the patience of the judges and court employees who have had to act
on his repetitious and largely unfounded complaints, pleadings and
motions. On the contention that he "was exercising his rights of
freedom of speech, of expression, and to petition the government for
redress of grievances as guaranteed by the Constitution (Sec. 4, Art.
III) and in accordance with the accountability of public officials." The
constitutional rights invoked by him afford no justification for
repetitious litigation of the same causes and issues, for insulting
lawyers, judges, court employees; and other persons, for abusing the
processes and rules of the courts, wasting their time, and bringing
them into disrepute and disrespect.
In Re: Dacanay
B.M. No. 1678
Facts:
Mr. Benjamin Dacanay wanted to resume his practice of law. He was
admitted to the Bar in 1960. However, due to his illness, he went to
Canada in 1998 and applied for Canadian citizenship to avail the
benefits there. His application was approved in 2004. Pursuant to the
RA 9225, petitioner reacquired his citizenship. He took an oath of
allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate General
in Canada. He returned to the Philippines and intended resume
practice law.
The Office of the Bar Confidant opined that Dacanay should be
admitted to the law practice again because by the virtue of his
reacquisition of his citizenship, Dacanay has again met all the
qualifications and has none of the disqualifications. As long has he
will take the lawyer’s oath again, he will be able to practice law.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
Issue:
Whether petitioner Dacanay lost his membership in the Philippine Bar
when he gave up his Philippines citizenship in 2004.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court approved the recommendation of the Office of
the Bar Confidant with certain modifications. Admission to the bar
requires certain qualifications. The Rules of Court requires that the
applicant must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least 21 years old,
of good moral character and a resident of the Philippines. He must
also produce evidence that no charges against him, involving moral
turpitude have been filed or are pending in any court. Moreover,
there are also various phases that the applicant must undergo such
as furnishing satisfactory proof of education, moral and other
qualifications; passing the bar; taking the lawyer’s oath and signing
the roll of attorneys and receiving from the clerk of court a certificate
of the license to practice.
The second requisite for the practice of law is membership in good
standing. This means that a member of the bar must have continued
membership and must have continuously paid the annual
membership of IBP dues; he must have also paid the annual
professional tax; compliance with the mandatory continuing legal
education requirement; faithful observance of the rules and ethics of
the legal profession.
A lawyer who lost his Filipino citizenship cannot practice law
anymore. However, pursuant to RA 9225, if Filipino citizenship is lost
by reason of naturalization as a citizen of another country but
subsequently reacquired it, said former member of the bar can still
practice law. According to the said law, “all Philippine citizens
who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not
to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions
of RA 9225.” It is as if he never lost his citizenship. However,
this is subject to certain condition according to the Supreme
Court. These are:
1) The updating and the payment in full of the annual
membership dues in the IBP;
2) Payment of professional tax;
3) Completion of at least 36 credit hours of MCLE to refresh
the applicant or petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws
and jurisprudence; and
4) Retaking of the lawyer’s oath.
These four requirements must be complied with first before Dacanay
can practice law again.
Catu vs. Rellosa
A.C. No. 5738
Facts:
Respondent, ATTY. VICENTE G. RELLOSA, is the punong barangay
of Brgy. 723. A complaint was filed by Regina Catu and Antonio Catu
against Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu (Elizabeth) and Antonio Pastor
(Pastor) for failure to vacate the premises, despite demand, before
his office.
It appears that: complainant, Wilfredo M. Catu, is a co-owner of a lot
and the building in Malate, Manila; his mother and brother, Regina
Catu and Antonio Catu, respectively, contested the possession of
Elizabeth and Pastor of one of the units in the building.
Respondent heard the complaint of Regina and Antonio against
Elizabeth and Pastor. The parties, however, were not able to
amicably settle their dispute. So, Regina and Antonio filed a
complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor in the MTC of
Manila, Branch 11.
7 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants,
Elizabeth and Pastor. As a result, complainant filed the administrative
complaint. According to the IBP-CBD, respondent violated Rule 6.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and as an elective
official, respondent contravened the prohibition under Section
7(b)(2) of RA 6713, Thus, respondent’s violation of this prohibition
constituted a breach of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Issues:
1. Whether respondent can be held liable for violating Rule 6.03 of
the CPR.
2. Whether respondent can be held liable for Section 7(b)(2) of RA
6713.
Ruling:
1. No, he cannot be held liable under Rule 6.03 of the CPR. The rule
applies only to a lawyer who has left government service….
Respondent was an incumbent punong barangay at the time he
committed the act. Therefore, he was not covered by that provision.
Section 90 of RA 7160, Not Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713, Governs The
Practice of Profession of Elective Local Government Officials
Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713 prohibits public officials and employees,
during their incumbency, from engaging in the private practice of
their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law. This is
the general law which applies to all public officials and employees.
For elective local government officials, Section 90 of RA 7160. This is
a special provision that applies specifically to the practice of
profession by elective local officials. As a special law with a definite
scope, it constitutes an exception to Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713, the
general law on engaging in the private practice of profession by
public officials and employees. Lex specialibus derogat generalibus.
Under RA 7160, the punong barangay is an elective local official of
provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays. Of the elective local
officials, governors, city mayors and municipal mayors are prohibited
from practicing their profession or engaging in any occupation other
than the exercise of their functions as local chief executives. It is
because they are required to render full time service. They should
therefore devote all their time and attention to the performance of
their official duties.
While certain local elective officials are expressly subjected to a total
or partial proscription to practice their profession, no such interdiction
is made on the punong barangay. Expressio unius est exclusio
alterius. Since they are excluded from any prohibition, the
presumption is that they are allowed to practice their profession.
Accordingly, as punong barangay, respondent was not forbidden to
practice his profession. However, he should have procured prior
permission or authorization from the head of his Department, as
required by civil service regulations.
A lawyer in government service who is not prohibited to practice law
must secure prior authority from the head of his department.
A civil service officer or employee whose responsibilities do not
require his time to be fully at the disposal of the government can
engage in the private practice of law only with the written permission
of the head of the department concerned. Section 12, Rule XVIII of
the Revised Civil Service Rules.
As punong barangay, respondent should have obtained the prior
written permission of the Secretary of DILG before he entered his
appearance as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor. This he failed to do.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
Failure of respondent to comply with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the
Revised Civil Service Rules constitutes a violation of his oath as a
lawyer: to obey the laws. Lawyers are servants of the law, vires legis,
men of the law.
In acting as counsel for a party without first securing the required
written permission, respondent not only engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law but also violated civil service rules which is a breach
of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
For not living up to his oath as well as for not complying with the
exacting ethical standards of the legal profession, respondent failed
to comply with Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULE 138, RULES OF COURT
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,
8 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
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.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
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 office.
Section 18. Certificate. — The supreme Court shall
thereupon admit the applicant as a member of the bar for all the
9 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
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.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
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.
10 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
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
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
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.
RULE 138-A, RULES OF COURT
Law Student Practice Rule
Section 1. Conditions for student practice. — A law student who has
successfully completed his 3rd year of the regular four-year
prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law school's
clinical legal education program approved by the Supreme Court,
may appear without compensation in any civil, criminal or
administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer,
to represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law
school.
Section 2. Appearance. — The appearance of the law student
authorized by this rule, shall be under the direct supervision and
control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly
accredited by the law school. Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs,
memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be signed by the
supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic.
Section 3. Privileged communications. — The Rules safeguarding
privileged communications between attorney and client shall apply to
similar communications made to or received by the law student,
acting for the legal clinic.
Section 4. Standards of conduct and supervision. — The law student
shall comply with the standards of professional conduct governing
members of the Bar. Failure of an attorney to provide adequate
supervision of student practice may be a ground for disciplinary
action. (Circular No. 19, dated December 19, 1986).
Recent Cases (2014-2017)
Feliciano v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada
A.C. No. 7593, March 11, 2015
It is clear that when Atty. Lozada appeared for and in behalf of her
husband and actively participated in the proceedings therein within
the two (2)-year suspension, she, therefore, engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law. Atty. Lozada would have deserved a
harsher penalty, but this Court recognizes the fact that it is part of
the Filipino culture that amid an adversity, families will always look
out and extend a helping hand to a family member, more so, in this
case, to a spouse. Disbarment of lawyers is a proceeding that aims
to purge the law profession of unworthy members of the bar. It is
intended to preserve the nobility and honor of the legal profession.
While the Supreme Court has the plenary power to discipline erring
lawyers through this kind of proceedings, it does so in the most
vigilant manner so as not to frustrate its preservative principle.
Baens v. Atty. Sempio
A.C. No. 10378, June 9, 2014
The relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with
utmost trust and confidence. In this regard, clients are led to expect
11 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
that lawyers would be ever-mindful of their cause and accordingly
exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. For
his part, the lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high
standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill,
and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and
whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. Lawyering is not a
business; it is a profession in which duty of public service, not money,
is the primary consideration.
Tan v. Diamante
A.C. No. 7766, August 5, 2014
The petitioner filed an administrative complaint against the
respondent. The respondent denied the allegations. The Supreme
Court ruled that deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are
disgraceful and dishonorable. They reveal moral flaws in a lawyer.
They are unacceptable practices. A lawyer’s relationship with others
should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith, fairness
and candor. This is the essence of the lawyer’s oath. The lawyer’s
oath is not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that
must be upheld and keep inviolable. The nature of the office of an
attorney requires that he should be a person of good moral character.
This requisite is not only a condition precedent to the admission to
the practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for
remaining in the practice of law. We have sternly warned that any
gross misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private
capacity, puts his moral character in serious doubt as a member of
the Bar, and renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.
Lingan v. Attys. Calubaquib and Baliga
A.C. No. 5377, June 30, 2014
Practice of law is “any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience.” It includes “[performing] acts which are characteristics
of the [legal] profession” or “[rendering any kind of] service [which]
requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.”
Work in government that requires the use of legal knowledge is
considered practice of law. In Cayetano v. Monsod, this court cited
the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission and agreed
that work rendered by lawyers in the Commission on Audit requiring
"[the use of] legal knowledge or legal talent" is practice of law.
The exercise of the powers and functions of a Commission on Human
Rights Regional Director constitutes practice of law. Thus, the
Regional Director must be an attorney - a member of the bar in good
standing and authorized to practice law. When the Regional Director
loses this authority, such as when he or she is disbarred or suspended
from the practice of law, the Regional Director loses a necessary
qualification to the position he or she is holding. The disbarred or
suspended lawyer must desist from holding the position of Regional
Director.
Bunagan-Bansig v. Atty. Celera
A.C. No. 5581, January 14, 2014
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality
required of him as a member of the Bar. He made a mockery of
marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act
of contracting a second marriage while his first marriage is subsisting
constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment
under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
This case cannot be fully resolved, however, without addressing
rather respondent’s defiant stance against the Court as demonstrated
by his repetitive disregard of its Resolution requiring him to file his
comment on the complaint. This case has dragged on since 2002. In
the span of more than 10 years, the Court has issued numerous
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018

directives for respondent's compliance, but respondent seemed to

have pre-selected only those he will take notice of and the rest he
will just ignore. The Court has issued several resolutions directing
respondent to comment on the complaint against him, yet, to this
day, he has not submitted any answer thereto. He claimed to have
not received a copy of the complaint, thus, his failure to comment on
the complaint against him. Ironically, however, whenever it is a show
cause order, none of them have escaped respondent's attention.
Even assuming that indeed the copies of the complaint had not
reached him, he cannot, however, feign ignorance that there is a
complaint against him that is pending before this Court which he
could have easily obtained a copy had he wanted to.

Clearly, respondent's acts constitute willful disobedience of the lawful

orders of this Court, which under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court is in itself alone a sufficient cause for suspension or
disbarment. Respondent’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the
orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the
judicial institution. Respondent’s conduct indicates a high degree of
irresponsibility. We have repeatedly held that a Court’s Resolution is
"not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied
with partially, inadequately, or selectively." Respondent’s obstinate
refusal to comply with the Court’s orders "not only betrays a
recalcitrant flaw in his character; it also underscores his disrespect of
the Court's lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof."

Considering respondent's propensity to disregard not only the laws

of the land but also the lawful orders of the Court, it only shows him
to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good
demeanor. He is, thus, unworthy to continue as an officer of the
court.

12 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 8. Collecting money on the pretense that the counsel will file
an appeal despite knowing that the decision is already final
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF 9. Inducing someone to buy a piece of land that is not for
A LAWYER TO SOCIETY sale
10. Failure to account money collected for the client
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE 11. Stealing evidence attached to the court records
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND 12. Adamant refusal to return money received but intended for
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL a party and issuing a bouncing check in payment therefor
PROCESSES. 13. Notarization of a falsified deed of sale of client’s property
14. Misappropriating the settlement amount which counsel
RULE 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, received for the client
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. 15. Evading payment of debt
16. Misrepresenting that a lawyer was still with a law firm
UNLAWFUL CONDUCT 17. Committing falsehood in stating in his motion for
Includes violation of the statutory prohibition on a government postponement that he had to appear in another case, when
employee to engage in the private practice of his profession unless there was none
authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice 18. Lawyer altered material date to make it appear that Notice
will no conflict or tend to conflict with his official functions. of Appeal was timely filed.
19. Notarizing of documents despite expiration of notarial
MORALITY commission
This is a human standard based on the natural moral law which is
embedded in man’s conscience and which guides him to do good and INSTANCES OF GROSS IMMORALITY
avoid evil. It must be grossly immoral, which is unquestionably so corrupt or
unprincipled.
IMMORAL CONDUCT
That which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral 1. Abandonment of wife and cohabiting with another woman
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of 2. Bigamy
the community. 3. One who had carnal knowledge with a woman through a
promise of marriage which he did not fulfill
MORAL TURPITUDE 4. Seduction of a woman who is the niece of a married
It includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, woman with whom the lawyer had adulterous relations
modesty or good morals. 5. Lawyer who arranged the marriage of his son to a woman
with whom the lawyer has illicit relations, and continued
MORAL CHARACTER DISTINGUISHED FROM GOOD the adulterous relations even after the marriage.
REPUTATION 6. Lawyer inveigling a woman that they had been married
Moral character is what a person really is, as distinguished from good civilly to satisfy carnal desires.
reputation, or from the opinion generally entertained of him, the 7. Lawyer using his position to have carnal knowledge with a
estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where he is student under the threat of failing grades if she refused
known. 8. Concubinage coupled with failure to support illegitimate
children
CRIMES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE 9. Maintaining adulterous relationship with a married woman
1. Estafa 10. Delivering bribe money to a judge on request of clients
2. Bribery 11. Seducing woman through promise of marriage by a
3. Murder married lawyer
4. Bigamy
5. Seduction Immorality has not been confined to sexual matters, but includes
6. Abduction conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption,
7. Concubinage indecency, depravity and dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant, or
8. Smuggling shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of
9. Falsification of public document respectable members of the community, and an inconsiderate
10. Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 attitude toward good order and public welfare.

The lawyers involved had shown their unfitness to protect the

administration of justice, or are no longer of good moral character,
which justifies their suspension or disbarment.
CASES OF DISHONESTY AND DECEIT
1. Misappropriation of client’s funds
2. Fraudulent concealment of dutiable importation or
smuggling
3. Giving false statements under oath
4. Wanton falsehood made in an ex parte petition
5. Maneuvering reconveyance of property in the name of the
lawyer instead of the client — in a case involving sale with
pacto de retro
6. Submission or presentation of mutilated copies of certain
documents to court for the purpose of misleading and
deceiving it.
7. Falsification of grades in the Bar examinations
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.
A lawyer should not render any service or advice to any client — no
matter how powerful or important is the cause — which will involve
disloyalty to the laws of the country which he is bound to uphold and
obey. If he does so, he invites and merits stern and just
condemnation.
RULE 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or
interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any
man's cause.

13 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
Lawyers owe it to the court and to society not to stir up litigations.
While the act is not a crime, it is proscribed by the rules of legal
ethics.
BARRATRY AND AMBULANCE CHASING, PROHIBITED,
MEANING
Barratry is the offense of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels
and suits. It is the lawyer’s act of fomenting suits among individuals
and offering his legal services to one of them for monetary motives
or purposes.
Ambulance chasing is the lawyer’s act of chasing an ambulance
carrying the victim of an accident for the purpose of talking to the
said victim or relatives and offering his legal services for the filing of
a case against the person who caused the accident.
EVILS SPAWNED BY AMBULANCE CHASING
1. Fomenting of litigation with resulting burdens on the courts
and the public
2. Subornation of perjury
3. Mulcting of innocent persons by judgments upon
manufactured causes of action
4. Defrauding of injured persons having proper causes of
action but ignorant of legal rights and court procedure by
means of contracts which retain exorbitant percentages of
recovery and illegal charges for court costs and expenses
and by settlement made quick for returns of fees and
against the just rights of injured persons
VOLUNTEER LEGAL ADVICE TO BRING LAWSUIT,
UNETHICAL; EXCEPTION
It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer legal advice to bring a
lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust
make it his duty to do so.
Note: It is even the lawyer’s duty to resist the whims and caprices of
his client and to temper his client’s propensity to litigate. It is his duty
as an officer of the court not to be an instigator of any controversy.
DELAYING ANY MAN’S CAUSE FOR CORRUPT MOTIVE,
CONDEMNED
In his lawyer’s oath, he had sworn not to delay any man’s cause for
money or malice. Thus, a lawyer cannot delay the approval of a
compromise agreement entered into between the parties, just
because his attorney’s fees were not provided for in the agreement.
INSTANCES OF DELAY CONDEMNED BY THE SUPREME
COURT
1. Resort to technicalities as a means to frustrate justice
2. Befuddling the issues in the case
3. Filing of multiple or repetitious petitions which delays
execution of final and executory judgment
4. Filing of several actions covering same subject matter or
seeking substantially identical relief
5. Filing of frivolous appeals
6. Filing of motions for postponement and other kinds of
motions for dilatory purposes
7. Indiscriminate filing of suits against a party clearly
intended for harassment
8. Delaying cases or services for money
14 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
RULE 1.04. A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid,
end or settle a controversy if it will admit a fair
settlement.
The settlement of cases in court is authorized and even encouraged
by express provision of law. The law does not limit compromise to
cases about to be filed or cases already pending in courts. That
compromise which may be effected even after final judgment is
impliedly allowed by Article 2040 of the New Civil Code.
LAWYER MUST ENCOURAGE FAIR SETTLMENT
Whenever a controversy will admit of fair judgment, the client should
be advised to avoid or to end the litigation. This will save the client
from additional expenses and help prevent the clogging of dockets.
A LAWYER CANNOT COMPROMISE CASE WITHOUT CLIENT’S
CONSENT, EXCEPTION
A lawyer cannot, without special authority, compromise his client’s
litigation or receive anything in discharge of the client’s claims but
the full amount in case. A compromise entered in to without authority
is merely unenforceable. It can be ratified by the client.
However, a lawyer has the exclusive management of the procedural
aspect of the litigation including the enforcement of rights and
remedies of the client.
If the client is not aggregable to the compromise, he must
immediately repudiate the same, otherwise, he cannot be heard to
complain later.
Illustrative Cases
Bongalonta vs. Castillo
240 SCRA 310
Facts:
Sally Bongalonta charged Pablito M. Castillo and Alfonso M. Martija
with unjust and unethical conduct. She filed a case against Sps Abuel
represented by Atty. Castillo for attachment of the property of Sps
Abuel. Sally won and was given the writ she sought after. During the
said case, Georgio Lantin represented by Atty. Martija filed a
collection of sum of money based on promissory note against Sps
Abuel. In the Lantin case, Sps Abuel were declared in default and so
Lantin won and a writ was issued in his favor.
Sally presented to the court that Atty. Pablito Castillo and Atty.
Alfonso Martija placed the same address, the same PTR and the same
IBP receipt number. She says the Lantin case was a mere ploy so
that the judgment on her favor will not be satisfied.
Issues:
1. Whether Atty Castillo and Atty Martija intentionally represented
conflicting interests and abetted a scheme to frustrate the
execution or satisfaction of a judgement.
2. Whether the same act can be considered unjust and unethical
conduct.
Ruling:
As to satisfaction of Bangalonta’s lien.
Bangalonta’s lien was registered prior to that of Lantin. Thus such
enjoys preference than the other and is considered as a superior lien.
As to allegation that the Castillo and Martija intentionally represented
conflicting interests.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
Due to the finding that Bangalonta’s lien was made prior to that of
Lantin, the Board ruled that there is no evidence to show that Castillo
and Martija represented different incompatible interests.
As to administrative penalty to Castillo
It was found that Atty Castillo did indeed made use of Atty Martija’s
IBP official receipt number. He only paid his dues after the complaint
was filed against him in the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline. His
defense that the mistake was made by his secretary was not given
any consideration.
Thus, he was suspended for 6 months for using the IBP official
receipt no of Atty. Martija.
Court’s Comment (Honesty and Candor)
It is well to stress again that the practice of law is not a right but a
privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they
possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law
for the conferment of such privilege. One of these requirements is
the observance of honesty and candor. Courts are entitled to expect
only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing and
pleading before them. A lawyer, on the other hand, has the
fundamental duty to satisfy that expectation. For this reason, he is
required to swear to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in court.
Moreno vs. Araneta
A.C. No. 1109
Facts:
The complaint filed by Maria Elena Moreno had two causes of action.
First involved a treasury warrant issued by the Land Registration
Commission in favor of Lira and indorsed by Araneta which was
dishonored. The second cause of action involved Araneta’s
nonpayment of debts in the amount of P11,000. Araneta issued two
checks but was dishonor because the account was closed.
Araneta denied borrowing any amount from Moreno and that he had
no intention of negotiating such checks. He further avers that he
warned Moreno that the checks were from an unused portion of a
closed account and could not be encashed.
IBP Ruling:
- First cause of action: Negative for insufficiency of
evidence.
- Second cause of action: Recommended suspension for
irresponsible conduct (6 months)
Over ten years later, on 15 October 2002, IBP Director for Bar
Discipline Victor C. Fernandez, transmitted the records of this case
back to this Court pursuant to Rule 139-B, Sec. 12(b) of the Rules of
Court. On 8 July 2003, the Office of the Bar Confidant filed a Report
regarding various aspects of the case. The Report further made
mention of a Resolution from this Court indefinitely suspending the
respondent for having been convicted by final judgment of estafa
through falsification of a commercial document. It therefore appears
that in the intervening time between herein respondents last filed
when he sought a postponement of the scheduled hearing on this
case to settle matters amicably between himself and Moreno, and
the present, Araneta had been found guilty and convicted by final
judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude, and indefinitely
suspended.
Issue:
Is penalty imposed (indefinite suspension) is proper?
15 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
Ruling:
No, we disagree with the penalty sought to be imposed. Whether or
not the complainant sufficiently proved that Araneta failed to pay his
debts is irrelevant, because by his own admission, the respondent
issued two checks in favor of Moreno knowing fully well that the same
were drawn against a closed account. And though Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 had not yet been passed at that time, the IBP correctly found
this act abhorrent and against the exacting standards of morality and
decency required of a member of the Bar, which belittles the
confidence of the public in him and reflects upon his integrity and
morality. Issuance of worthless checks involves crime of moral
turpitude. Considering that he had previously committed a similarly
fraudulent act, and that this case likewise involves moral turpitude,
we are constrained to impose a more severe penalty.
Respondent Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta is hereby DISBARRED and his
name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
CANON 2 — A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES
AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER
COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY
AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.
A lawyer when he handles a case or extends his legal services must
do so with efficiency and convenience with the end view of
maintaining independence, integrity and effectiveness of the legal
profession at all times.
RULE 2.01. A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid
reasons the cause of the defenseless or oppressed.
The defenseless are those who are not in a position to defend
themselves due to poverty, weakness, ignorance or other similar
reasons.
The oppressed are the victims of acts of cruelty, unlawful exaction,
domination, or excessive use of authority.
Except for valid reasons, a lawyer must not reject the cause of the
defenseless and oppressed.
Note: A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his
professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct
governing his relationship with paying client.
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.
If the lawyer could not handle the case for valid reasons, he must
not refuse to provide them with immediate legal advice necessary to
protect their rights.
RULE 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any
act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
The practice of law is a profession and not a money-making trade.
PRIMARY CHARACTERISTICS WHICH DISTINGUISH THE
LEGAL PROFESSION FROM BUSINESS
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-
product and in which one may attain the highest eminence
without making much money.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
2. A relation as an ‘officer of court’ to the administration of
justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability.
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary.
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor,
fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current business
methods of advertising and encroachment on their
practice, or dealing directly with their clients.
Note: It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or
skill as a merchant. The solicitation of employment by an attorney is
a ground for disbarment or suspension.
SOLICITATION OF LEGAL BUSINESS, WHEN PERMISSIBLE
For solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity
of the legal profession. If made in a modest and decorous manner,
it would bring no injury to the lawyer or to the bar. Thus, the use of
simple signs stating the names of the lawyers, professional cards
bearing the names of the lawyers, the office and residence address
and special lines in law, advertisements in legal periodicals bearing
the same brief data are permissible. Even the use of calling cards
with a formal picture (face) of the lawyer is now acceptable.
Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the
standards of conduct imposed by the canon, of brief biographical and
informative data is allowable. (Ulep v. The Legal Aid Clinic, Inc.)
ADVERTISEMENTS IN NEWSPAPERS, WHEN PERMISSIBLE
Modest announcements in newspapers, periodicals or magazines
about the opening of a law office or law firm stating the names of
the lawyers and the address of the office or firm is not improper.
However, any self-laudatory or self-praising statements in newspaper
advertisements or professional cards disgrace and abase the lawyer
and his profession.
Note: A legal aid program as a public service is allowable.
BEST ADVERTISEMENT FOR A LAWYER
A well-deserved reputation for competence, honesty, and fidelity to
private trust and public duty is the best advertisement for a lawyer.
A lawyer must not only be honest, but must appear to be honest. By
his honesty, he gains public confidence and this public confidence is
his greatest advertisement.
RULE 2.04. A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than
those customarily prescribed unless the circumstances so
warrant.
To avoid any demeaning and degrading competition, lawyers as
much as possible should be in unison in respecting custom or
tradition on the amounts of attorney’s fees for their legal services.
They must refrain from charging rates lower than the customary
rates unless there are valid justifications—such as when a client is a
relative or a brother lawyer, or is too poor that it would be not
humanitarian to charge him even the customary rates of attorney’s
fees. In the latter situation, when the client is indigent, the lawyer
may charge a reduced fee or no fee at all.
If the attorney’s fees customarily in an area are too low and petty
which affect the respectability of the legal profession, the lawyers
may agree to modify and calculate the rates chargeable within the
paying capacity of the ordinary clients.
16 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
Illustrative Cases
Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, Inc.
223 SCRA 378
Facts:
In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its
aim, according to Nogales was to move toward specialization and to
cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms. Now,
Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic because
of the latter’s advertisements which contain the following:
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041
8:30am – 6:00pm
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce
through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office
hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems,
Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree’s Visa.
Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees.
Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina
Spouse/Children.
Call Marivic.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy
Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled
“Rx for Legal Problems” in Star Week of Philippine Star wherein
Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists
that can take care of a client’s problem no matter how complicated
it is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby
Concepcion situation. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who,
like doctors, are “specialists” in various fields, can take care of it. The
Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-
legal problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are
backed up by a battery of paralegals, counselors and attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of
the jurisprudence in the US which now allows it (John Bates vs The
State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the advertisement is merely
making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.
Issue:
1. Whether The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law;
whether such is allowed;
2. Whether its advertisement may be allowed.
Ruling:
1. Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however,
such practice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of
paralegals. The services it offered include various legal problems
wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple
documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings.
Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of
paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in
the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the
services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law
cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as
a member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing, is
entitled to practice law.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
2. Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements,
the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in
making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair,
dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The
standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer’s
advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the
ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner
similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Further, the
advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret
marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law which
their experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are
allowed. The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must
be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and
efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of
publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a
normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. A
good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it
and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a
normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of
propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the following as
allowed forms of advertisement:
1. Advertisement in a reputable law list;
2. Use of ordinary simple professional card; or
3. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to
his specialization.
Villatuya vs. Tabalingcos
A.C. No. 6622
Facts:
Complainant was employed by respondent as a financial consultant
to assist the latter on technical and financial matters in the latter's
numerous petitions for corporate rehabilitation filed with different
courts.
First complaint, complainant claimed that they had a verbal
agreement whereby he would be entitled to P50,000 for every Stay
Order issued by the court in the cases they would handle, in addition
to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their clients. He was not
paid a considerable sum.
Second complaint, complainant alleged that respondent engaged in
unlawful solicitation of cases. Allegedly respondent set up two
financial consultancy firms and used them as fronts to advertise his
legal services and solicit cases.
On the third charge of gross immorality, complainant accused
respondent of committing two counts of bigamy for having married
two other women while his first marriage was subsisting.
Issue:
Whether respondent is guilty of the charges?
Ruling:
The first charge of complainant against respondent for the
nonpayment of the former's share in the fees, if proven to be true is
based on an agreement that is violative of Rule 9.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Complainant, however, failed to proffer
convincing evidence to prove the existence of that agreement, IBP
correctly dismissed the charge against respondent on this matter.
With regard the second charge, respondent indeed used the business
entities mentioned in the report to solicit clients and to advertise his
legal services, purporting to be specialized in corporate rehabilitation
17 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
cases. Considering, however, that complainant has not proven the
degree of prevalence of this practice by respondent, we affirm the
recommendation to reprimand the latter for violating Rules 2.03 and
15.08 of the Code.
The third charge that respondent committed bigamy twice is a
serious accusation. The latter objected to the introduction of these
documents, claiming that they were submitted after the
administrative case had been submitted for resolution, thus giving
him no opportunity to controvert them. The court consistently held
that a disbarment case is sui generis. He did not dispute the
authenticity of the NSO documents, but denied that he contracted
those two other marriages. The court found him guilty of gross
immorality under the Code. Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack
of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the bar.
His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral
conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138
of the Revised Rules of Court.
BAR MATTER NO. 2012
RULE ON MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE
SECTION 1. Title. - This Rule shall be known as "The Rule on
Mandatory Legal Aid Service."
SECTION 2. Purpose. - This Rule seeks to enhance the duty of
lawyers to society as agents of social change and to the courts as
officers thereof by helping improve access to justice by the less
privileged members of society and expedite the resolution of cases
involving them. Mandatory free legal service by members of the bar
and their active support thereof will aid the efficient and effective
administration of justice especially in cases involving indigent and
pauper litigants.
SECTION 3. Scope. - This Rule shall govern the mandatory
requirement for practicing lawyers to render free legal aid services in
all cases (whether, civil, criminal or administrative) involving indigent
and pauper litigants where the assistance of a lawyer is needed. It
shall also govern the duty of other members of the legal profession
to support the legal aid program of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines.
SECTION 4. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Rule:
(a) Practicing lawyers are members of the Philippine Bar who appear
for and in behalf of parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial
agencies, including but not limited to the National Labor Relations
Commission, National Conciliation and Mediation Board, Department
of Labor and Employment Regional Offices, Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board and National Commission for Indigenous
Peoples. The term "practicing lawyers" shall exclude:
(i) Government employees and incumbent elective officials not
allowed by law to practice;
(ii) Lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in court;
(iii) Supervising lawyers of students enrolled in law student practice
in duly accredited legal clinics of law schools and lawyers of non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) and peoples’ organizations (POs)
like the Free Legal Assistance Group who by the nature of their work
already render free legal aid to indigent and pauper litigants and
(iv) Lawyers not covered under subparagraphs (i) to (iii) including
those who are employed in the private sector but do not appear for
and in behalf of parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial agencies.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
(b) Indigent and pauper litigants are those defined under Rule 141,
Section 19 of the Rules of Court and Algura v. The Local Government
Unit of the City of Naga (G.R. No.150135, 30 October 2006, 506 SCRA
81);
(c) Legal aid cases are those actions, disputes, and controversies that
are criminal, civil and administrative in nature in whatever stage
wherein indigent and pauper litigants need legal representation;
(d) Free legal aid services refer to appearance in court or quasi-
judicial body for and in behalf of an indigent or pauper litigant and
the preparation of pleadings or motions. It shall also cover assistance
by a practicing lawyer to indigent or poor litigants in court-annexed
mediation and in other modes of alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
Services rendered when a practicing lawyer is appointed counsel de
oficio shall also be considered as free legal aid services and credited
as compliance under this Rule;
(e) Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is the official national
organization of lawyers in the country;
(f) National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA) is the committee of the
IBP which is specifically tasked with handling legal aid cases;
(g) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) is the committee of the IBP
which is specifically tasked with disciplining members of the Bar;
(h) IBP Chapters are those chapters of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines located in the different geographical areas of the country
as defined in Rule 139-A and
(i) Clerk of Court is the Clerk of Court of the court where the
practicing lawyer rendered free legal aid services. In the case of
quasi-judicial bodies, it refers to an officer holding an equivalent or
similar position.
The term shall also include an officer holding a similar position in
agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions, or a responsible officer
of an accredited PO or NGO, or an accredited mediator who
conducted the court-annexed mediation proceeding.
SECTION 5. Requirements. -
(a) Every practicing lawyer is required to render a minimum of sixty
(60) hours of free legal aid services to indigent litigants in a year.
Said 60 hours shall be spread within a period of twelve (12) months,
with a minimum of five (5) hours of free legal aid services each
month. However, where it is necessary for the practicing lawyer to
render legal aid service for more than five (5) hours in one month,
the excess hours may be credited to the said lawyer for the
succeeding periods.
For this purpose, a practicing lawyer shall coordinate with the Clerk
of Court for cases where he may render free legal aid service. He
may also coordinate with the IBP Legal Aid Chairperson of the IBP
Chapter to inquire about cases where he may render free legal aid
service. In this connection, the IBP Legal Aid Chairperson of the IBP
Chapter shall regularly and actively coordinate with the Clerk of
Court.
The practicing lawyer shall report compliance with the requirement
within ten (10) days of the last month of each quarter of the year.
(b) A practicing lawyer shall be required to secure and obtain a
certificate from the Clerk of Court attesting to the number of hours
spent rendering free legal aid services in a case.
The certificate shall contain the following information:
18 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
(i) The case or cases where the legal aid service was rendered, the
party or parties in the said case(s) for whom the service was
rendered, the docket number of the said case(s) and the date(s) the
service was rendered.
(ii) The number of hours actually spent attending a hearing or
conducting trial on a particular case in the court or quasi-judicial
body.
(iii) The number of hours actually spent attending mediation,
conciliation or any other mode of ADR on a particular case.
(iv) A motion (except a motion for extension of time to file a pleading
or for postponement of hearing or conference) or pleading filed on a
particular case shall be considered as one (1) hour of service.
The Clerk of Court shall issue the certificate in triplicate, one (1) copy
to be retained by the practicing lawyer, one (1) copy to be retained
by the Clerk of Court and one (1) copy to be attached to the lawyer's
compliance report.
(c) Said compliance report shall be submitted to the Legal Aid
Chairperson of the IBP Chapter within the court’s jurisdiction. The
Legal Aid Chairperson shall then be tasked with immediately verifying
the contents of the certificate with the issuing Clerk of Court by
comparing the copy of the certificate attached to the compliance
report with the copy retained by the Clerk of Court.
(d) The IBP Chapter shall, after verification, issue a compliance
certificate to the concerned lawyer. The IBP Chapter shall also submit
the compliance reports to the IBP’s NCLA for recording and
documentation. The submission shall be made within forty-five (45)
days after the mandatory submission of compliance reports by the
practicing lawyers.
(e) Practicing lawyers shall indicate in all pleadings filed before the
courts or quasi-judicial bodies the number and date of issue of their
certificate of compliance for the immediately preceding compliance
period. Failure to disclose the required information would cause the
dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the
records.
(f) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the
category under Section 4(a)(i) and (ii), shall fill up a form prepared
by the NCLA which states that, during that year, they are employed
with the government or incumbent elective officials not allowed by
law to practice or lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in
court.
The form shall be sworn to and submitted to the IBP Chapter or IBP
National Office together with the payment of an annual contribution
of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000). Said contribution shall accrue to a
special fund of the IBP for the support of its legal aid program.
(g) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the
category under Section 4(a)(iii) shall secure a certification from the
director of the legal clinic or of the concerned NGO or PO to the effect
that, during that year, they have served as supervising lawyers in a
legal clinic or actively participated in the NGO’s or PO’s free legal aid
activities. The certification shall be submitted to the IBP Chapter or
IBP National Office.
(h) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the
category under Section 4(a)(iv) shall fill up a form prepared by the
NCLA which states that, during that year, they are neither practicing
lawyers nor covered by Section (4)(a)(i) to (iii). The form shall be
sworn to and submitted to the IBP Chapter or IBP National Office
together with the payment of an annual contribution of Four
Thousand Pesos (P4,000) by way of support for the efforts of
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
practicing lawyers who render mandatory free legal aid services. Said
contribution shall accrue to a special fund of the IBP for the support
of its legal aid program.
(i) Failure to pay the annual contribution shall subject the lawyer to
a penalty of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000) for that year which
amount shall also accrue to the special fund for the legal aid program
of the IBP.
SECTION 6. NCLA. -
(a) The NCLA shall coordinate with the various legal aid committees
of the IBP local chapters for the proper handling and accounting of
legal aid cases which practicing lawyers can represent.
(b) The NCLA shall monitor the activities of the Chapter of the Legal
Aid Office with respect to the coordination with Clerks of Court on
legal aid cases and the collation of certificates submitted by practicing
lawyers.
(c) The NCLA shall act as the national repository of records in
compliance with this Rule.
(d) The NCLA shall prepare the following forms: certificate to be
issued by the Clerk of Court and forms mentioned in Section 5(e) and
(g).
(e) The NCLA shall hold in trust, manage and utilize the contributions
and penalties that will be paid by lawyers pursuant to this Rule to
effectively carry out the provisions of this Rule. For this purpose, it
shall annually submit an accounting to the IBP Board of Governors.
The accounting shall be included by the IBP in its report to the
Supreme Court in connection with its request for the release of the
subsidy for its legal aid program.
SECTION 7. Penalties. -
(a) At the end of every calendar year, any practicing lawyer who fails
to meet the minimum prescribed 60 hours of legal aid service each
year shall be required by the IBP, through the NCLA, to explain why
he was unable to render the minimum prescribed number of hours.
If no explanation has been given or if the NCLA finds the explanation
unsatisfactory, the NCLA shall make a report and recommendation to
the IBP Board of Governors that the erring lawyer be declared a
member of the IBP who is not in good standing. Upon approval of
the NCLA’s recommendation, the IBP Board of Governors shall
declare the erring lawyer as a member not in good standing. Notice
thereof shall be furnished the erring lawyer and the IBP Chapter
which submitted the lawyer’s compliance report or the IBP Chapter
where the lawyer is registered, in case he did not submit a
compliance report. The notice to the lawyer shall include a directive
to pay Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000) penalty which shall accrue to
the special fund for the legal aid program of the IBP.
(b) The "not in good standing" declaration shall be effective for a
period of three (3) months from the receipt of the erring lawyer of
the notice from the IBP Board of Governors. During the said period,
the lawyer cannot appear in court or any quasi-judicial body as
counsel. Provided, however, that the "not in good standing" status
shall subsist even after the lapse of the three-month period until and
unless the penalty shall have been paid.
(c) Any lawyer who fails to comply with his duties under this Rule for
at least three (3) consecutive years shall be the subject of disciplinary
proceedings to be instituted motu proprio by the CBD. The said
proceedings shall afford the erring lawyer due process in accordance
with the rules of the CBD and Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. If
found administratively liable, the penalty of suspension in the
19 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
practice of law for one (1) year shall be imposed upon him.
(d) Any lawyer who falsifies a certificate or any form required to be
submitted under this Rule or any contents thereof shall be
administratively charged with falsification and dishonesty and shall
be subject to disciplinary action by the CBD. This is without prejudice
to the filing of criminal charges against the lawyer.
(e) The falsification of a certificate or any contents thereof by any
Clerk of Court or by any Chairperson of the Legal Aid Committee of
the IBP local chapter where the case is pending or by the Director of
a legal clinic or responsible officer of an NGO or PO shall be a ground
for an administrative case against the said Clerk of Court or
Chairperson. This is without prejudice to the filing of the criminal and
administrative charges against the malfeasor.
SECTION 8. Credit for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE).
- A lawyer who renders mandatory legal aid service for the required
number of hours in a year for the three year-period covered by a
compliance period under the Rules on MCLE shall be credited the
following: two (2) credit units for legal ethics, two (2) credit units for
trial and pretrial skills, two (2) credit units for alternative dispute
resolution, four (4) credit units for legal writing and oral advocacy,
four (4) credit units for substantive and procedural laws and
jurisprudence and six (6) credit units for such subjects as may be
prescribed by the MCLE Committee under Section 2(9), Rule 2 of the
Rules on MCLE.
A lawyer who renders mandatory legal aid service for the required
number of hours in a year for at least two consecutive years within
the three year-period covered by a compliance period under the
Rules on MCLE shall be credited the following: one (1) credit unit for
legal ethics, one (1) credit unit for trial and pretrial skills, one (1)
credit unit for alternative dispute resolution, two (2) credit units for
legal writing and oral advocacy, two (2) credit units for substantive
and procedural laws and jurisprudence and three (3) credit units for
such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee under
Section 2(g), Rule 2 of the Rules on MCLE.
SECTION 9. Implementing Rules. - The IBP, through the NCLA, is
hereby given authority to recommend implementing regulations in
determining who are "practicing lawyers," what constitute "legal aid
cases" and what administrative procedures and financial safeguards
which may be necessary and proper in the implementation of this
rule may be prescribed. It shall coordinate with the various legal
chapters in the crafting of the proposed implementing regulations
and, upon approval by the IBP Board of Governors, the said
implementing regulations shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court
for final approval.
SECTION 10. Effectivity. - This Rule and its implementing rules shall
take effect on July 1,2009 after they have been published in two (2)
newspapers of general circulation.
CANON 3 — A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL
SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR,
DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
A lawyer must not resort to false and misleading information. And
even if the information is true, the manner of making it known must
not be undignified and demeaning to the legal profession.
RULE 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any
false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-
laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his
qualifications or legal services.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
Any false pretense by a lawyer intended to defraud, mislead and
deceive or to tout on his qualifications or quality of his legal services
is unethical—whether done by him personally or through another
with his permission.
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.
No name not belonging to any of the partners or associates may be
used in the firm name for any purpose.
The name of the deceased partner may still be used, provided that
in all communications of the law firm, there is an indication that said
partner is already dead. The use of a cross after the name of the
deceased partner is a sufficient indication. It is advisable though that
the year of death be also indicated.
Note: A lawyer is not authorized to use in his practice of the
profession a name other than the one inscribed in the Roll of
Attorneys.
If a partner in a law firm had been appointed as a judge, his name
in the firm should be dropped because he is no longer allowed to
practice law.
The use of the firm name of a foreign law firm is unethical because
that firm is not authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction.
The main law office and the branch office do not constitute two law
firms. (See Ouano Arrastre Service, Inc. v. Aleonar)
The death of a partner does not extinguish the client-lawyer
relationship with the law firm.
When counsel of record is the law firm, the negligence of the lawyer
assigned to the case consisting in his leaving for abroad without
notifying his colleagues is negligence of the law firm.
RULE 3.03. Where a partner accepts public office, he shall
withdraw from the firm and his name shall be dropped
from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice
law concurrently.
The reason for the rule is to prevent the law firm or partners from
making use of the name of the public official to attract legal business
and to avoid suspicion of undue influence.
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 when he pays something of value for it.
Indirect advertisements for professional employment offend the
traditions and lower the tone of the profession.
The most worthy and effective advertisement possible is the
establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity
and fidelity to trust.
20 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
Illustrative Case
Khan vs. Simbillo
A.C. No. 5299
Facts:
Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public
Information Office of the Supreme Court, called up the published
telephone number of a paid advertisement, which reads:
ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist. She, then, pretended to be
an interested party. She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed that her
husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in handling annulment
cases and can guarantee a court decree within four to six months,
provided the case will not involve separation of property or custody
of children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her husband charges a fee of
P48,000.00, half of which is payable at the time of filing of the case
and the other half after a decision thereon has been rendered.
Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court
Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office, filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for
improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services.
Issue:
Whether Simbillo violated Rule 2.03 & Rule 3.01 of Code of
Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 7 of the Rules of
Court?
Ruling:
Yes, the Supreme Court adopted IBP’s findings and recommendation.
Applicable rules
Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
designed primarily to solicit legal business.
Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or
unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal
services.
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court states:
SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court,
grounds therefor. A member of the bar may be disbarred 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 willful disobedience
appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so.
Application of rules to practice of law
It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a
business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money,
is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be
a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that
necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be a
secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the
administration of justice should be the primary consideration of
lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they
owe to themselves
There is no question that respondent committed the acts complained
of. He himself admits that he caused the publication of the
advertisements. What adds to the gravity of respondents’ acts is that
in advertising himself as a self-styled Annulment of Marriage
Specialist, he wittingly or unwittingly erodes and undermines not only
the stability but also the sanctity of an institution still considered
sacrosanct despite the contemporary climate of permissiveness in our
society. Indeed, in assuring prospective clients that an annulment
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
may be obtained in four to six months from the time of the filing of
the case, he in fact encourages people, who might have otherwise
been disinclined and would have refrained from dissolving their
marriage bonds, to do so.
Solicitation of business is not altogether proscribed but for it to be
proper it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession.
If it is made in a modest and decorous manner, it would bring no
injury to the lawyer and to the bar.
The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The
card may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law
firm which he is connected with, address, telephone number and
special branch of law practiced. The publication of a simple
announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the
partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the
convenience of the profession, is not objectionable. He may likewise
have his name listed in a telephone directory but not under a
designation of special branch of law.
CANON 4 — A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE
IMPROVEMENT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY INITIATING
OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM AND IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Lawyer can contribute to the enhancement of the system by
resenting position papers or resolutions for the introduction of
pertinent bills in Congress; petitions with the Supreme Court for the
amendment of the Rules of Court or introduction of new rules;
petitions with the IBP and other forums which have any relevant
influence on the system.
Experienced legal practitioners and professors of law may write legal
publications or books as a way to improve the legal system.
Lawyers who are members of Congress are in the best position to
take a close look at the system and introduce bills for the
improvement thereof.
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 INFORMATION REGARDING THE LAW
AND JURISPRUDENCE.
A lawyer must acquaint himself with newly promulgated laws, recent
decisions of the Supreme Court, executive orders, administrative
circulars, regulations and rules promulgated by competent authorities
engaged in the administration of justice.
Judges must keep abreast with the laws, rulings and decisions of the
Supreme Court.
Lawyers must support and encourage efforts for the achievement of
high standards in law schools, in practical training of law students
such as those involved in the clinical education program of law
schools.
Lawyers must assist in disseminating information about the law and
jurisprudence through publications of legal articles in law journals,
newspapers or other media of communications.
21 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
Lawyers are required to complete every three years at least 36 hours
of continuing legal education on specified subjects. (B.M. No. 850,
August 22, 2000)
Some lawyers are exempted like Justices of the Supreme Court, Court
of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, RTC Judges, law school deans, some law
school professors, members of Congress, etc.
BAR MATTER NO. 850
Bar Matter No. 850, October 2, 2001
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION (MCLE)
ADOPTING THE RULES ON MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL
EDUCATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES
RESOLUTION
Considering the Rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE) for members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
recommended by the IBP, endorsed by the Philippine Judicial
Academy, and reviewed and passed upon by the Supreme Court
Committee on Legal Education, the Court hereby resolves to adopt,
as it hereby adopts, the following rules for proper implementation:
RULE 1 - PURPOSE
Section 1. Purpose of the MCLE
Continuing legal education is required of members of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to ensure that throughout their career,
they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of
the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law.
RULE 2 - MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
Section 1. Constitution of the MCLE Committee
Within two (2) months from the approval of these Rules by the
Supreme Court En Banc, the MCLE Committee shall be constituted in
accordance with these Rules.
Section 2. Requirements of completion of MCLE
Members of the IBP not exempt under Rule 7 shall complete, every
three (3) years, at least thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal
education activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36
hours:
(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics.
(b) At least (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial skills.
(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative
dispute resolution.
(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on
substantive and procedural laws, and jurisprudence.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and
oral advocacy.
(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law
and international conventions.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such
subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee.
RULE 3 - COMPLIANCE PERIOD
Section 1. Initial compliance period
The initial compliance period shall begin not later than three (3)
months from the constitution of the MCLE Committee. Except for the
initial compliance period for members admitted or readmitted after
the establishment of the program, all compliance periods shall be for
thirty-six (36) months and shall begin the day after the end of the
previous compliance period.
Section 2. Compliance Group 1.
Members in the National Capital Region (NCR) or Metro Manila shall
be permanently assigned to Compliance Group 1.
Section 3. Compliance Group 2.
Members in Luzon outside NCR shall be permanently assigned to
Compliance Group 2.
Section 4. Compliance Group 3.
Members in Visayas and Mindanao shall be permanently assigned to
Compliance Group 3.
Section 5. Compliance period for members admitted or readmitted
after establishment of the program.
Members admitted or readmitted to the Bar after the establishment
of the program shall be permanently assigned to the appropriate
Compliance Group based on their Chapter membership on the date
of admission or readmission.
The initial compliance period after admission or readmission shall
begin on the first day of the month of admission or readmission and
shall end on the same day as that of all other members in the same
Compliance Group.
(a) Where four (4) months or less remain of the initial
compliance period after admission or readmission, the
member is not required to comply with the program
requirement for the initial compliance.
(b) Where more than four (4) months remain of the initial
compliance period after admission or readmission, the
member shall be required to complete a number of hours
of approved continuing legal education activities equal to
the number of months remaining in the compliance period
in which the member is admitted or readmitted. Such
member shall be required to complete a number of hours
of education in legal ethics in proportion to the number of
months remaining in the compliance period. Fractions of
hours shall be rounded up to the next whole number.
RULE 4 - COMPUTATION OF CREDIT UNITS
Section 1. Guidelines
The following are the guidelines for computation of credit units (CU):
PROGRAMS CREDIT UNITS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
1. SEMINARS, CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, IN-
HOUSE EDUCATION PROGRAMS, WORKSHOPS, DIALOGUES,
22 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS BY APPROVED PROVIDERS UNDER
RULE 7 AND OTHER RELATED RULES
1.1 PARTICIPANT 1 CU PER HOUR CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDANCE
WITH NUMBER OF HOURS
1.2 LECTURER 5 CU PER HOUR PHOTOCOPY OF PLAQUE OR
SPONSOR'S CERTIFICATION
1.3 RESOURCE 3 CU PER HOUR PHOTOCOPY OF PLAQUE OR
SPONSOR'S SPEAKER CERTIFICATION
1.4 ASSIGNED 2 CU PER HOUR CERTIFICATION FROM SPONSORING
PENALIST/ ORGANIZATION REACTOR/COMMENTATOR
1.5 MODERATOR/ 2 CU PER HOUR CERTIFICATION FROM
SPONSORING COORDINATOR/ ORGANIZATION FACILITATOR
2. AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND REVIEW
2.1 RESEARCH/ 5-10 CREDIT UNITS DULY CERTIFIED/PUBLISHED
INNOVATIVE TECHNICAL REPORT/PAPER PROGRAM/CREATIVE
PROJECT
2.2 BOOK 50-100 PP 101+ PUBLISHED BOOK SINGLE AUTHOR 12-
16 CU 17-20 CU
2 AUTHORS 10-12 CU 13-16 CU
3 OR MORE 5-6 CU 7-11 CU
2.3 BOOK EDITOR 1/2 OF THE CU OF PUBLISHED BOOK WITH
PROOF AUTHORSHIP AS EDITOR CATEGORY
2.4 LEGAL ARTICLE 5-10 PP 11+ PUBLISHED ARTICLE SINGLE
AUTHOR 6 CU 8 CU
2 AUTHORS 4 CU 6 CU
3 OR MORE 2 CU 4 CU
2.5 LEGAL 3-6 CU PER ISSUE PUBLISHED NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL
NEWSLETTER/LAW JOURNAL EDITOR
3. PROFESSIONAL 6 CU PER CHAIR CERTIFICATION OF LAW DEAN
CHAIR/BAR 1 CU PER LECTURE OR BAR REVIEW DIRECTOR
REVIEW/ HOUR LECTURE/LAW TEACHING
Section 2. Limitation on certain credit units
In numbers 2 and 3 of the guidelines in the preceding Section, the
total maximum credit units shall not exceed twenty (20) hours per
three (3) years.
RULE 5 - CATEGORIES OF CREDIT
Section 1. Classes of credits
The credits are either participatory or non-participatory.
Section 2. Claim for participatory credit
Participatory credit may be claimed for:
(a) Attending approved education activities like seminars,
conferences, symposia, in-house education programs,
workshops, dialogues or round table discussions.
(b) Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned panelist,
reactor, commentator, resource speaker, moderator,
coordinator or facilitator in approved education activities.
(c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review class.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
Section 3. Claim for non-participatory credit
Non-participatory credit may be claimed per compliance period for:
(a) Preparing, as an author or co-author, written materials
published or accepted for publication, e.g., in the form of
an article, chapter, book, or book review which contribute
to the legal education of the author member, which were
not prepared in the ordinary course of the member's
practice or employment.
(b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.
RULE 6 - COMPUTATION OF CREDIT HOURS
Section 1. Computation of credit hours
Credit hours are computed based on actual time spent in an activity
(actual instruction or speaking time), in hours to the nearest one-
quarter hour.
RULE 7 - EXEMPTIONS
Section 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE
The following members of the Bar are exempt from the MCLE
requirement:
(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines,
and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executives
Departments;
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme
Court, incumbent and retired members of the judiciary,
incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council and
incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial
Academy program of continuing judicial education;
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and
Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Justice;
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitor General;
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant
Government Corporate Counsel;
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional
Commissions;
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the
Deputy Ombudsmen and the Special Prosecutor of the
Office of the Ombudsman;
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial
functions;
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviews and professors of law who
have teaching experience for at least 10 years accredited
law schools;
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps
of Professors and Professorial Lectures of the Philippine
Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
23 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
Section 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE
The following Members of the Bar are likewise exempt:
(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.
(b) Those who have retired from law practice with the
approval of the IBP Board of Governors.
Section 3. Good cause for exemption from or modification of
requirement
A member may file a verified request setting forth good cause for
exemption (such as physical disability, illness, post graduate study
abroad, proven expertise in law, etc.) from compliance with or
modification of any of the requirements, including an extension of
time for compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be
established by the MCLE Committee.
Section 4. Change of status
The compliance period shall begin on the first day of the month in
which a member ceases to be exempt under Sections 1, 2, or 3 of
this Rule and shall end on the same day as that of all other members
in the same Compliance Group.
Section 5. Proof of exemption
Applications for exemption from or modification of the MCLE
requirement shall be under oath and supported by documents.
RULE 8 - STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
Section 1. Approval of MCLE program
Subject to the rules as may be adopted by the MCLE Committee,
continuing legal education program may be granted approval in
either of two (2) ways: (1) the provider of the activity is an approved
provider and certifies that the activity meets the criteria of Section 3
of this Rules; and (2) the provider is specially mandated by law to
provide continuing legal education.
Section 2. Standards for all education activities
All continuing legal education activities must meet the following
standards:
(a) The activity shall have significant current intellectual or
practical content.
(b) The activity shall constitute an organized program of
learning related to legal subjects and the legal profession,
including cross profession activities (e.g., accounting-tax
or medical-legal) that enhance legal skills or the ability to
practice law, as well as subjects in legal writing and oral
advocacy.
(c) The activity shall be conducted by a provider with
adequate professional experience.
(d) Where the activity is more than one (1) hour in length,
substantive written materials must be distributed to all
participants. Such materials must be distributed at or
before the time the activity is offered.
(e) In-house education activities must be scheduled at a time
and location so as to be free from interruption like
telephone calls and other distractions.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
RULE 9 - APPROVAL OF PROVIDERS
Section 1. Approval of providers
Approval of providers shall be done by the MCLE Committee.
Section 2. Requirements for approval of providers
Any persons or group may be approved as a provider for a term of
two (2) years, which may be renewed, upon written application. All
providers of continuing legal education activities, including in-house
providers, are eligible to be approved providers. Application for
approval shall:
(a) Be submitted on a form provided by the IBP;
(b) Contain all information requested on the form;
(c) Be accompanied by the approval fee;
Section 3. Requirements of all providers
All approved providers shall agree to the following:
(a) An official record verifying the attendance at the activity shall be
maintained by the provider for at least four (4) years after the
completion date. The provider shall include the member on the
official record of attendance only if the member's signature was
obtained at the time of attendance at the activity. The official record
of attendance shall contain the member's name and number in the
Roll of Attorneys and shall identify the time, date, location, subject
matter, and length of the education activity. A copy of such record
shall be furnished the IBP.
(b) The provider shall certify that:
(1) This activity has been approved for MCLE by the IBP in the
amount of ________ hours of which hours will apply in
(legal ethics, etc.), as appropriate to the content of the
activity;
(2) The activity conforms to the standards for approved
education activities prescribed by these Rules and such
regulations as may be prescribed by the IBP pertaining to
MCLE.
(c) The provider shall issue a record or certificate to all participants
identifying the time, date, location, subject matter and length of the
activity.
(d) The provider shall allow in-person observation of all approved
continuing legal education activities by members of the IBP Board of
Governors, the MCLE Committee, or designees of the Committee and
IBP staff for purposes of monitoring compliance with these Rules.
(e) The provider shall indicate in promotional materials, the nature
of the activity, the time devoted to each devoted to each topic and
identify of the instructors. The provider shall make available to each
participant a copy of IBP-approved Education Activity Evaluation
Form.
(f) The provider shall maintain the completed Education Activity
Evaluation Forms for a period of not less than one (1) year after the
activity, copy furnished the IBP.
(g) Any person or group who conducts an unauthorized activity under
this program or issues a spurious certificate in violation of these Rules
shall be subject to appropriate sanctions.
24 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
Section 4. Renewal of provider approval
The approval of a provider may be renewed every two (2) years. It
may be denied if the provider fails to comply with any of the
requirements of these Rules or fails to provide satisfactory education
activities for the preceding period.
Section 5. Revocation of provider approval
The approval of any provider referred to in Rule 9 may be revoked
by a majority vote of the IBP Board of Governors, upon
recommendation of the MCLE Committee, after notice and hearing
and for good cause.
RULE 10 - ACTIVITY AND PROVIDER APPROVAL FEE
Section 1. Payment of fees
Application for approval of an education activity or as a provider
requires payment of an appropriate fee.
RULE 11 - GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
Section 1. Compliance card
Each member shall secure from the MCLE Committee a Compliance
Card before the end of his compliance period. He shall complete the
card by attesting under oath that he has complied with the education
requirement or that he is exempt, specifying the nature of the
exemption. Such Compliance Card must be returned to the address
indicated therein not later than the day after the end of the member's
compliance period.
Section 2. Member record keeping requirement
Each member shall maintain sufficient record of compliance or
exemption, copy furnished the MCLE Committee. The record required
to be provided to the members by the provider pursuant to Section
3(c) of Rule 9 should be sufficient record of attendance at a
participatory activity. A record of non-participatory activity shall also
be maintained by the member, as referred to in Section 3 of Rule 5.
RULE 12 - NON-COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
Section 1. What constitutes non-compliance
The following shall constitute non-compliance
(a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the
compliance period;
(b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;
(c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance
(including evidence of exempt status) within the prescribed
period;
(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish
evidence of such compliance within sixty (60) days from
receipt of a non-compliance notice;
(e) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the
foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade compliance
with the MCLE requirements.
Section 2. Non-compliance notice and 60-day period to attain
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
compliance
A member failing to comply will receive a Non-Compliance Notice
stating the specific deficiency and will be given sixty (60) days from
the date of notification to explain the deficiency or otherwise show
compliance with the requirements. Such notice shall contain, among
other things, the following language in capital letters:
YOUR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-
COMPLIANCE OR PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE MCLE
REQUIREMENT BY (INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
NOTICE), SHALL BE A CAUSE FOR LISTING AS A DELINQUENT
MEMBER.
The Member may use this period to attain the adequate number of
credit hours for compliance. Credit hours earned during this period
may only be counted toward compliance with the prior compliance
period requirement unless hours in excess of the requirement are
earned, in which case, the excess hours may be counted toward
meeting the current compliance period requirement.lawphil.net
RULE 13 - CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE
Section 1. Non-compliance fee
A member who, for whatever reason, is in non-compliance at the end
of the compliance period shall pay a non-compliance fee.
Section 2. Listing as delinquent member
Any member who fails to satisfactorily comply with Section 2 of Rule
12 shall be listed as a delinquent member by the IBP Board of
Governors upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee, in
which case, Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court shall apply.
RULE 14 - REINSTATEMENT
Section 1. Process
The involuntary listing as a delinquent member shall be terminated
when the member provides proof of compliance with the MCLE
requirement, including payment of non-compliance fee. A member
may attain the necessary credit hours to meet the requirement for
the period of non-compliance during the period the member is on
inactive status. These credit hours may not be counted toward
meeting the current compliance period requirement. Credit hours
attained during the period of non-compliance in excess of the number
needed to satisfy the prior compliance period requirement may be
counted toward meeting the current compliance period
requirement.lawphil.net
Section 2. Termination of delinquent listing administrative process
The termination of listing as a delinquent member is administrative
in nature but it shall be made with notice and hearing by the MCLE
Committee.
RULE 15 - MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
COMMITTEE
Section 1. Composition
The MCLE Committee shall be composed of five (5) members,
namely: a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, as Chair, and four
(4) members, respectively, nominated by the IBP, the Philippine
Judicial Academy, a law center designated by the Supreme Court and
associations of law schools and/or law professors.
The members of the Committee shall be of proven probity and
25 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
integrity. They shall be appointed by the Supreme Court for a term
of three (3) years and shall receive such compensation as may be
determined by the Court.
Section 2. Duty of the Committee
The MCLE Committee shall administer and adopt such implementing
rules as may be necessary subject to the approval by the Supreme
Court. It shall, in consultation with the IBP Board of Governors,
prescribe a schedule of MCLE fees with the approval of the Supreme
Court.
Section 3. Staff of the IBP
The IBP shall employ such staff as may be necessary to perform the
record-keeping, auditing, reporting, approval and other necessary
functions.
Section 4. Submission of annual budget
The IBP shall submit to the Supreme Court an annual budget for a
subsidy to establish, operate and maintain the MCLE Program.
This resolution shall take effect in October 2000, following its
publication in two (2) newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines.
Adopted this 22nd day of August 2000.
BAR MATTER NO. 1922
RE. NUMBER AND DATE OF MCLE CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLETION/EXEMPTION REQUIRED IN ALL
PLEADINGS/MOTIONS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Court
En Banc dated June 3, 2008
"Bar Matter No. 1922. – Re: Recommendation of the Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Board to Indicate in All Pleadings
Filed with the Courts the Counsel’s MCLE Certificate of Compliance or
Certificate of Exemption. – The Court Resolved to NOTE the Letter,
dated May 2, 2008, of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura,
Chairperson, Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters,
informing the Court of the diminishing interest of the members of the
Bar in the MCLE requirement program.
The Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the
Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters, to REQUIRE
practicing members of the bar to INDICATE in all pleadings filed
before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of
issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of
Exemption, as may be applicable, for the immediately preceding
compliance period. Failure to disclose the required information would
cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings
from the records.
The New Rule shall take effect sixty (60) days after its publication in
a newspaper of general circulation."
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 79-2014
SUBJECT: BAR MATTER NO. 1922 (RE: RECOMMENDATION OF THE
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION [MCLE] BOARD TO
INDICATE IN ALL PLEADINGS FILED WITH THE COURTS THE
COUNSEL'S MCLE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE OR CERTIFICATE
OF EXEMPTION)
In the Resolution of the Court En Banc dated January 14,
2014 in the above-cited administrative matter, the Court RESOLVED,
upon the recommendation of the MCLE Governing Board, to:
(a) AMEND the June 3, 2008 resolution by repealing the phrase
“Failure to disclose the required information would cause the
dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the
records” and replacing it with “Failure to disclose the required
information would subject the counsel to appropriate penalty and
disciplinary action”; and
(b) PRESCRIBE the following rules for non-disclosure of current MCLE
compliance/exemption number in the pleadings:
(i) The lawyer shall be imposed a fine of P2,000.00 for the first
offense, P3,000.00 for the second offense and P4,000.00 for
the third offense;
(ii) In addition to the fine, counsel may be listed as a delinquent
member of the Bar pursuant to Section 2, Rule 13 of Bar
Matter No. 850 and its implementing rules and regulations;
and
(iii) The non-compliant lawyer shall be discharged from the case
and the client/s shall be allowed to secure the services of a
new counsel with the concomitant right to demand the return
of fees already paid to the non-compliant lawyer.
This revokes OCA Circular No. 66-2008 dated July 22, 2008, and any
prior circular from the Office of the Court Administrator on this matter
which is contrary to the foregoing is hereby superseded.
CANON 6 — THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS
IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR
OFFICIAL TASKS.
The Canons and Rules in the Code of Professional Responsibility are
intended for private practitioners and lawyers in the Government
service.
However, lawyers are incumbent judges and justices shall be
governed in the performance of their official functions by the Code
of Judicial Conduct.
The grounds of disbarment provided in Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court shall be applicable to all. However, the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline could not investigate members of the
bench.
Lawyers in the government service are prohibited to engage in the
private practice of their profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or
tend to conflict with their official functions. The prohibition will
continue for one year after their separation from public office, in
connection with any matter pending before the office they used to
be with.
If the lawyer’s misconduct in the discharge of his official duties as
government official is of such character as to affect his qualification
26 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, he may be disciplined as
a member of the Bar on such ground.
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 he should seek equal and
impartial justice. He should see that no innocent man suffers and
that no guilty man escapes.
The interest of a prosecutor in criminal prosecution is not to win a
case but to see that justice is done. He should see to it that the
accused is given a fair and impartial trial and not deprived of any of
his statutory or constitutional rights.
A public prosecutor should recommend the acquittal of the accused
whose conviction is on appeal, if he finds no legal basis to sustain
the conviction (See Triente, Sr v. Sandiganbayan, 145 SCRA 508).
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, who are public servants owe utmost fidelity to
the public service. They do not shed their professional obligations in
assuming public positions. On the other hand, they should be more
sensitive to their professional obligations as their disreputable
conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public eye.
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.
A lawyer is prohibited by the Rule from accepting engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service.
ADVERSE-INTEREST CONFLICTS; CONGRUENT-INTEREST
CONFLICTS
As early as 1924, some ABA members have questioned the form and
function of the canons. Among their concerns was the “revolving
door” or “the process by which lawyers and others temporarily enter
government service from private life and then leave it for large fees
in private practice, where they can exploit information, contacts, and
influence garnered in government service.” These concerns were
classified as “adverse-interest conflicts” and “congruent-interest
conflicts.” “Adverse-interest conflicts” exist where the matter
in which the former government lawyer represents a client
in private practice is substantially related to a matter that
the lawyer dealt with while employed by the government
and the interests of the current and former are adverse. On
the other hand, “congruent-interest representation conflicts”
are unique to government lawyers and apply primarily to
former government lawyers. … To deal with problems peculiar to
former government lawyers, Canon 36 was minted which disqualified
them both for “adverse-interest conflicts” and “congruent-interest
representation conflicts.” The rationale for disqualification is rooted
in a concern that the government lawyer's largely discretionary
actions would be influenced by the temptation to take action on
behalf of the government client that later could be to the advantage
of parties who might later become private practice clients.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
(Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. Nos. 151809-12, [April 12, 2005], 495 PHIL 485-619)
Illustrative Case
PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 151805
Facts:
Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza was the Solicitor General until 1986, after
which he resumed his private practice of law.
In 1976, General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered
financial difficulties. Subsequently, Central Bank issued a resolution
declaring GENBANK insolvent and ordering its liquidation. When Atty.
Mendoza was still the Solicitor General, he advised the Central Bank
on how to proceed with the liquidation of GENBANK. GENBANK was
later bought by ALLIED BANK owned by Lucio Tan, et al.
In 1987, PCGG filed with Sandiganbayan civil cases involving
sequestration of properties allegedly ill-gotten wealth against Lucio
Tan, et al. In all these cases, Lucio Tan, et al. were represented by
Atty. Mendoza, who has then resumed his private practice of law.
PCGG filed a motion to disqualify Atty. Mendoza as counsel for Lucio
Tan, et al. alleging that as then Solicitor General and counsel to
Central Bank, he actively intervened in the liquidation of GENBANK
and its acquisition by Lucio Tan et al. The motions to disqualify
invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides that "A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service,
accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in the said service."
The motion, as well as subsequent the motion for reconsideration,
was denied.
Issue:
Whether Atty. Mendoza is disqualified to appear as counsel for Lucio
Tan, et al under Rule 6.03.
Ruling:
No, Atty. Mendoza is NOT DISQUALIFIED.
Different “matter”
The advice given by Atty. Mendoza on the procedure to liquidate
GENBANK is not the "matter" contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Mendoza had nothing to do with
the decision of the Central Bank to liquidate GENBANK and even did
not participate in the sale of GENBANK to Allied Bank.
In the liquidation of GENBANK, the "matter" where Atty. Mendoza
was involved was in informing Central Bank on the procedure
provided by law to liquidate GENBANK thru the courts and in filing
the necessary petition. The subject "matter" of the liquidation
proceedings is different from the subject “matter” in the
sequestration of ill-gotten wealth which involves the sequestration of
the stocks owned by Lucio Tan, et al. The case neither involves the
liquidation of GENBANK nor does it involve the sale of GENBANK to
Allied Bank. In other words, the legality of the liquidation of
GENBANK is not an issue in the sequestration cases. Indeed, the
jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the dissolution and
liquidation of banks.
Therefore, Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
cannot apply to Atty. Mendoza because his alleged intervention while
a Solicitor General in the liquidation proceeding is an intervention on
a matter different from the matter involved in the sequestration
cases.
27 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
Factors in interpreting Rule 6.03
The Court in interpreting Rule 6.03 was concerned with the prejudice
to the client which will be caused by its misapplication. Granting a
disqualification motion causes the client to lose not only the law firm
of choice, but probably an individual lawyer in whom the client has
confidence. The client with a disqualified lawyer must start again
often without the benefit of the work done by the latter. The effects
of this prejudice to the right to choose an effective counsel cannot
be overstated for it can result in denial of due process. SIHCDA
No less significant a consideration is the deprivation of the former
government lawyer of the freedom to exercise his profession. The
disqualification of a former government lawyer may extend to all
members of his law firm. Former government lawyers stand in
danger of becoming the lepers of the legal profession.
The mischief sought to be remedied by Rule 6.03 is the possible
appearance of impropriety and loss of public confidence in
government. The Court should apply Rule 6.03 in all its strictness for
it correctly disfavors lawyers who "switch sides." Switching sides
carries the danger that former government employee may
compromise confidential official information in the process.
In this case, Atty Mendoza didn’t “switch sides”. As discussed, the act
of Atty. Mendoza in informing the Central Bank on the procedure how
to liquidate GENBANK is a different matter from the subject matter
on the sequestration of the stocks Lucio Tan, et al. in Allied Bank.
Consequently, the danger that confidential official information might
be divulged is nil. In lawyering for Lucio Tan, et al., Atty. Mendoza is
not working against the interest of Central Bank. He is indirectly
defending the validity of the action of Central Bank in liquidating
GENBANK and selling it later to Allied Bank. Their interests coincide
instead of colliding. Therefore, there is no switching of sides for no
two sides are involved.
The Court should also consider that Rule 6.03 is intended to avoid
conflict of loyalties. An example is when a government lawyer who
plans to work for the company that he is currently charged with
prosecuting might be tempted to prosecute less vigorously. In that
example, it is hard to imagine that a private firm would feel secure
hiding someone who had just been disloyal to the government.
However, this particular concern is a non-factor in the case at bar.
There is no charge against Atty. Mendoza that he advised Central
Bank on how to liquidate GENBANK with an eye in later defending
Lucio Tan, et al. of Allied Bank. Indeed, he continues defending both
the interests of Central Bank and Lucio Tan, et al. in the above cases.
Prospective application of Rule 6.03 to Atty. Mendoza
Rule 6.03 of the CPR cannot apply retroactively to Atty. Mendoza.
When Atty. Mendoza was the Solicitor General, Rule 6.03 has not yet
adopted by the IBP and approved by this Court, and the bid to
disqualify respondent Mendoza was made after the lapse of time
whose length is unreasonable.
Recent Cases (2014-2017)
Presiding Judge Jose L. Madrid etc. v. Atty. Juan S. Dealca
A.C. No. 7474, September 9, 2014
A lawyer must be aware of his duty under his Lawyer’s 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 thus wise: “Rule 1.03 – A lawyer shall not, for any
corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay
any man’s cause.”
In the present case, Atty. Dealca exhibited his proclivity for
vindictiveness and penchant for harassment, considering that, as IBP
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018

Commissioner Hababag pointed out, his bringing of charges against
judges, court personnel and even his colleagues in the Law
Profession had all stemmed from decisions or rulings being adverse
to his clients or his side. He well knew, therefore, that he was thereby
crossing the line of propriety, because neither vindictiveness nor
harassment could be a substitute for resorting to the appropriate
legal remedies. He should now be reminded that the aim of every
lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according to law,
not to harass them.
Philippine Association of Court Employees, etc. v.
Atty. Edna M. Alibutan-Diaz
A.C. No. 10134, November 26, 2014
Chapter 1, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that: "A lawyer should not engage in an
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
Everyone should keep in mind that the practice of law is only a
privilege. It is definitely not a right. In order to enjoy this privilege,
one must show that he possesses, and continues to possess, the
qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.
Respondent in the case at bar is a servant of the law and belongs to
that profession which society entrusts with the administration of law
and the dispensation of justice. For this, he or she is an exemplar for
others to emulate and should not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. Her delay in the liquidation of the
finances of PACE; her running for re-election, including her non-
admission that she ran for said election; and her involvement in the
approval or passage of the questioned term-end bonus of PACE
officers, though she was no longer working in the Judiciary
constitutes a violation of Chapter 1, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility
worthless post– dated check. Such actuation did not speak well of
him as a member of the Bar.
Crisostomo et al. v. Atty. Nazareno
A.C. No. 6677, June 10, 2014
Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the submission of false
entries in a certification against forum shopping constitutes indirect
or direct contempt of court, and subjects the erring counsel to the
corresponding administrative and criminal actions. In the realm of
legal ethics, said infraction may be considered as a violation of Rule
1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Code). Owing to the evident similarity of the issues
involved in each set of cases, Atty. Nazareno – as mandated by the
Rules of Court and more pertinently, the canons of the Code – should
have truthfully declared the existence of the pending related cases in
the certifications against forum shopping attached to the pertinent
pleadings.
Caroline Cataneda Jimenez v. Atty. Edgar B. Francisco
A.C. No. 10548, December 10, 2014
Atty. Francisco clearly violated the canons and his sworn duty. He is
guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct when he
admitted to having allowed his corporate client, Clarion, to actively
misrepresent to the SEC. He has clearly violated his duties as a lawyer
embodied in the CPR, namely, to avoid dishonest and deceitful
conduct (Rule 1.01, Canon 1) and to act with candor, fairness and
good faith (Rule 10.01, Canon 10). Also, he desecrated his solemn
oath not to do any falsehood nor consent to the doing of the same.

Benjamin Q. Ong v. Atty. William F. Delos Santos

A.C. No. 10179, March 4, 2014

His issuance of the unfunded check involved herein knowingly

violated Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and exhibited his indifference
towards the pernicious effect of his illegal act to public interest and
public order. He thereby swept aside his Lawyer’s Oath that enjoined
him to support the Constitution and obey the laws. He also took for
granted the express commands of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, specifically Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule
7.03, to wit:

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE

CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND LEGAL
PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 – A Lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,

dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

CANON 7 – A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE

INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION
AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED
BAR.

Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that

adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall
he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

These canons required of him as a lawyer an enduring high sense of

responsibility and good fidelity in all his dealings. His assuring Ong
that he was in good financial standing because of his lucrative law
practice when the contrary was true manifested his intent to mislead
the latter into giving a substantial amount in exchange for his

28 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF
A LAWYER TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION
CANON 7 — A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION,
AND SUPPROT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED
BAR.
RULE 7.01. A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly
making false statement or suppressing a material fact, in
connection with his application for admission to the bar.
Sections 2 and 5 of Rule 138, Rules of Court, provides as follows:
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 a 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 sections 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.
KNOWINGLY MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT OR
SUPPRESSION OF A MATERIAL FACT IN THE APPLICATION
FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR
1. 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.
2. If the false statement or suppression of material fact was
discovered after the candidate had passed the examination
but before having taken his oath, he will not be allowed to
take his oath as a lawyer.
3. If the discovery was made after the candidate had taken
his oath as a lawyer, his name will be stricken from the Roll
of Attorneys.
EFFECT IF WHAT IS CONCEALED IS A CRIME NOT
INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE
When the applicant concealed a crime charged against him but which
crime does not involve 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.
29 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
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 education requirements or other relevant attribute.
A lawyer’s support to an applicant must be solely based on fitness,
both intellectual and moral.
A lawyer who violates this rule is liable for disciplinary action. The act
of supporting the application to the Bar of any person known to him
to be unqualified constitutes gross misconduct in office.
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 scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
A lawyer should maintain the standard of moral fitness required of
him when he applied for admission to the Bar.
He is expected to be concerned even with matter like payment of his
membership dues and special assessments in the IBP and payment
of his privilege tax, otherwise, he may be disciplined.
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.
AS officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good
moral character but also be seen to be of good moral character and
leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the
community.
Illustrative Cases
IN RE: MELING
B.M. No. 1154. June 8, 2004
Atty. Melendrez filed a complaint before the OBC to disqualify Haron
Meling from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose upon
him the appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of the
Philippine Shari’a Bar. Melendrez alleged that Meling did not disclose
in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has three
(3) pending cases against him: two (2) for Grave Oral Defamation
and one (1) for Less Serious Physical Injuries filed by Melendrez and
his wife. Further, he alleged 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.
ISSUE:
Whether Meling’s act of concealing cases constitutes
dishonesty.
HELD:
YES. The 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. His concealment speaks of his lack
of the requisite good moral character and results in the forfeiture of
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
the privilege bestowed upon him as a member of the Shari’a Bar.
Further, his use of the title “Attorney” cannot go unchecked knowing
that he is not entitled to its use.
RULE 139 - A
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
SECTION 1. Organization. — There is hereby organized an official
national body to be known as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
composed of all persons whose names now appear or may hereafter
be included in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.
SECTION 2. Purpose. — The fundamental purposes of the Integrated
bar shall be to elevate the standards of the legal profession, improve
the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its
public responsibility more effectively.
SECTION 3. Regions. — The Philippines is hereby divided into nine
Regions of the Integrated Bar, to wit:
(a) Northern Luzon, consisting of the provinces of Abra,
Batanes, Benguet, Cagayan, Ifugao, Ilocos Norte, Ilocos
Sur, Isabela, Kalinga-Apayao, La Union, Mountain
Province, Nueva Vizcaya, and Quirino;
(b) Central Luzon, consisting of the provinces of Bataan,
Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Pangasinan, Tarlac, and
Zambales;
(c) Greater Manila, consisting of the City of Manila, and
Quezon City;
(d) Southern Luzon, consisting of the provinces of Batangas,
Cavite, Laguna, Marinduque, Occidental Mindoro, Oriental
Mindoro, Quezon and Rizal.
(e) Eastern Visayas, consisting of the provinces of Bohol,
Cebu, Eastern Samar, Leyte, Northern Samar, Samar, and
Southern Leyte;
(f) Western Visayas, consisting of the provinces of Aklan,
Antique, Capiz, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental,
Palawan, Romblon, and Siquijor;
(g) Eastern Mindanao, consisting of the provinces of Agusan
del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Bukidnon, Camiguin, Davao del
Norte, Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental, Mindoro, Misamis
Oriental, Surigao del Norte, and Surigao del Sur; and
(h) Western Mindanao, consisting of the cities of Basilan and
Zamboanga, and the provinces of Cotabato, Lanao del
Norte, Lanao del Sur, Misamis Occidental, South Cotabato,
Sulu, Zamboanga del Norte, and Zamboanga del Sur.
In the event of the creation of any new province, the Board of
Governors shall, with the approval of the Supreme Court, determine
the Region to which the said province shall belong.
SECTION 4. Chapters. — A Chapter of the Integrated Bar shall be
organized in every province. Except as hereinbelow provided, every
city shall be considered part of the province within which it is
geographically situated.
A separate Chapter shall be organized in each of the following
political subdivisions or areas;
(a) The sub-province of Aurora;
(b) Each congressional district of the City of Manila;
(c) Quezon City;
(d) Caloocan City, Malabon and Navotas;
(e) Pasay City, Makati, Mandaluyong and San Juan del Monte;
(f) Cebu City; and
(g) Zamboanga City and Basilan City
30 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
Unless he otherwise registers his preference for a particular Chapter,
a lawyer shall be considered a member of the Chapter of the
province, city, political subdivision or area where his office or, in the
absence thereof, his residence is located. In no case shall any lawyer
be a member of more than one Chapter.
Each Chapter shall have its own local government as provided for by
uniform rules to be prescribed by the Board of Governors and
approved by the Supreme Court, the provisions of Section 19 of this
rule notwithstanding.
Chapters belonging to the same Region shall hold regional
conventions on matters and problems of common concern.
SECTION 5. House of Delegates. — The Integrated Bar shall have a
House of Delegates of not more than one hundred twenty members
who shall be apportioned among all the Chapters as nearly as may
be according to the number of their respective members, but each
Chapter shall have at least one Delegate. On or before December 31,
1974, and every four years thereafter, the Board of Governors shall
make an apportionment of Delegates.
The term of the office of Delegates shall begin on the date of the
opening of the annual convention of the House and shall end on the
day immediately preceding the date of the opening of the next
succeeding annual convention. No person may be a Delegate for
more than two terms.
The House shall hold an annual convention at the call of the Board
of Governors at any time during the month of April of each year for
the election of Governors, the reading and discussion of reports
including the annual report of the Board of Governors, the transaction
of such other business as may be referred to it by the Board and the
consideration of such additional matters as may be requested in
writing by at least twenty Delegates. Special conventions of the
House may be called by the Board of Governors to consider only such
matters as the Board shall indicate. A majority of the Delegates who
have registered for a convention, whether annual or special, shall
constitute a quorum to do business.
SECTION 6. Board of Governors. — The Integrated bar shall be
governed by a Board of Governors. Nine Governors shall be elected
by the House of Delegates from the nine Regions on the
representation basis of one Governor from each Region. Each
Governor shall be chosen from a list of nominees submitted by the
Delegates from the Region, provided that not more than one
nominee shall come from any Chapter. The President and the
Executive Vice President, chosen by the Governors from outside of
themselves as provided in Section 7 of this Rule, shall ipso facto
become members of the Board.
The members of the Board shall hold office for a term of one year
from the date of their election and until their successors shall have
been duly elected and qualified. No person may be a Governor for
more than two terms.
The Board shall meet regularly once every three months, on such
date at such time and place as it shall designate. A majority of all the
members of the Board shall constitute a quorum to do business.
Special meetings may be called by the President or by five members
of the Board.
Subject to the approval of the Supreme Court, the Board shall adopt
By-Laws and promulgate Canons of Professional Responsibility for all
the members of the Integrated Bar. The By-laws and the Canons may
be amended by the Supreme Court motu propio or upon the
recommendation of the Board of Governors.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
The Board shall prescribe such other rules and regulations as may be
necessary and proper to carry out the purposes of the Integrated bar
as well as the provisions of this Rule.
SECTION 7. Officers. — The Integrated Bar shall have a President
and an Executive Vice President who shall be chosen by the Governor
immediately after the latter's election; either from among themselves
or from other members of the Integrated Bar, by the vote of at least
five Governors. Each of the regional members of the Board shall be
ex officio Vice President for the Region which he represents.
The President and the Executive Vice President shall hold office for a
term of one year from the date of their election and until their
successors shall have duly qualified. The Executive Vice President
shall automatically become the President for the next succeeding full
term. The Presidency shall rotate from year to year among all the
nine Regions in such order of rotation as the Board of Governors shall
prescribe. No person shall be President or Executive Vice President
of the Integrated Bar for more than one term.
The Integrated Bar shall have a Secretary, a Treasurer, and such
other officers and employees as may be required by the Board of
Governors, to be appointed by the President with the consent of the
Board, and to hold office at the pleasure of the Board or for such
term as it may fix. Said officers and employees need not be members
of the Integrated Bar.
SECTION 8. Vacancies. — In the event the President is absent or
unable to act, his duties shall be performed by the Executive Vice
President; and in the event of the death, resignation, or removal of
the President, the Executive Vice President shall serve as Acting
President during the remainder of the term of the office thus vacated.
In the event of the death, resignation, removal or disability of both
the President and the Executive Vice President to hold office until the
next succeeding election or during the period of disability.
The filling of vacancies in the House of Delegates, Board of
Governors, and all other positions of Officers of the Integrated bar
shall be as provided in the By-Laws. Whenever the term of an office
or position is for a fixed period, the person chosen to fill a vacancy
therein shall serve only for the unexpired term.
SECTION 9. Membership dues. — Every member of the Integrated
Bar shall pay such annual dues as the Board of Governors shall
determine with the approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed sum
equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the collections from each Chapter
shall set aside as a Welfare Fund for disabled members of the Chapter
and the compulsory heirs of deceased members thereof.
SECTION 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. — Subject to the
provisions of Section 12 of this Rule, default in the payment of annual
dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the
Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a
ground for the removal of the name of the delinquent member from
the Roll of Attorneys.
SECTION 11. Voluntary termination of membership; reinstatement.
— A member may terminate his membership by filing a written notice
to that effect with the Secretary of the Integrated Bar, who shall
immediately bring the matter to the attention of the Supreme Court.
Forthwith he shall cease to be a member and his name shall be
stricken by the Court from the Roll of Attorneys. Reinstatement may
be made by the Court in accordance with rules and regulations
prescribed by the Board of Governors and approved by the Court.
SECTION 12. Grievance procedures. — The Board of Governors shall
provide in the By-Laws for grievance procedures for the enforcement
and maintenance of discipline among all the members of the
Integrated Bar, but no action involving the suspension or disbarment
31 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
of a member or the removal of his name from the Roll of Attorneys
shall be effective without the final approval of the Supreme Court.
SECTION 13. Non-Political Bar. — The Integrated Bar shall be strictly
non-political, and every activity tending to impair this basic feature is
strictly prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly. No lawyer
holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in
the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof
shall be eligible for election or appointment to any position in the
Integrated Bar or any Chapter thereof. A Delegate, Governor, Officer
or employee of the Integrated Bar, or an officer or employee of any
Chapter thereof shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his
position as of the moment he files his certificate of candidacy for any
elective public office or accepts appointment to any judicial, quasi-
judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any political
subdivision or instrumentality thereof.
SECTION 14. Positions honorary. — Except as may be specifically
authorized or allowed by the Supreme Court, no Delegate or
Governor and no national or local Of;cer or committee member shall
receive any compensation, allowance or emolument from the funds
of the Integrated Bar for any service rendered therein or be entitled
to reimbursement for any expense incurred in the discharge of his
functions.
SECTION 15. Fiscal matters. — The Board of Governors shall
administer the funds of the Integrated Bar and shall have the power
to make appropriations and disbursements therefrom. It shall cause
proper Books of Accounts to be kept and Financial Statements to be
rendered and shall see to it that the proper audit is made of all
accounts of the Integrated Bar and all the Chapters thereof.
SECTION 16. Journal. — The Board of Governors shall cause to be
published a quarterly Journal of the Integrated Bar, free copies of
which shall be distributed to every member of the Integrated Bar.
SECTION 17. Voluntary bar associations. —All voluntary Bar
associations now existing or which may hereafter be formed may co-
exist with the Integrated Bar but shall not operate at cross-purposes
therewith.
SECTION 18. Amendments. — This Rule may be amended by the
Supreme Court motu propio or upon the recommendation of the
Board of Governors or any Chapter of the Integrated Bar.
SECTION 19. Organizational period. — The Commission on Bar
Integration shall organize the local Chapters and toward this end
shall secure the assistance of the Department of Justice and of all
Judges throughout the Philippines. All Chapter organizational
meetings shall be held on Saturday, February 17, 1973. In every
case, the Commission shall cause proper notice of the date, time and
place of the meeting to be served upon all the lawyers concerned at
their addresses appearing in the records of the Commission. The
lawyers present at the meeting called to organize a Chapter shall
constitute a quorum for the purpose, including the election of a
President, a Vice President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and five
Directors.
The Commission shall initially fix the number of Delegates and
apportion the same among all the Chapters as nearly as may be in
proportion to the number of their respective members, but each
Chapter shall have at least one Delegate. The President of each
Chapter shall concurrently be its Delegate to the House of Delegates.
The Vice President shall be his alternate, except where the Chapter
is entitled to have more than one Delegate. The Board of Directors
of the Chapter shall in proper cases elect additional as well as
alternate Delegates.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
The House of Delegates shall convene in the City of Manila on
Saturday, March 17, 1973 for the purpose of electing a Board of
Governors. The Governors shall immediately assume office and
forthwith meet to elect the Officers of the Integrated Bar. The
Officers so chosen shall immediately assume their respective
positions.
SECTION 20. Effectivity. — This Rule shall take effect on January 16,
1973.
(Rule 139-A which ordained the integration of the Philippine Bar and
the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines did not withdraw
from the courts the authority to investigate and decide complaints
against erring members of the Bar.)
IN RE: EDILLON
A.M. No. 1928 August 3, 1978
The removal of the name of Marcial Edilion from its Roll of Attorneys
was recommended by the IBP to the SC for "stubborn refusal to pay
his membership dues" to the IBP since the latter's constitution
notwithstanding due notice. Edillion submitted his comment
reiterating his refusal to pay the membership fees due from him.
Edilion objects to particular features of Rule of Court 139-A
(hereinafter referred to as the Court Rule) — in accordance with
which the Bar of the Philippines was integrated — and to the
provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws, which
provides for the authority of the IBP Board of Governors to
recommend to the Supreme Court the removal of a delinquent
member's name from the Roll of Attorneys. Edilion’s main arguments
is that some of the provisions in the Court Rule are void since those
constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights.
ISSUE:
Whether the above mentioned provisions are violative of
Edillion’s constitutional rights?
RULING:
No. To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated
Bar is not violative of his constitutional freedom to
associate. Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any
group of which he is not already a member. He became a member
of the Bar when he passed the Bar examinations. Bar integration
does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to
attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or
vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only
compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues.
The Supreme Court, in order to further the State's legitimate interest
in elevating the quality of professional legal services, may require
that the cost of improving the profession in this fashion be shared by
the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program — the
lawyers.
The respondent's right to practice law before the courts of
this country should be and is a matter subject to regulation and
inquiry (police power). And, if the power to impose the fee as a
regulatory measure is recognize, then a penalty designed to enforce
its payment, which penalty may be avoided altogether by payment,
is not void as unreasonable or arbitrary. The practice of law is not a
property right but a mere privilege, and as such must bow to the
inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the
lawyer's public responsibilities.
32 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
SANTOS V. LLAMAS
A.C. No. 4749, Jan. 20, 2000
Soliman Santos, a member of the bar, filed a case against Atty.
Soliman Santos for not indicating the proper PTR and IBP Nos. and
data in his pleadings, using only “IBP Rizal 259060” for at least three
years already. He is also charged for violating Rule 139-A Section 10
which provides that “default in the payment of annual dues for six
months shall warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated
Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for
the removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of
Attorneys”. Atty. Santos claims that he had only “limited practice of
law” because his principal occupation is a farmer since he owns a 30
hectare land in Laguna. His non-payment of the dues is because of
his honest belief that he in view of his detachment from a total
practice of law, he is covered from the IBP dues exemption plus
under RA 7432 Section 4, Senior Citizens are exempt from income
taxes.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Soliman is guilty of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
Yes. The usage of the “IBP Rizal 259060” in his pleadings
and thereby misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had
paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility Rule 1.01, Canon 7,
Canon 10 and Rule 10.1. However due to his advanced age and
willingness to pay his dues, the penalty given to him will be one year
from practice or law or until he has paid his dues whichever is later.
CANON 8 — A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH
COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID
HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
To maintain the dignity of the legal profession, lawyers must conduct
themselves honorably, fairly and candidly toward each other. They
shall avoid resorting to harassing tactics against their opposing
counsels.
It is not candid nor fair for the lawyer to knowingly misquote the
contents of a paper, the testimony of a witness, the language or
argument of opposing counsel, or the language of the decision or a
textbook; or with knowledge of its invalidity, to cite as authority a
decision that has been overruled or a statute that has been repealed,
or in argument to assert as a fact that which has not been proved,
or in those jurisdictions where a side has the opening and closing
arguments to mislead his opponent by concealing or withholding
positions in his opening argument upon which his side then intends
to rely.
RULE 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealing,
use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper.
Disrespectful, abusive and abrasive language, offensive personalities,
unfounded accusation 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.
Any kind of language which attacks without foundation the integrity
of the opposing counsel or the dignity of the court may be stricken
off the records or may subject a lawyer to disciplinary action.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
LANGUAGE TO BE USED
A lawyer’s language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but
respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of
the legal profession. The lawyer’s arguments, whether written or
oral, should be gracious to both the court and opposing counsel and
be of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman
to another.
INSTANCES OF DISRESPECTUFL LANGUAGE
1. The lawyer’s referral to the Supreme Court as a “civilized,
democratic tribunal” but the innuendo would suggest that
it is not; categorizing the Supreme Court decision as “false,
erroneous and illegal.”
2. Lawyer’s veiled threat the he would prosecute those
concerned for “knowingly rendering unjust judgment” and
“judgment rendered through negligence” with the
innuendo that the Court of Appeals allowed itself to be
deceived.
3. A lawyer’s protest in his Memorandum describing the
Judge’s attitude as “unjust, hostile, vindictive and
dangerous.”
4. A lawyer’s characterization of the Supreme Court’s
mandatory injunction as “unjust and a miscarriage of
justice.”
5. A lawyer’s reference toa resolution of the Supreme Court
as “sadistic resolution en banc.” “Court not honoring its
own resolution.”
WANT OF INTENTION, NOT AN EXCUSE FOR THE
DISPECTFUL LANGUAGE USED
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. At best, it extenuates liability.
WHEN STRONG LANGUAGE IS JUSTIFIED
When the use of strong language has been impelled by the same
language used by the Judge, the lawyer cannot be blamed.
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, to encroach upon the professional employment of
another. A person without a retained lawyer is a legitimate
prospective client for any lawyer whom he approaches for legal
services. But, as soon as he had retained one, and had not dismissed
the retained counsel, efforts on the part of another lawyer to take
him as client constitutes an act of encroaching upon the employment
of another lawyer.
LAWYER SHALL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH THE OPPOSITE
PARTY WHO IS REPRESENTED BY A COUNSEL
A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of
controversy with a party represented by counsel, much less should
he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but
should deal only with his counsel.
Neither should the lawyer attempt to interview the opposite party
and question him as to the facts of the case even if the adverse party
is willing to do so.
33 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
LAWYER MAY HOWEVER INTERVIEW ANY WITNESS OR
PROSPECTIVE WITNESS FOR THE OPPOSING SIDE
A lawyer may properly interview any witness or prospective witness
for the opposing side in any civil or criminal action without the
opposing counsel or party. In doing so, however, he should
scrupulously avoid any suggestion calculated to induce the witness
to suppress or deviate from the truth, or in any degree to affect his
free and untrammeled conduct when appearing at the trial or on the
witness stand.
ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS OF UNFAITHFUL AND
NEGLECTFUL COUNSEL, PROPER
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 lessening confidence in the legal
system.
Illustrative Case
LINSANGAN VS TOLENTINO
A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009
A complaint for disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan against
Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and
encroachment of professional services. Complaint alleged that
respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced
his clients to transfer legal representation. Respondent promised
them financial assistance and expeditious collection on their claims.
To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called them and
sent them text messages. To support his allegations, complainant
presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that
Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations
with complainant and utilize respondent’s services instead, in
exchange for a loan of P50,000.00. Complainant also attached
“respondent’s” calling card. Respondent, in his defense, denied
knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation of the
said calling card.
ISSUE:
Whether it is an encroachment on the professional practice
of Labiano, thereby violating rule 8.02 which provides that, “A lawyer
shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer.
HELD:
Yes. Settled is the rule that a lawyer should not steal
another lawyer’s client nor induce the latter to retain him by a
promise of better service, good result, or reduced fees for his service.
In this case, the promise of a loan.
CANON 9 — A LAWYER SHALL NOT DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE
OF LAW.
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
Unauthorized practice of law is committed when a person not a
lawyer pretends to be one and performs acts which are exclusive to
members of the bar.
The unauthorized practice of law by assuming to be an attorney and
acting as such without authority constitutes indirect contempt which
is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.
An attorney willfully appearing in court for a person without being
employed unless by leave of the court, may be punished for contempt
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official
transactions.
ASSISTANCE TO UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW,
PROHIBITED
Only those licensed by the Supreme Court may practice law in this
country.
A lawyer shall not assist anyone who is not a member of the bar to
practice law in this country. Thus, he must not take part or associate
in his law firm a person who is not a lawyer, a lawyer who has been
disbarred, a lawyer who has been suspended from the practice of
law, or a foreign lawyer although knowledgeable in the law, unless
licensed by the Supreme Court.
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.
The practice of law is limited only to individuals duly qualified in moral
character and education and who passed the Bar examinations.
Public policy demands that legal work in the representation of
parties-litigant should be entrusted only to those possessing tested
qualification and who are sworn to observe the rules and the ethics
of the profession, as well as being subject to judicial disciplinary
control for the protection of courts, clients and the public.
A lawyer is prohibited from taking as partner or associate any person
who is not authorized to practice law — to appear in court or to sign
pleadings. Whether such person is knowledgeable in the law is
immaterial. A lawyer, who is under suspension from the practice of
law is not a member of the Bar in good standing. More so, a lawyer
who is under suspension from the practice of law is not a member of
the Bar in good standing. More so, a lawyer whose authority to
practice has been withdrawn due to a change in citizenship or
allegiance to the country.
A LAWYER SHALL NOT ALLOW A NON-MEMBER OF THE BAR
TO MISREPRESENT HIMSELF AS A LAWYER
A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to misrepresent
himself as a lawyer and to practice is guilty of violating Canon 9 and
Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
LAWYER CANNOT DELEGATE HIS AUTHORITY WITHOUT
CLIENT’S CONSENT EVEN TO A QUALIFIED PERSON
The authority of a lawyer to represent a client in a case cannot be
delegated to an unqualified person. The reason for the rule is the
dictates of public policy.
A client-lawyer relationship is a personal one. The retained counsel
cannot just get another lawyer to represent the client without the
latter’s consent. The reason is that attorneys are selected on account
of their special fitness through their learning or probity for the work
in hand. An associate or assistant in a law firm may appear for the
client, unless the client has contracted otherwise.
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
34 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
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 arrangement.
A lawyer can only divide or stipulate to divide fees for legal services
with another lawyer who had rendered legal services with him in a
case or legal work.
RATIONALE FOR THE PROHIBITION
If attorney’s fees were allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the
public in hopeless confusion as to whom to consult in case of
necessity and also to leave the bar in a chaotic condition, aside from
the fact that non-lawyers are not amenable to disciplinary measures.
Illustrative Case
NOE-LACSAMANA VS BUSMENTE
A.C. No. 7269, November 23, 2011
Noe-Lacsamana was the counsel for Irene Bides in a civil case,
while Busmente was the counsel for the defendant Imelda
B. Ulaso. Noe-Lacsamana alleged that Ulasos’ deed of sale over the
property subject of such civil case was annulled, which resulted in
the filing of an ejectment case before the MTC, where Busmente
appeared as counsel. Another case for falsification was filed
against Ulaso where Busmente also appeared as counsel. Noe-
Lacsamana alleged that one Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa or Atty. Liza
Dela Rosa would accompany Ulaso in court, projecting herself
as Busmente’s collaborating counsel. Dela Rosa signed the minutes
of the court proceedings nine times. Noe-Lacsamana further alleged
that the court orders and notices specified Dela Rosa
as Busmente’s collaborating counsel. Upon verification with the
Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), she
discovered that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer.
ISSUE:
Whether Busmente is in violation of Canon 9 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which prohibits assistance in the
unauthorized practice of law.
RULING:
Yes. It has been established that Dela Rosa, who is not a
member of the Bar, misrepresented herself as respondent’s
collaborating counsel. There was also sufficient evidence to prove
that respondent allowed Dela Rosa to illegally practice law, appear in
court, and give legal assistance to respondent’s client. Canon 9 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility states: “A lawyer shall not,
directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.” The
term “practice of law” implies customarily or habitually holding
oneself out to the public as a lawyer for compensation as a source of
livelihood or in consideration of his services. Holding one’s self out as
a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that purpose, such as
identifying oneself as attorney, appearing in court in representation
of a client, or associating oneself as a partner of a law office for the
general practice of law.
Recent Cases (2014-2017)
Rebecca Marie Uy Yupangco-Nakpil v. Atty. Roberto L. Uy
A.C. No. 9115, September 17, 2014
A lawyer who mortgages a property which he holds in trust without
the consent of the beneficial owner shall be liable for misconduct.
Members of the Bar are expected at all times to uphold the integrity
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018

and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or Respondent also violated his obligation under Canon 7 of the CPR,
omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and
public. dignity of the legal profession. The people, who came into his office
while he was away, were clueless as to the illegality of the activity
Ramos et al. v. Atty. Campos being conducted therein. They expected that their documents would
A.C. No. 8644, January 22, 2014 be converted into public documents. Instead, they later found out
that the notarization of their documents was a mere sham and
Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility without any force and effect. By prejudicing the persons whose
explicitly proscribes a lawyer from engaging in conduct that documents were notarized by an unauthorized person, their faith in
“adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether the integrity and dignity of the legal profession was eroded.
in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.” Sans any descriptive sophistry,
what Eliseo did was to engage in a brawl with no less than his own
children inside the chamber of a judge. The Court shall not
countenance crude social behavior. Besides, the courtroom is looked
upon by people with high respect and is regarded as a sacred place
where litigants are heard, rights and conflicts settled, and justice
solemnly dispensed. Misbehavior within or around the vicinity
diminishes its sanctity and dignity. Although Alistair and Charmaine
were not entirely faultless, a higher level of decorum and restraint
was then expected from Eliseo, whose conduct failed to show due
respect for the court and lend credit to the nobility of the practitioners
of the legal profession.

Conrado N. Que v. Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr

A.C. No. 7054, November 11, 2014

To support the charge of extrinsic fraud in his petition for annulment

of judgment, the respondent attacked (as quoted above) the name
and reputation of the late Atty. Catolico and accused him of
deliberate neglect, corrupt motives and connivance with the counsel
for the adverse party.

Under these circumstances, we believe that the respondent has been

less than fair in his professional relationship with Atty. Catolico and
is thus liable for violating Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which obligates a lawyer to “conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness, and candor toward his professional colleagues.”
He was unfair because he imputed wrongdoing to Atty. Catolico
without showing any factual basis therefor; he effectively maligned
Atty. Catolico, who is now dead and unable to defend himself.

Carlito Ang v. Atty. James Joseph Gupana

A.C. No. 4545, February 5, 2014

Respondent likewise violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9, of the Code of

Professional Responsibility which provides that “[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.”

In notarizing an affidavit executed by a dead person, respondent is

liable for misconduct. Under the facts and circumstances of the case,
the revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being
commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years and
suspension from the practice of law for one year are in order.

Atty. Aurelio Angeles, Jr etc v. Atty. Renato C. Bagay

A.C. No. 8103, December 3, 2014

Respondent violated Canon 9 of the CPR which requires lawyers not

to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law. Due
to his negligence that allowed his secretary to sign on his behalf as
notary public, he allowed an unauthorized person to practice law. By
leaving his office open despite his absence in the country and with
his secretary in charge, he virtually allowed his secretary to notarize
documents without any restraint.

35 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF
A LAWYER TO THE COURTS
CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND
GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Reason for provision on Candor and Fairness – the reason for
requiring candor and fairness on the lawyers is “The burden cast on
the judiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at face value
what is asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be devoted
just to the task of verification of allegations of allegations submitted
could easily be imagined. Even with due recognition then that counsel
is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of a client’s cause,
it must never be at the expense of deviation from the truth (Muñoz
vs. People, 53 SCRA 190).
Lawyer is an “Officer of the Court.” – A lawyer is an officer of the
courts; like the court itself, he is an instrument or agency to advance
the ends of justice. His duty bound to uphold the courts dignity and
authority. For, to undermine the judicial edifice is disastrous to the
continuity of government and to the people’s attainment of liberty.
REFILING A CASE ALREADY LITIGATED IS NOT FORUM
SHOPPING BUT NEVERTHELESS A VIOLATION OF CANON 10.
Carlet vs. C.A.
Held: Clearly, despite knowledge of final judgments in Civil Case
No. B – 1656, CA-G.R. CV No. 07657 and SC-G.R. No. 74505, as well
as in G.R. No. 94382, counsel, Atty. Modesto Jimenez, persisted in
filing the case at bar for reconveyance. Since this case is barred by
the judgment in Civil Case No. B-1656, there was no other pending
case to speak of when it was filed in July 1991. Thus, the non-forum-
shopping rules is not violated.
What counsel did, however, in filing this present action to relitigate
the title to and partition over Lot No. 981, violates Canon 10 of the
CPR for Lawyers. Rule 10.01 of the same Code which states that “(a)
lawyer shall not do any falsehood x x x nor shall he mislead or allow
the court to be misled by any artifice.” Counsel’s act of filing a new
case involving essentially the same cause of action is likewise
abusive of the courts’ processes and may be viewed as “improper
conduct tending to directly impede, obstruct and degrade the
administration of justice” (Heirs of Guballa, Sr. v. Ca, 168 SCRA 539
citing Gabriel v. CA, 72 SCRA 275).
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.
No falsehood, nor consent to the doing of the same – Lawyer must
be truthful; be a minister of truth. Therefore, he must not mislead
the court nor allow it to be misled by an artifice.
A lawyer is expected to act in good faith (Art. 19, NCC) specially in
his dealings with the court.
Duty not to mislead a Judge –
Canon 22 of the Canons of Professional Ethics reminds the lawyer
that “it is not candid nor fair for the lawyer to knowingly to misquote.”
For this, a lawyer was held in contempt of court for trying to mislead
the Supreme Court by raising issue long laid to rest by final and
executory judgment (Limpin, Jr. v. IAC, 161 SCRA 83).
CASES OF FALSEHOOD
1. Lawyer falsely stating in a deed of sale (DOS) that
property is free from all liens and encumbrances;
36 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
2. Lawyer making it appear that a dead person executed
a DOS in his favor;
3. Lawyer concealed the fact that he was charged and
convicted of a crime in an information sheet required
by law in connection with his employment;
4. Lawyer, encashing a check payable to his dead
cousin by signing the latter’s name on the check;
5. Lawyers falsifying a power of attorney, using it in
collecting the money and appropriating the latter;
6. Lawyer alleging in one pleading that his clients were
lessees of the property, and alleged in a later pleading
that they were the owners;
7. Lawyer speaking falsehood in a Motion to Dismiss;
8. Lawyer denying having received the notice to file
brief;
9. Lawyer presenting falsified documents in court;
10. Lawyer filing false charges or groundless suits;
11. Lawyer falsifying Sheriff’s Return;
12. Using in Pleadings the IBP number of another lawyer;
and
13. Use of fictitious residence certificate by a Notary
Public.
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.
Deliberate misquotation; deliberated citation of an inoperative
provision as law; assertion of something unproven as a fact;
all prohibited.
This Rule is based on Canon 22 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
As provided, a lawyer is prohibited from:
1. Knowingly misquoting or misrepresenting –
a. contents of a paper,
b. language or argument of opposing counsel,
c. text of a decision or authority;
2. Knowingly citing as law, a provision already rendered
inoperative by repeal or amendment; or
3. Asserting as a fact that which has not been proved.
Rule in the quotation of a decision.
Lawyer should quote the same verbatim to avoid misleading the
court.
Syllabus of a case is not the work of the Supreme Court; it
should not be cited in place of the text in the Decision. –
Allied Banking Corp. v. CA
416 SCRA 65
Held: the syllabus of cases in official or unofficial reports of the SC
decisions or resolutions is not the work of the Court, nor does it state
this Court’s decision or resolution. The syllabus is simply the work of
the reported who gives his understanding of the decision. … A
syllabus is not part not a part of the court’s decision.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
A mere typographical error in citation of an authority is not
contemptuous. –
Del Rosario v. Chingcuangco
18 SCRA 1156
Held: Petitioner’s counsel obviously had in mind this Court’s decision
in Paz Ongsiako, Inc. vs Celestino Abad. L-12147, July 30, 1957.
Although he cites as docket number L-121447 instead of L-12147, the
same is plainly but a slight typographical mistake not sufficient to
place him in contempt, especially because the names of the parties
were given correctly….
When the misquotation is intended, the lawyer is subject to
disciplinary action (Surigao Mineral Reservation Board vs. Cloribel).
Citing as law, an inoperative provision of a law;
contemptuous.
Knowingly citing a law or a provision of law, as if it is still effective
when it was already repealed or amended, is unethical and
contemptuous.
Lawyer should not cite decision, knowing that it is invalid or that it
has already been overruled. Neither should he cite a statute knowing
that it has already been repealed.
Asserting as fact, something not proven.
Lawyer should not assert as a fact, his version of the case, which had
not yet been proven. Nor, should a lawyer as finding of fact by the
Court, which actually is not.
Munoz vs. CA & Delia Sutton
53 SCRA 190
Held: The respondent failed to meet the test of candor and honesty
required of pleaders when, in a petition for certiorari prepared by
her to review a CA decision, she attributed to it a finding of fact in
reckless disregard, to say the least, of what in truth was its version
as to what transpired. When given an opportunity to make amends,
there was lacking any showing or regret for a misconduct so obvious
and so inexcusable. Such an attitude of intransigence hardly
commends itself. Her liability is clear. Only her relative inexperience
in the ways of the law did save her from a penalty graver than
censure.
Foisting a Nonexistent Rule.
Foisting a non-existent rule to mislead the Court is a violation of legal
ethics (Erectors, Inc. v. NLRC, 158 SCRA 421)
Adez Realty, Inc., vs. CA
G.R. No. 100643
Oct. 30, 1992
Facts: The instant case originated from a petition for
reconstitution of title over a parcel of land. Sec. 13 of R.A. 26, in
relation to Sec. 12 of the same, provides that notice should be given.
Committed by the secretary, the inserted phrase “without notice to
the actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty,” was just the right
phrase intercalated, making it highly improbable to be unintentional.
Making it appear that CA found that no notice was given to occupants.
Held: Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that factual
findings of the CA are binding on the SC. The distortion of facts
committed by counsel, with the willing assistance of his secretary, is
a grave offense and should not be treated lightly, not only because
it may set a dangerous precedent but, rather, because it is a clear
and serious violation of one’s oath as a member of the Bar. Rule
10.02, Canon 10.
37 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
Misquoting or intercalating phrases in the text of a court decision
constitutes willful disregard of the lawyer’s solemn duty to act at all
times in a manner consistent with the truth. Suspended.
RULE 10.03. A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure
and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
Aim of lawsuit; purpose of Rules of Procedure – The aim is to
render justice. The rules of procedure are designed to attaint such
objective.
Lawyers should bear in mind that rules of procedure are intended to
facilitate the delivery of justice without unnecessary expense and
waste of time; justice delayed is justice denied.
Any lawyer who misuses frustrates the end of justice deserves stern
condemnation.
Canlas vs. CA
164 SCRA 160
Held: Procedural rules, after all, have for their object assistance unto
parties “in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of
every action and proceeding.” If procedure were to be an impediment
to such an objective, “it deserts its proper office as an aid of justice
and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy.” It was almost
eight decades ago that the Court held: … A litigation is not a game of
technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and skilled in the
subtle are of movement and position, entraps and destroys the other.
It is, rather, a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly
lays before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as
wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities
of procedure, asks that justice be done upon the merits. Lawsuits,
unlike duels, are not to be won by the rapier’s thrust.
Technicalities should give way to the realities of the
situation
It must be kept in mind that procedural rules are intended as an aid
of justice, not as means for its frustration. Even if the petition were
impressed with a greater degree of plausibility, it would be,
considering all the circumstances, to crown with success an unworthy
scheme to evade a just obligation by perverting the ends of
procedural requisites are intended to accomplish.
RULE 10.04. A lawyer shall, when filling a pleading,
furnish the opposing party with a copy thereof, together
with all the documents annexed thereto. Unless a motion
is ex parte, he should set it for hearing, with sufficient
notice to the other party.
Reason for the rule: to prevent unfairness, to avoid surprise and back
stabbing; Delay in the judicial proceeding will be minimized because
the adverse party having the right to be informed of the filing of
pleadings, motions, etc., could always, ask through motions, copies
so that they could comment. This process will necessarily cause delay
because such motions would be set for hearing.
Pleaders must also furnish adverse party or parties copies of
all documents annexed thereto. –
No matter how thick the annexes are, the pleader must
simultaneously furnish copies to the adverse party.
To disregard this directive is indulging in unfair and vexing strategy
not sanctioned by the Rules.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
Motions must be set for hearing; Exception
Motions must be in writing except those made in open court or in the
course of a hearing or trial.
Motions which do not prejudice the rights of the adverse party may
be heard and considered ex parte such as harmless motion for
extension of time to file pleading, reset a hearing, etc.
Illustrative Cases
HUEYSUWAN-FLORIDO vs. ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT C. FLORIDO
A.C. No. 5624. January 20, 2004
Complainant and Respondent are estranged couple with two children
ages 5 and 3 who are in the former's custody. Sometime in December
2001, Respondent went to Complainant’s residence in Tanjay City,
Negros Oriental and demanded that the custody of their two minor
children be surrendered to him. He showed Complainant a photocopy
of an alleged Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals, which
supposedly granted his motion for temporary child custody but he
failed to show the original copy of such. Complainant's lawyer did not
also receive any motion filed by respondent. Complainant refused to
give custody of the children. In Jan. 15, 2002, Respondent,
accompanied by armed men supposed to be NBI arrived and
demanded for the surrender of custody while the complainant and
children are in the school. Complainant then sought the assistance
of the Tanjay City Police and at the police station, respondent caused
to be entered in the Police Blotter a statement that he, assisted by
agents of the NBI, formally served on complainant the appellate
courts resolution/order.
In order to diffuse the tension, complainant allowed
children to sleep with the respondent within the City. She later on
received information that the children were to be taken to Bacolod
City which prompted her to go to the hotel where the children are
and transferred to other room. Respondent filed with RTC
Dumaguete a verified petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
asserting his right to custody of the children on the basis of the
alleged Court of Appeals resolution; meanwhile, the complainant was
able to obtain a Certification from the CA that no such resolution had
been issued. Hence, complainant filed the instant complaint alleging
that respondent violated his attorney’s oath by manufacturing,
flaunting and using a spurious Court of Appeals Resolution in and
outside a court of law.
ISSUE:
Whether respondent can be held administratively liable for
his reliance on and attempt to enforce a spurious Resolution of the
Court of Appeals.
RULING:
Yes. Under Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer.
The burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable if it could not
take at face value what is asserted by counsel. The time that will
have to be devoted just to the task of verification of allegations
submitted could easily be imagined. Even with due recognition then
that counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal in the defense of
a client’s cause, it must never be at the expense of the truth.
ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARK CORPORATION V.
CA & SPS. LILIA SEVILLA AND JOSE SEELIN
G.R. No. 123698. August 5, 1998
The case started on May 18, 1981 when private respondent-spouses
Jose Seelin and Lilia Sevilla Seelin filed a complaint against Central
Dyeing & Finishing Corporation for quieting of title and for declaration
of nullity of Transfer Certificate of Title issued in the name of said
38 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
corporation. The trial court rendered judgment declaring the
defendant's Certificate of Title as null and void, which was affirmed
by the appellate court.
Subsequently, private respondents filed an Urgent Manifestation and
Motion for an Immediate Writ of Possession/Break Open Order. The
motion was opposed by herein petitioner Eternal Gardens Memorial
Park Corporation contending that it is not submitting to the
jurisdiction of the trial court; that it is completely unaware of the suit
between private respondents and Central Dyeing; that it is the true
and registered owner of the lot having bought the same from Central
Dyeing; and that it was a buyer in good faith.
Later, the trial court held that the judgment was binding on
petitioner, being the successor-in-interest of defendant Central
Dyeing pursuant to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Revised Rules of
Court. Before the appellate court, Eternal Garden’s petition was
dismissed.
Desperately needing a favorable judgment, petitioner, for the second
time, filed a petition for certiorari which was dismissed by the
appellate court holding that the trial court’s decision had long become
final and executory.
ISSUE:
Whether attorneys are bound to exert every effort to assist
in speedy and efficient administration of justice.
HELD:
YES, this case has again delayed the execution of a final
judgment for seventeen (17) years to the prejudice of the private
respondents.
We note that while lawyers owe entire devotion to the interest of
their clients and zeal in the defense of their client's right, they should
not forget that they are officers of the court, bound to exert every
effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
They should not, therefore, misuse the rules of procedure to defeat
the ends of justice or unduly delay a case, impede the execution of
a judgment or misuse court processes.
In Banogan et al. vs. Cerna, et al., the Supreme Court ruled that: “As
officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the
proper administration of justice. They do not discharge this duty by
filing pointless petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary,
especially this Court, which is burdened enough as it is. A judicious
study of the facts and the law should advise them when a case such
as this, should not be permitted to be filed to merely clutter the
already congested judicial dockets. They do not advance the cause
of law or their clients by commencing litigations that for sheer lack
of merit do not deserve the attention of the courts.”
CANON 11 — A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN
THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL
OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT
BY OTHERS.
Disrespect towards the court would necessarily undermine the
confidence of the people in the honesty and integrity of the members
of the court, and consequently to lower or degrade the administration
of justice by the court.
It is one of the bounden duties of an attorney to observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts of Justice and judicial officers.
(Rule 138, Section 20[b], RRC) The respect is not only toward the
Justices and Judges but also to other officers of the Courts like Clerks
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
of Court, Sheriffs and other judicial officers who take part in the
judicial work.
Lawyers must be respectful not only in their actions but also in their
use of language whether in oral arguments or pleadings.
CRITICISMS OF COURTS MUST NOT SPILL OVER THE WALLS
OF DECENCY AND PROPRIETY
Freedom of speech is not absolute, and must occasionally be
balanced with the requirements of equally important public interests,
such as the maintenance of the integrity of the courts and orderly
functioning of the administration of justice.
Thus, the making of the contemptuous statements directed
against the court is not an exercise of free speech; rather, it is
an abuse of such right. Unwarranted attacks on the dignity of the
courts cannot be disguised as free speech, for the exercise of said
right cannot be used to impair the independence and efficiency of
courts to public respect and confidence therein.
RULE 11.01. A lawyer shall appear in court properly
attired.
As an officer of the court and in order to maintain the dignity and
respectability of the legal profession, a lawyer who appears in court
must be properly attired. Consequently, the court can hold a lawyer
in contempt of court if he does not appear in proper attire. Any
deviation from the commonly accepted norm of dressing in court
(barong or tie, not both) is enough to warrant a citing for contempt.
RESPECT BEGINS WITH THE LAWYER’S OUTWARD
PHYSICAL APPEARANCE IN COURT.
The traditional attires for male lawyers in the Philippines are the long-
sleeve Barong Tagalog or coat and tie. Female lawyers appear in
semi-formal attires. Judges also appear in the same attire in addition
to black robes.
Courts have ordered a male attorney to wear a necktie and have
prohibited a female attorney from wearing a hat. However, the
prohibition of a dress whose hemline was five inches above the knee
was held to be acceptable as such “had become an accepted mode
of dress even in places of worship”
Sloppy informal attire adversely reflects on the lawyer and demeans
the dignity and solemnity of court proceedings.
RULE 11.02. A lawyer shall punctually appear at court
hearings.
A lawyer owes the court and his client the duty to punctually appear
at court proceedings.
Inexcusable absence from, or repeated tardiness in, attending a pre-
trial or hearing may subject the lawyer to disciplinary action as his
actions showing disrespect to the court makes him guilty of
contemptuous behavior.
39 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
RULE 11.03. A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language or behavior before the
Courts.
The lawyer’s duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is
essential to the orderly administration of justice. Hence, in the
assertion of the client’s rights, lawyers – even those gifted with
superior intellect, are enjoined to rein up their tempers. (Zaldivar v.
Gonzalez, G.R. Nos. 79690-707 October 7, 1988)
There is no defense against the use in a pleading by a lawyer of
disrespectful, threatening, abusive, and abrasive language. It cannot
be justified by the constitutional right of free speech for such right is
not absolute and its exercise must be within the context of a
functioning and orderly system of dispensing justice.
Pleadings containing derogatory, offensive or malicious statements
submitted to the court or judge in which the proceedings are pending
constitutes direct contempt
The lawyer’s disavowal of any offensive intent — in using defamatory
words — is of no avail.
Lack or warrant of intention is no excuse for the disrespectful
language employed. At best, it extenuates liability
RULE 11.04. A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge
motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.
This rule allows such criticism so long as it is supported by the record
or it is material to the case. A lawyer’s right to criticize the acts of
courts and judges in a proper and respectful way through legitimate
channels is well recognized.
The cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona
fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.
WHEN IS PUBLIC COMMENT AND CRITICISM OF A COURT’S
DECISION PERMISSIBLE AND WHEN WOULD IT BE
IMPROPER?
A lawyer, like every citizen, enjoys the right to comment on and
criticize the decision of a court. As an officer of the court, a lawyer is
expected not only to exercise that right but also to consider it his
duty to expose the shortcomings and indiscretions of courts and
judges. But such right is subject to the limitations that it shall be bona
fide. It is proper to criticize the courts and judges, but it is improper
to subject them to abuse and slander, degrade them or destroy public
confidence in them. Moreover, a lawyer shall not attribute to a judge,
motives not supported by the record or have no materiality in the
case.
What a lawyer can ordinarily say against a concluded litigation and
the manner the judge handed down the decision therein may not
generally be said to a pending action. The court, in a pending
litigation, must be shielded from embarrassment and influence in
performing the important duty of deciding it.
On the other hand, once litigation is concluded, the judge who
decided on it is subject to the same criticism as any other public
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
official because then his ruling becomes public property and is thrown
open to public consumption.
RULE 11.05. A lawyer shall submit grievances against a
Judge to the proper authorities only.
A lawyer has the duty to defend a judge from unfounded criticism or
groundless personal attack.
The duty to respect does not preclude a lawyer from filing
administrative complaints against erring judges, or for acting as
counsel for clients who have legitimate grievances against them.
Nature of the Case Where to File
If administrative in nature It shall be filed with the Office
of the Court Administrator of
the Supreme Court
If criminal and not purely It shall be filed with the Office
administrative of the Ombudsman
If it involves a Justice It must be coursed through
Supreme based impeachable the House of Representative
offenses and the Senate in accordance
with the rules on
impeachment.
CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 6. THE SUPREME
COURT SHALL HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER ALL
COURTS AND THE PERSONNEL THEREOF
An administrative complaint is not an appropriate remedy where
judicial recourse is still available, such as a motion for
reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for certiorari, unless the
assailed order or decision is tainted with fraud, malice, or dishonesty.
(Santiago III v. Justice Enriquez, Jr. A.M. No. CA-09-47-J, February
13, 2009)
Illustrative Cases
IN RE ALMACEN
GR No. L-27654, Feb. 18, 1970
Atty. Almacen was counsel for Yaptinchay in a civil case which was
decided against them. Atty. Almacen moved for its reconsideration,
serving a copy of such motion on the adverse counsel but failed to
notify the latter of the time and place of hearing on said motion.
Hence, his motion was denied. The case was elevated to the Court
of Appeals, which too was dismissed. Eventually, Atty. Almacen
appealed to the Supreme Court by certiorari, which was outrightly
denied in a minute resolution. He then filed before the Supreme Court
a petition to surrender his lawyer’s certificate of title as he claimed
that it is useless to continue practicing his profession when members
of the high court are “men who are calloused to pleas for justice”,
“who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions” and
“commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity”. He
further alleged that due to the minute resolution, his client was made
to pay P120k without knowing the reasons why and that he became
“one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy.” He also
stated, “that justice as administered by the present members of the
Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.”
ISSUE:
Whether the utterances and actuations of Atty. Almacen
here in question are properly the object of disciplinary sanctions.
40 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
RULING:
Yes. The High Court regarded said criticisms as uncalled
for; that such is insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and
derogatory. It is true that a lawyer, both as an officer of the court
and as a citizen, has the right to criticize in properly respectful terms
and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. His
right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the courts in a fair and
respectful manner, and the independence of the bar, as well as of
the judiciary, has always been encouraged by the courts. But it is the
cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and
shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Intemperate
and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to
courts. In the case at bar, Almacen’s criticism is misplaced. As a
veteran lawyer, he should have known that a motion for
reconsideration which failed to notify the opposing party of the time
and place of trial is a mere scrap of paper and will not be entertained
by the court. He has only himself to blame and he is the reason why
his client lost. Almacen was suspended indefinitely.
WICKER VS. ARCANGEL
G.R. No. 112869, Jan. 29, 1996
Wicker's counsel, Atty. Rayos, filed a motion seeking the inhibition of
the respondent Judge Arcangel from the civil case where the latter
was the presiding judge, questioning his partiality and integrity.
Rayos alleged that the Acting Judge in such civil case was personally
recruited from the south by Atty. Santos (the counsel for the
opposing party in the civil case) and his wife, a one-time member of
the Judicial and Bar Council, against whom Wicker filed an
administrative case. Respondent judge found the allegations to be
malicious, derogatory and contemptuous, he ordered both counsel
and client to appear before him and to show cause why they should
not be cited for contempt of court on the motion for inhibition filed
by complainants, and in an order, held them guilty of direct contempt
and sentenced each to suffer imprisonment for five (5) days and to
pay a fine of P100.00.
ISSUE
Whether it was proper for Atty. Rayos and Wicker to be
cited for contempt.
RULING
Yes. A reading of the allegations in petitioners’ motion for
inhibition leads to no other conclusion than that respondent Judge
was beholden to the opposing counsel in the case, Atty. Benjamin
Santos, to whom or to whose wife, the judge owned his transfer to
the RTC of Makati, which necessitated “easing out” the former judge
to make room for such transfer. These allegations are derogatory to
the integrity and honor of respondent judge and constitute
unwarranted criticism of the administration of justice in this country.
They suggest that lawyers, if well-connected, can manipulate the
assignment of judges to their advantage. Atty. Rayos cannot evade
responsibility for the allegations in question. As a lawyer, he is not
just an instrument of his client. His client came to him for professional
assistance in the representation of a cause, and while he owed him
whole-souled devotion, there were bounds set by his responsibility
as a lawyer which he could not overstep. Based on Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Rayos bears as much
responsibility for the contemptuous allegations in the motion for
inhibition as his client. Atty. Rayos' duty to the courts is not secondary
to that of his client. The Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins
him to "observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to
judicial officers and [to] insist on similar conduct by others" and "not
[to] attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have
materiality to the case."
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018

RE: LETTER OF UP LAW FACULTY
A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, March 8, 2011
Shortly after the promulgation of the Supreme Court decision in
Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, the counsel for the petitioners therein
filed, 1) a Motion for Reconsideration reiterating the fundamental
responsibility of states in protecting its citizens’ human rights
specifically pertaining to jus cogens norms; and, 2) a supplement
thereto asserting that the Vinuya decision was plagiarized from
different sources and that the true intents of the plagiarized sources
were twisted by the ponente to suit the arguments laid down in said
decision. Thereafter, an ethics committee tasked to investigate the
veracity of the alleged plagiarism, the authors who were purportedly
plagiarized sent their respective letters to the Supreme Court. Due to
this, the faculty of UP College of Law came up with a statement
(Restoring Integrity Statement), which alleged plagiarism against
Justice del Castillo, treating the same not only as an established fact,
but as a truth. Said statement was posted online and at the College’s
bulletin board and was submitted to the Supreme Court. Thus, the
Supreme Court issued a Show Cause Resolution directing
respondents to show cause why they should not be disciplined as
members of the Bar for violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
3.) Inducing a client to commit a criminal act.
4.) Filing cases that have no cause of action.
5.) Telling the witness not to attend hearings.
6.) Other similar acts.
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 profference. He should also be ready with the original
documents for comparison with the copies.
A lawyer is not adequately prepared unless he has mastery of the
facts of his case and the law and jurisprudence applicable thereto
upon which he can anchor his stance. (Pineda, 2009)
It is for this reason that a newly hired counsel must acquaint himself
with all the antecedent proceedings if he is hired midway through a
case and a lawyer who presents documentary evidence must be
ready with originals thereof (Best Evidence Rule).
This is also one of the Rules that requires MCLE’s. Lawyers cannot
come to court prepared if they are not knowledgeable of the new
developments in the law.

ISSUE: Inadequate preparation obstructs the administration of justice by

Whether respondents should be disciplined as Members of delaying trials and not giving clients the best possible protections that
the Bar under Canons 1, 11 and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the out laws could give them.
CPR?
RULE 12.02 A lawyer shall not 1le multiple actions arising
HELD: from the same cause.
YES. The Court has already clarified that it is not the
expression of respondents’ staunch belief that Justice Del Castillo has
MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS AND FORUM SHOPPING
committed a misconduct that the majority of this Court has found so
It wastes the time of the court as well as disrespects the judge
unbecoming in the Show Cause Resolution. No matter how firm a
handling the earlier case when lawyers file multiple actions from one
lawyer’s conviction in the righteousness of his cause there is simply
cause, for this reason this practice, known as Forum Shopping, is
no excuse for denigrating the courts and engaging in public behavior
disallowed.
that tends to put the courts and the legal profession into disrepute.
The right to criticize the courts and judicial officers must be balanced
Forum Shopping (definition) – There is forum shopping when a
against the equally primordial concern that the independence of the
party given an adverse result in one forum seeks favorable results in
Judiciary be protected from due influence or interference. In cases
another or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings
where the critics are not only citizens but members of the Bar,
grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other
jurisprudence has repeatedly affirmed the authority of this Court to
court would give a favorable decision.
discipline lawyers whose statements regarding the courts and fellow
lawyers, whether judicial or extrajudicial, have exceeded the limits of
Note: To prevent Forum Shopping, the SC has required that all
fair comment and common decency.
Initiatory Pleadings have attached a sworn Certification of Non-
Forum Shopping.
In this regard, the Court finds that there was indeed a lack of
observance of fidelity and due respect to the Court. Thus, the 35
Forum Shopping is only applicable in Judicial Proceedings, other
respondents named in the Common Compliance should,
proceedings such as disbarment are not affected.
notwithstanding their claim of good faith, be reminded of their
lawyerly duty, under Canons 1, 11 and 13, to give due respect to the
EFFECT OF FORUM SHOPPING
courts and to refrain from intemperate and offensive language
If found that Forum Shopping has been committed, this will cause
tending to influence the Court on pending matters or to denigrate the
the dismissal of ALL pending actions in different courts, without
courts and the administration of jus
prejudice to the taking of appropriate actions against the counsel or
tice.
party involved.
CANON 12 — A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND
RULE 12.03. A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions
CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND
of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the
EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
period lapse without submitting the same or offering an
explanation for his failure to do so.
This is not only a duty of lawyers, but of judges as well. All other
individuals who go to court have the duty to cooperate with court
officers in the administration of justice. When a lawyer asked for extension of time, he must act in good faith
in complying with the filing of the pleading before the lapse of the
Acts which are condemned: new period. Periods are set by the court in order to not unnecessarily
Some examples of breaches of this duty are the following: delay the administration of justice.
1.) Dilatory Tactics
2.) Inducing a witness to plead guilty to a crime he did not If a motion for extension is filed in bad faith, the counsel may be
commit. subject to disciplinary actions.

41 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
It should, however, be a last resort to ask for an extension. As much
as possible, lawyers should file their pleadings on time.
RULE 12.04. A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case,
impede the execution of a Judgment or misuse Court
processes.
This is a consequence to a lawyer’s duty to assist in the speedy
disposition of cases and administration of justice. Unduly delaying
cases is a violation of said duty.
Any means done by a lawyer to deprive a party of its awards in the
verdict are also a violation of the duty set by Rule 12.
JUDGES DUTY TO PREVENT DILATORY TACTICS
As earlier mentioned, it is also the duty of a judge to aid in the speedy
administration of justice, as such, a judge must be mindful of the
lawyers attempts in resorting to dilatory tactics or misuse of the Rules
of Procedure.
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.
COACHING OF WITNESS
Lawyers are not allowed to coach their witnesses during a trial, this
would induce the witness to break his oath “to tell the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Both the lawyer and client
have a duty to uphold the truth so that real justice may be rendered.
Such acts of coaching are condemnable. A lawyer’s only time to talk
to a witness during a trial is when that witness takes the witness
stand. Even then, our Rules of Court allow objections against the
testimony of the witness when the opposing counsel believes that
the lawyer is coaching the witness while on the stand.
RULE 12.06. A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness
to misrepresent himself or to impersonate another.
ASSISTING IN MISREPRESENTATION
This is a Rule that bolsters a lawyer’s duty to do no falsehood. Aiding
a client in misrepresentation renders a lawyer unfit to assist in the
administration of justice.
A witness who knowingly misrepresents himself is criminally liable for
False Testimony (under Art. 181 or 183, RPC, as the case may be)
and the lawyer who induces or aids in such misrepresentation is
equally guilty. This holds the lawyer both criminally and
administratively liable.
RULE 12.07. A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass
a witness nor needlessly inconvenience him.
IMPROPER CONDUCT OF A LAWYER TOWARDS A WITNESS
A lawyer may not terrorize a witness, or in any way disrespect them
while they are on the stand. Lawyers should not ask questions
beyond what is fair and necessary. This is in line with the Revised
Rules of Evidence, under rights and obligations of a witness, Rules
132 A, Section 3:
Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. — A witness must
answer questions, although his answer may tend to establish a claim
against him. However, it is the right of a witness:
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting
questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor;
42 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice
require;
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to
the issue;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a
penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law;
or
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his
reputation, unless it to be the very fact at issue or to a fact
from which the fact in issue would be presumed. But a
witness must answer to the fact of his previous final
conviction for an offense. (3a, 19a)
Note: Judges are equally mandated to be courteous to witnesses and
litigants.
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.
It is improper for a lawyer to act in the dual capacity as counsel and
witness. As a counsel, the lawyer advocates the cause of the party,
as a witness, the lawyer would have to testify with what he has
personal knowledge of, regardless of whether they forward the case
of his client or not. These concepts are averse to each other.
Advocating a party’s cause may induce the lawyer to testify only on
what is favorable to that party and so a lawyer cannot do both.
If a lawyer must testify, then he must inhibit himself as counsel and
ask that another take on that role. This is a question of propriety and
does not in any way affect the competency of said lawyer.
Illustrative Cases
SOLEDAD NUEZ v. ATTY. ROMULO RICAFORT
A.C. No. 5054, May 29, 2002
Nuez authorized Atty. Ricafort to sell her two parcels of land. She
agreed to give the latter 10 percent of the price as commission. Atty.
Ricafort succeeded in selling the lots, but despite Nuez’s repeated
demands, did not turn over to the latter the proceeds of the sale. An
action for a sum of money was filed and subsequently, a money
judgment was rendered in favor of Nuez. However, Atty. Ricafort
failed to satisfy the money judgment against as can be gleaned from
his (1) issuance of postdated checks; (2) closing of the account
against which said checks were drawn; and (3) continued failure to
make good the amounts of the checks. When asked to file his
comment, Atty. Ricafort did not do so, compelling Nuez to file a
motion to cite respondent in contempt on the ground that his
strategy to file piecemeal motions for extension of time to submit the
comment smacks of a delaying tactic scheme that is unworthy of a
member of the bar and a law dean.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Ricafort violated Rules 12.04 and 12:03 of
Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING
Yes. Atty. Ricafort then knowingly and willfully violated
Rules 12.04 and 12:03 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which respectively provide that lawyers should avoid
any action that would unduly delay a case, impede the execution of
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
a judgment or misuse court processes; and that lawyers, after
obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs,
should not let the period lapse without submitting the same or
offering an explanation for their failure to do so.
JONAR SANTIAGO vs . Atty. EDISON V. RAFANAN
A.C. No. 6252. October 5, 2004.
Santiago filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty.
Edison Rafanan, alleging that the latter executed an Affidavit in favor
of his client and offered the same as evidence in the case wherein he
was actively representing his client. And that on a certain date,
Rafanan accompanied by several persons waited for Santiago after
the hearing and after confronting the latter disarmed him of his
sidearm and uttered insulting words and veiled threats.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Rafanan violated Rule 12.08 of the CPR: “A
lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client” by executing an
affidavit corroborating the defense of alibi proffered by his clients.
RULING:
No. First, we consider it the duty of a lawyer to assert every
remedy and defense that is authorized by law for the benefit of the
client, especially in a criminal action in which the latter's life and
liberty are at stake. Having undertaken the defense of the accused,
respondent, as defense counsel, was thus expected to spare no effort
to save his clients from a wrong conviction. He had the duty to
present — by all fair and honorable means — every defense and
mitigating circumstance that the law permitted, to the end that his
clients would not be deprived of life, liberty or property, except by
due process of law. The Affidavit executed by Atty. Rafanan was
clearly necessary for the defense of his clients, since it pointed out
the fact that on the alleged date and time of the incident, his were
at his residence and could not have possibly committed the crime
charged against them. Second, paragraph (b) of Rule 12.08
contemplates a situation in which lawyers give their testimonies
during the trial. In this instance, the Affidavit was submitted during
the preliminary investigation which, as such, was merely inquisitorial.
CANON 13 — A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS
OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY
WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE
APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT.
Lawyer is a minister of justice. His cases must be won because they
are meritorious and not because of connections, clout, dominance or
influence. Otherwise, it will erode the confidence of the public on the
fair administration of justice.
A wife-judge allowed to use the address of her court for her husband-
lawyer’s pleadings before other courts. The lawyer was guilty of using
fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive address that had no purpose
other than to try to impress either the court in which his cases are
lodged, or his client, that he has close ties to a member of the
judiciary (Paas v. Almarvez).
The lawyer was disbarred for making the misrepresentation that he
could cause the release of a detainee from jail through his connection
with SC Justice. He received money for this act of misrepresentation
(Berbano v. Barcelona).
43 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
RULE 13.01. A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary
attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for
cultivating familiarity with Judges.
Extraordinary attention or hospitality to a judge such as opening the
door/office, carrying things, lighting his cigarettes, serving him food
in social gathering, and spending for parties are prohibited. The
reason is to protect the good name and reputation of the judge and
lawyer.
To seek for opportunity to cultivate familiarity with judges such as
joining in clubs/associations where judges are members, and making
godfathers of their children are prohibited. Such lawyer dishonors his
profession and a judge who consents to them is unworthy of his high
office.
Discussing cases with the judge privately should be avoided in an
attempt to gain special favor.
It is an impropriety for a judge to meet privately with an accused.
This is to maintain impartiality.
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.
Newspaper publications by a lawyer as to pending/anticipated
litigation may interfere with a fair trial in the courts, even in ex parte
statement it should be avoided. Lawyer is equally guilty as the client
if he induces the latter to cause the publicity; both may be subjected
to contempt of court.
The test when public statement on a pending case is contemptuous
is the character of the act done and its direct tendency to prevent
the discharge of official duty.
To warrant a finding of “prejudicial” publicity, there must be an
allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced,
not simply that they might be, by the “barrage” of publicity (Martelino
v. Alejandro).
RULE 13.03. A lawyer shall not brook nor invite
interference by another branch or agency of the
government in the normal course of judicial proceedings.
The rule should be distinguished from Rule 11.05 which reads: “a
lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper
authorities only.” The latter rule refers to complaints against judges
themselves which must be coursed to the proper authorities only.
The principle of separation of powers applies.
Illustrative Cases
CESAR L. LANTORIA vs. ATTY. IRINEO L. BUNYI
A.M. No. 1769 June 8, 1992
Irineo L. Bunyi, counsel for Mrs. Constancia M. Mascarinas, is facing
an administrative case filed by Cesar L. Lantoria, the manager and
supervisor of the farm owned by Mrs. Mascarinas, on the ground that
respondent Bunyi allegedly committed acts of "graft and corruption,
dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of the IBP, and
corruption of the judge and bribery", in connection with Civil Case
Nos. 81, 83 and 88 handled by the respondent.
Civil Case Nos. 81, 83 and 88 were filed and sought to eject the
squatters from the aforementioned farm. These cases were assigned
to the Municipal Court of Esperanza, Agusan del Bur, the acting
municipal judge of which was the Honorable Vicente Galicia (who was
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
at the same time the regular judge of the municipal court of Bayugan,
Agusan del Sur). The defendants of these cases were declared in
default.
Correspondences between Lantoria and Bunyi showed that Bunyi
initially enclosed a letter in an envelope addressed to Judge Galicia
in a confidential and private manner.
Judge Galicia thru the mediation of Lantoria informed Bunyi that he
is willing to let Bunyi write the decisions for the 3 civil cases. Lantoria
informed the same to Bunyi which later delivered the 3 decisions thru
Lantoria.
Three years later, Lantoria filed the present case against Bunyi
alleging that they won the said cases because Bunyi wrote the
decisions in those cases. Bunyi contends that Lantoria had knowledge
of the request of Judge Galicia to Bunyi as the said judge had two
salas before him. Also, Bunyi contends that the drafting of the
decision was not an idea spawned by him. Furthermore, he contends
that his participation is merely on revision.
The Solicitor General investigated the matters and found that Bunyi
prepared the draft of the decisions and that he had previous
communications with the judge regarding drafting the same.
Moreover, Bunyi admitted that he prepared the said decisions and
that the subject letters do exist.
The Solicitor General found that respondent is guilty of highly
unethical and unprofessional conduct for failure to perform his duty,
as an officer of the court, to help promote the independence of the
judiciary and to refrain from engaging in acts which would influence
judicial determination of a litigation in which he is counsel. The
Solicitor General recommended that respondent be suspended from
the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
Lantoria did not attend hearing of the case and later filed his
withdrawal of the same. Bunyi gave an apology but he denied the
allegations of offering a gift to judge Galicia.
ISSUE: Whether Bunyi, in preparing the decisions of the civil case,
violated the code of professional responsibility for lawyers and
therefore warranted the filing of such administrative case?
HELD: YES.
The determination of the merits of the instant case should proceed
notwithstanding withdrawal of complaint due to the Bunyi having
admitted that the letters in question truly exist, and that he even
asked for an apology from the Court, for whatever effects such letters
had on his duty as a lawyer.
The subject letters indeed indicate that respondent had previous
communication with Judge Galicia regarding the preparation of the
draft decisions in Civil Case Nos. 81, 83, and 88, and which he in fact
prepared. Although nothing in the records would show that
respondent got the trial court judge's consent to the said preparation
for a favor or consideration, the acts of respondent nevertheless
amount to conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and an officer of the
Court.
Clearly, respondent violated Canon No. 3 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics on attempts to exert personal influence on the
court - A lawyer should not communicate or argue privately with the
judge as to the merits of a pending cause and deserves rebuke and
denunciation for any device or attempt to gain from a judge special
personal consideration or favor.
In the new Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer's attempt to
influence the court is rebuked, as shown in Canon No. 13 and Rule
13.01. CANON 13 — A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause
and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives
44 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
the appearance of influencing the court. Rule 13.01 — A lawyer shall
not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek
opportunity for, cultivating familiarity with judges.
Court finds Bunyi guilty of unethical practice in attempting to
influence the court where he had pending civil case. Suspended for
1 year.
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan
G.R. Nos.159486-88, November 25, 2003
Atty. Allan Paguia, as consel averred that the respondent justices
“violated” Rule 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct by attending the
EDSA 2 Rally and by authorizing the assumption of then Vice-
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the Presidency in violation of
the 1987 Constitution.
He likewise contended that the justices have prejudged a case that
would assail the legality of the act taken by President Arroyo. The
subsequent decision of the Court in Estrada vs. Arroyo is, as
petitioner states “a patent mockery of justice and due process”.
According to Atty. Paguia, during the hearing of his Motion for
Reconsideration the three justices of the Special Division of
Sandiganbayan made manifest their bias and partiality against his
client.
He thus averred, Presiding Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario supposedly
employed foul and disrectpectful language when she blurted out,
“magmumukha naman kaming gago” and Justice Teresita Leonardo-
De Castro characterized the motion as insignificant even before the
prosecution could file its comments or opposition thereto, remarking
in open court that to grant Estrada’s motion would result in chaos
and disorder. Prompted by the alleged ‘bias and partial attitude’ of
the Sandiganbayan justices, Atty. Paguia filed a motiom for their
disqualification.
Subsequently, the court ruled the DISMISSAL of the petition for
certiorari. Unmindful of the well-meant admonition to him by the
Court, the said Attorney appears to persist on end. In fact, he wrote
to say something on one of the issue of the Daily Tribune.
“What is the legal effect of that violation of President Estrada’s right
to due process of law? It renders the decision in Estrada vs. Arroyo
unconstitutional and void. The rudiments of fair play were not
observed. There was no fair play since it appears that when President
Estrada filed his petition, Chief Justice Davide and his fellow justices
had already committed to the other party - GMA - with a judgment
already made and waiting to be formalized after the litigants shall
have undergone the charade of a formal hearing. After the justices
had authorized the proclamation of GMA as president, can they be
expected to voluntarily admit the unconstitutionality of their own act?
ISSUE: WON Atty. Paguia committed a violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
Criticism or coment made in good faith on the correctness or
wrongness, soundness or unsoundness of a decision of the Court
would be welcome for, if well-founded, such reaction can enlighten
the court and contribute to the correction of an error if committed.
However, Atty. Paguia has not limited his discussion to the merits of
his client’s case within judicial forum but he has repeated his assault
on the Court both in both broadcast and print media.
Further, the court ruled that Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates that the lawyer should observe and maintain
the respect due to the courts and judicial officers and, indeed, should
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
insist on similar conduct by others. In liberally imputing sinister and
devious motives and questioning the impartiality, integrity, and
authority of the members of the Court, Atty. Paguia has only
succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the
dispensation of justice. The court has already warned Atty. Paguia,
on pain of disciplinary sanction, to become mindful of his grave
responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court. Apparently,
he has chosen not to at all take heed. Accordingly, he was indefinitely
suspended from the practice of law for conduct unbecoming a lawyer
and an officer of the Court.
Recent Cases (2014-2017)
1. Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the submission
of false entries in a certification against forum shopping constitutes
indirect or direct contempt of court, and subjects the erring counsel to
the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. In the realm of
legal ethics, said infraction may be considered as a violation of Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Code). Owing to the evident similarity of the issues
involved in each set of cases, Atty. Nazareno – as mandated by the Rules
of Court and more pertinently, the canons of the Code – should have
truthfully declared the existence of the pending related cases in the
certifications against forum shopping attached to the pertinent pleadings.
EUPROCINA I. CRISOSTOMO, MARILYN L. SOLIS, EVELYN MARQUIZO,
ROSEMARIE BALATUCAN, MILDRED BATANG, MARILEN MINERALES, and
MELINDA D. SIOTING vs. ATTY. PHILIP Z. A. NAZARENO, A.C. No. 6677,
June 10, 2014
2. We cannot stress enough that being a lawyer is a privilege with
attached duties and obligations. Lawyers bear the responsibility to meet
the profession's exacting standards. A lawyer is expected to live by the
lawyer's oath, the rules of the profession and the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR). The duties of a lawyer may be classified into four
general categories namely duties he owes to the court, to the public, to
the bar and to his client. A lawyer who transgresses any of his duties is
administratively liable and subject to the Court's disciplinary authority. In
the present case, the duties transgressed by Atty. Lavadia fall under those
duties to his client and to the court.
This Court notes Atty. Lavadia's propensity for filing motions for extension
of time to file pleadings but failing to file the same, in violation of Rule
12.03 of the CPR which states:
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.
In fact, such proclivity on the part of Atty. Lavadia to file such motions
precisely led to the filing of this complaint. In the course of this
administrative proceeding, he continued to flaunt to this Court his willful
defiance and disregard for court orders. (ENRIQUEZ V. LAVADIA, JR., A.C.
NO. 5686 (RESOLUTION), JUNE 16, 2015)
3. Under Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
lawyers owe candor, fairness, and good faith to the court. Particularly,
Rule 10.01 provides that "[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."
A lawyer is, first and foremost, an officer of the court. A lawyer's first duty
is not to his client but to the administration of justice.
In this case, the respondent deliberately misled the MeTC, the
Commission and this Court into believing that Victor Canaco De Los Santos
(Canaco's son whose birth certificate is at issue in the criminal case) and
Victor P. De Los Santos (named in the Information) are different persons.
The Court agrees with the findings of the IBP Commissioner that the
difference in the middle initial is a mere typographical error on the part
of the City Prosecutor. The criminal case involved one and the same Victor
Canaco de los Santos whose birth certificate has been at issue.
45 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
Members of the Bar are expected at all times to uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission, that
might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity,
honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.
For clearly falling short of the standards set by the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the Court finds that the appropriate penalty should be a
suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year as
originally recommended by the Investigating Commissioner. (DE LOS
SANTOS II V. BARBOSA, A.C. NO. 6681, JUNE 17, 2015)
4. The Court agrees with the IBP that respondent had been
remiss in the performance of his duties as counsel for Congressional
Village Homeowner's Association, Inc. Records show that respondent filed
the first motion for extension of time to file appellant's brief days after
the expiration of the reglementary period to file said brief, thus causing
the dismissal of the appeal of the homeowner's association. To justify his
inexcusable negligence, respondent alleges that he was merely the
supervising lawyer and that the fault lies with the handling lawyer. His
contention, however, is belied by the records for we note that respondent
had filed with the CA an Urgent Motion for Extension, which he himself
signed on behalf of the law firm, stating that a previous motion had been
filed but "due to the health condition of the undersigned counsel he was
not able to finish said Appellants' Brief within the fifteen (15) day period
earlier requested by him." Thus, it is clear that respondent was personally
in charge of the case.
A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility
of protecting the latter's interest with utmost diligence. In failing to file
the appellant's brief on behalf of his client, respondent had fallen far short
of his duties as counsel as set forth in Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which exhorts every member of the Bar not
to unduly delay a case and to exert every effort and consider it his duty
to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
Atty. Diosdado B. Jimenez is found administratively liable for violation of
Rule 12.04, Canon 12 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is suspended from the practice of law for
one (1) month effective from finality of this Resolution, with warning that
a repetition of the same or similar violation shall be dealt with more
severely. (FIGUERAS V. JIMENEZ, A.C. NO. 9116 (RESOLUTION), MARCH
12, 2014)
5. The Court found it hard to disregard the thought that the
instant petition was filed as a dilatory tactic to prosecute Criminal Case
Nos. 206655-59, 206661-77 and 209634. As correctly pointed out by Uy
since the time when the "Motion for Permanent Dismissal" was filed, the
issues raised herein were already resolved with finality by this Court in
G.R. No. 171096. Verily, Co, acting through the guidance and advice of
his counsel, Atty. Oscar C. Maglaque, adopted a worthless and vexatious
legal maneuver for no purpose other than to delay the trial court
proceedings. It appears that Atty. Maglaque's conduct contravened the
Code of Professional Responsibility which enjoins lawyers to observe the
rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice
(Rule 10.03, Canon 10) as well as not to unduly delay a case or misuse
court processes (Rule 12.04, Canon 12). The Lawyer's Oath also upholds
in particular:
“. . . 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 my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the
courts as to my clients…”
The Commission on Bar Discipline-Integrated Bar of the Philippines is
DIRECTED to investigate Atty. Oscar C. Maglaque for his acts that appear
to have violated the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and the Rule on Forum Shopping. (CO V. NEW
PROSPERITY PLASTIC PRODUCTS, G.R. NO. 183994, JUNE 30, 2014)
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF

A LAWYER TO THE CLIENTS RULE 14.02. A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious
and sufficient cause, an appointment as counsel de oficio
or as amicus curiae or a request from the Integrated Bar
CANON 14 — A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS of the Philippines or any of its chapters for rendition of
SERVICES TO THE NEEDY. free legal aid.

GENERAL RULE: A private practitioner is not obliged to act as Counsel de oficio – a counsel, appointed or assigned by the court,
counsel for a person who may wish to become his client. He has the from among such members of the bar in good standing who by
right to decline employment. reason or their experience and ability, may adequately defend the
accused.
EXCEPTION: Canon 14 provides the exceptions to the general rule
and emphasizes the lawyer’s public responsibility of rendering legal Amicus curiae – a friend of the court; a “bystander” (usually a
services to the needy and the oppressed who are unable to pay counselor) who interposes or volunteers information upon some
attorney’s fees. In such cases, refusal is the exception rather than matter of law in regard to which the judge may be doubtful or might
the rule. go wrong; acts merely a consultant to guide the court in a doubtful
question or issue pending before it. The amicus curiae serves without
RULE 14.01. A lawyer shall not decline to represent a compensation.
person solely on account of the latter's race, sex, creed or
status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the Right to counsel de oficio does not cease upon the conviction of the
guilt of said person. accused by the trial court. Thus, if he wasn’t to appeal, the court
must still assign a counsel de oficio for the purpose.
A lawyer cannot decline to represent a person for the sole reason of
the latter’s race, sex, creed, status in life, or because of the lawyer’s If the accused insists that he be represented by his counsel de parte
opinion that said person is guilty of the charge. who is not available during the trial, and the judge appointed a
counsel de oficio despite the protestation of the accused, the
The administration of justice does not discriminate against any one sentence rendered is void.
on grounds of nationality, religion, sex or status of life.
Appointment of amicus curiae could either be by application to the
Rule 14.01 applicable only Rule 14.01 inapplicable to judge or the judge on his own initiative may invite a prominent lawyer
in criminal cases civil cases to appear as amicus curiae in special cases.
1. A lawyer cannot decline to 1. The attorney's signature in
represent an accused because every pleading constitutes a Pertinent provisions of the ROC
of his opinion that the accused certificate by him that there is 1. Rule 138 Sec. 20 (h) – Duties of attorneys
is guilty of the charge filed a good cause to support and 2. Rule 138 Sec. 31 – Attorneys for destitute litigants
against the latter. (Rule 14.01; that it is not interposed for 3. Rule 116 Sec. 6 – Duty of court to inform accused of his
Section 20(i) Rule 138 of the delay and willful violation of right to counsel
ROC) such rule shall subject him to 4. Rule 116 Sec. 7 – Appointment of counsel de oficio
disciplinary action (Lawyer's 5. Rule 116 Sec. 8 – Time for counsel de oficio to prepare for
oath; Section 3, Rule 7 of the arraignment
ROC) 6. Rule 124 (Case on appeal in the CA, Sec. 2) – Appointment
of counsel de oficio for the accused
2. It is not for the lawyer to 2. It is the attorney's duty to 7. Rule 138 Sec. 36 – Amicus curiae
adjudge the guilt of his own counsel or maintain such
client who under the law is actions or proceedings as RULE 14.03. A lawyer may not refuse to accept
presumed innocent until appear to him to be just and representation of an indigent client unless:
proven otherwise (Section only such defenses as he
14(2), Art. III, Constitution) believes to be honestly a) he is in no position to carry out the work effectively or
debatable under the law. competently; or
(Lawyer's Oath; Section 21,
Rule 138 of ROC) b) he labors under a conflict of interest between him and
the prospective client, or between a present client and the
3. It is not unethical for a 3. A lawyer is not to encourage prospective client.
lawyer to defend an accused either the commencement or
charged with any crime, the continuance of an action or Indigent – shall refer to a person who has no visible means of income
heinous or otherwise, because proceeding, or delay any man's or whose income is insufficient for the subsistence of his family, to
in the eyes of the law, until his cause, for any corrupt motive be determined by the fiscal or judge, taken into account the members
conviction, he enjoys the or interest. (Lawyer's Oath; of his family dependent upon him for subsistence. (Sec. 2 RA 6033)
rebuttable presumption of Rule 1.03, Canon 1 of the CPR)
innocence. (Section 14(2), Art Indigent – one who has no money or property sufficient and available
III, Constitution) for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family. (Sec.
21, Rule 3 of ROC)
4. A lawyer must decline to
conduct a civil case or to make Indigent – those (a) whose gross income and that of their immediate
a defense when convinced that family do not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage
it is intended merely to harass of an employee and (b) who do not own real property with a fair
or injure the opposite party. market value as stated in the current tax declaration of more than
(Lawyers Oath) three hundred thousand pesos. (Sec. 19 Rule 141 of the ROC)

46 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
Legislations on indigent litigants
• RA 6033 – an act requiring courts to give preference to
criminal cases where the party or parties involve are
indigents
• RA 6034 – an act providing transportation and other
allowances for indigent litigants
• RA 6035 – an act requiring stenographers to give free
transcript of notes to indigent and low income litigants and
providing penalty for the violation thereof
• PD 543 – authorizing the designation of municipal judges
and lawyers in any branch of the government service to
act as counsel de oficio for the accused who are indigent
in places where there are no available practicing attorneys
• BM 2012 – Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service
• RA 9999 – Free Legal Assistance Act of 2010
Rule 14.03 allows two (2) exceptions:
1. Lack of competence
2. Conflict of interest
A lawyer who pretends to be incompetent when he is not, to evade
his obligation under the Rule or who falsely claims the presence of
conflict of interests when there is none, will be liable administratively.
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.
Amount of attorney’s fees or client’s financial capability to pay should
not serve as a test to determine the extent of lawyer’s devotion to
his client’s cause.
Lawyers who devote their professional practice to representing
litigants who could ill afford legal services deserve commendation.
However, it is not enough to say that all pauper litigants should be
assured of legal representation. They deserve quality representation
as well.
Illustrative Case
VERONICA S. SANTIAGO, et al. vs. ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS
Adm. Case No. 4103, September 7, 1995
Petitioners pray that respondent be disbarred for malpractice and
neglect of their case. Respondent failed to file an answer to the Civil
Case No. 3526-V-91. The petitioners were held in default and lost the
case. Respondent claims that the case was a “losing cause”,
forgetfulness and that due to his overzealousness, he filed a motion
for reconsideration instead which was denied.
ISSUES: Whether respondent committed culpable negligence in
failing to file an answer for the complainants in Civil Case No. 3526-
V-91.
RULING: Yes. Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client,
the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client
with competence and diligence, and champion the latter's cause with
wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. This simply means that his
client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense
that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer
to assert every such remedy or defense.
Respondent committed a breach of Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which requires him to serve his clients,
the complainants herein, with diligence and, more specifically, Rule
18.03 thereof which provides: "A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
47 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable."
Respondent is not excused from the mere fact that the case was a
“losing cause”. If respondent was so convinced of the futility of any
defense, he should have seasonably informed the complainants
thereof.
Likewise, forgetfulness and overzealousness are two separate and
distinct grounds. Regardless of which ground, respondent still failed
to perform his duty.
Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for the
respondent's inability to exercise due diligence in the performance of
his duty to file an answer. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves
his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence,
regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a
fee or for free.
There is no showing whatsoever that he further assailed the said
decision to prove his claim of overzealousness to challenge the trial
court's order. Neither was it shown that he alleged in his motion to
lift the order of default that the complainants had a meritorious
defense. And, in his appeal from the judgment by default, he did not
even raise as one of the errors of the trial court either the impropriety
of the order of default or the court's grave abuse of discretion in
denying his motion to lift that order.
CANON 15 — A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR,
FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.
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.
Possible involvement in the conflicting interests to be disclosed
immediately to prospective clients. Lawyer shall not place his private
interest over and above that of his client.
Failure to disclose prior engagement or interest is a good ground for
the client to discharge the lawyer.
There is a conflict of interest when: the lawyer has to pursue an issue
positively in behalf of one client but has to pursue it negatively in
behalf of his other client.
A lawyer must have a undivided fidelity to his client. Together with
the disclosure of conflicting interest, he must in inform the
prospective client that he is under strict prohibition to handle the case
and advise the latter to seek the assistance of another lawyer.
TWO KINDS OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS BASED ON
AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE:
1. Concurrent representation
a. Generally occurs when a lawyer represents
clients whose objectives are adverse to each
other no matter how slight or remote such
adverse interests may be.
2. Sequential representation
a. Generally occurs when a law firm takes a present
client who has an interest adverse to the interest
of a former client of the same law firm.
The rule in US is that a “substantial relationship” must be show to
exist between the former and present representations.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
If it can be established that there is a substantial relationship, it is
presumed the lawyer (law firm) possesses confidential information
adverse to the former client if it appears by the nature of the former
representation that confidential information of material value to the
current dispute would have been confided to the lawyer, the situation
will disqualify the firm from representing the present 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.
This rule safeguards the revelations of confidence and secrets.
Sec. 24, Rule 130, Rules of Court
“Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged
communication. — The following persons cannot testify as to matters
learned in confidence in the following cases:
(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client,
be examined as to any communication made by the client
to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with
a view to, professional employment, nor can an attorney's
secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the
consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact
the knowledge of which has been acquired in such
capacity.
Take note: Even mere prospective clients are protected.
FORM OF THE COMMUNICATION
May not be only in writing or oral, but may also be in the form of
actions or signs or other means of communication. The transmission
may be direct or through messenger, interpreter, or through other
modes of transmission.
REQUISITES OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION:
1. Attorney-client relationship (or a kind of consultancy
relationship with a prospective client.
2. Communication made by client to lawyer in the course of
lawyer’s professional employment.
3. Communication is intended to be confidential.
NO PRESUMPTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY
Mere relationship of attorney and client does not raise a presumption
of confidentiality.
The client must intend the communication to be confidential.
Confidential communication refers to: information transmitted by
voluntary act or disclosure between attorney and client in confidence
and by means, of which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the
information to no third person other than one reasonably necessary
for the transmission for which it was given.
DURATION OF THE PRIVILEGE
It continues to exist even after the termination of the attorney-client
relationship.
It ceases only when waived by the client himself of after his death,
by his heir or legal representative
WHEN CONTENTS OF THE PLEADINGS CEASE TO BE
PRIVILEGED
1. After the pleadings have been filed
2. Also, a communication intended by the client to be sent to
a third person though his counsel loses its confidential
character as soon as it has reached the hands of the third
person.
48 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
TWO-FOLD PURPOSE OF THE RULE:
1. To encourage a client to make a full disclosure of the facts
of the case to his counsel without fear.
2. To allow the lawyer freedom to obtain full information from
his client.
Without this privilege, a client will suppress facts which he believes
are unfavorable to him. This will consequently mislead the lawyer in
the evaluation on the merits of the case and insufficient or wrong
legal advice may be given. In the end, it will result in surprises during
the trial which may prove destructive to the case of the client or the
interest of justice.
BURDEN OF PROOF
The party who avers that the communication is privilege has the
burden of proof. Mere allegation is not sufficient.
INSTANCES WHEN COMMUNICATION IS NOT PRIVILEGED
1. When communication is made to a person who is not a
lawyer even if such person committed to render legal
services.
2. When communication is made to a lawyer for some other
purpose other than on account of the lawyer-client
relationship. When the advice sought from the attorney is
not legal but involves accounting service or business
assistance.
PARTIES ENTITLED TO INVOKE THE PRIVILEGE
1. Client, primarily intended to be protected by the privilege.
2. Lawyer or the client’s employee may claim the privilege in
the absence of any waiver on the part of the client.
3. The lawyer’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk, who
acquired confidential communication in such capacity, save
only when the client and the attorney jointly consent
thereto.
UNPRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
The information obtained by a lawyer from a client in their lawyer-
client relationship may be privileged or unprivileged.
Privileged: if the lawyer is called as witness to disclose any privileged
information, he may legally refuse to testify in the absence of any
waiver on the part of the client.
Unprivileged: but he cannot legally refuse to testify and may be
compelled to disclose any unprivileged information, otherwise, if the
proceedings are in a court of justice, he may be held in contempt of
court.
Even if the communication is unprivileged, the rule of ethics prohibits
him from voluntarily revealing or using to his benefit or to that of a
third person, to the disadvantage of the client, the said
communication unless the client consents thereto.
BASIC LIMITATION OF THE PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION
The communication (information) or physical object must have been
transmitted to the counsel by the client for the purpose of seeking
legal advice. Otherwise, no privileged communication.
So if papers and documents were handed to the client for the purpose
of custody or some businesses or personal services, no privileged
communication.
Privilege is limited or has reference only to communications which
are within the ambit of lawful employment and does not extend to
those transmitted in the contemplation of future crimes or frauds.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
However, information on crimes or frauds already committed falls
within the privilege and the lawyer cannot reveal or be compelled to
reveal the confidences of the client.
Take note: This rule is applicable to students under the Student
Practice Law Program
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.
CONFLICTING INTEREST, CONCEPT
If there is inconsistency in the interests of two or more opposing
parties. The test is whether in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s
duty to fight for an issue or claim but it is his duty to oppose it for
the other client.
In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by
him when he argues for the other client.
TEST IN DETERMINING CONFLICTING INTEREST
Whether a lawyer is duty bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf
of one client and at the same time to oppose that claim for the other
client.
Another test of inconsistency: whether the acceptance of a new
relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer’s duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty.
Another, whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation
to use against a former client any confidential information acquired
through their connection or previous employment.
One important criterion: probability, not certainty of conflict.
DEFENSE THAT PROSPECTIVE CLIENT HAS NO LAWYER TO
TURN TO IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Conflict of interest may arise in the same action or unrelated actions.
Illustrative Case:
Quiambao vs. Bamba
Held: His representation of opposing clients in both (unrelated cases:
replevin and ejectment) obviously constitutes conflict of interest or,
at the least, invites suspicion of double-dealings.
While the respondent lawyer may assert that the complainant
expressly consented to his continued representation in an ejectment
case, the respondent failed to show that he fully disclosed the facts
to both his clients and he failed to present any written consent of the
complainant.
UNAUTHORIZED ACT OF REPRESENTING CONFLICTING
INTEREST IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE
Art. 209 of RPC “betrayal of trust by an attorney.”
UNDIVIDED ALLEGIANCE TO CLIENT, A MUST
After being retained and receiving confidences of the client, the
lawyer cannot without the free and intelligent consent of his client,
act both for his client and for one whose interest is adverse to, or
conflicting with that of, his client, in the same general matter.
The consent of the client must be given after full knowledge of all
the facts and circumstance.
49 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
The prohibition stands even if the adverse is very slight; neither is it
material that the intention and motive of the lawyer may have been
honest.
RATIONALE OF THE RULE:
Not only to bar the practitioner form fraudulent conduct but also to
prevent the honest practitioner from putting himself in a position
where he may be required to choose between conflicting duties.
To prevent the honest lawyer from attempting to reconcile conflicting
interests rather than to enforce to the full extent to the right or the
interest which he should alone represent.
TREACHERY AND DOUBLE-DEALING, CONDEMNED
Only thus can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their
lawyers which is of paramount importance in the administration of
justice.
WHEN REPRESENTING CONFLICTING INTEREST IS
AUTHORIZED
Only on a condition that the client has given his written consent
thereto and after a full disclosure of the facts to him. Termination of
relationship is no justification.
RULE 15.04. A lawyer may, with the written consent of all
concerned, act as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in
settling disputes.
Consent is required to prevent future controversy in the authority if
the lawyer to as mediator, conciliator, and arbitrator. However, the
lawyer who acts as mediator, conciliator, and arbitrator in settling a
dispute, cannot represent any of the parties to it.
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.
OVERSTATEMENT OR UNDERSTATEMENT OF PROSPECTS OF
THE CASE IS NOT PROPER
The lawyer should refrain from giving any advice unless he has
obtained sufficient understanding of the client’s cause.
A careful investigation and examination of the facts must first be had
before any legal opinion be ventured by the lawyer to the client.
If the lawyer overstates, he will be under pressure to employ any
means to win the case at all cost and will be blind to ethical rules. If
he loses the case, a cloud of suspicion ill hang over his head that he
betrayed his client.
Understatement is also not proper, the client will be placed in grave
anxiety and this may affect his trust in the lawyer’s ability to handle
the case and this may constrain him to seek the assistance of another
lawyer who can give him the peace of mind and the confidence he
needs.
The lawyer shall give an honest opinion in the merits and probable
results of the case.
Lawyer should temper inclination of client to appeal notwithstanding
the clear absence of the success. Lawyers are admonished from
making bold assurances to clients.
RULE 15.06. A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is
able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative
body.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
INFLUENCE-PEDDLING NOT INCLUDED UN PRACTICE OF
LAW
It is improper for a lawyer to show in any way that he has connections
and can influence any tribunal or public official, like justice, judges,
prosecutors, and others.
Such display of influence, whether factual or imaginary does not only
undermine our judicial and legal systems but also degrades our
courts or tribunals for the dangerous impression is created that cases
are won not on the merits of the case but on the magnetic pull of
influential connections. This will erode the reputation and integrity of
courts and tribunals.
RULE 15.07. A lawyer shall impress upon his client
compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness.
LAWYER SHOULD GIVE PROPER ADVICE TO CLIENTS
Lawyer shall not abet or encourage any person, especially public
officials to disregard the supremacy of the law and respect for the
rights of the citizens.
A lawyer who advised his client not to obey the order of the court is
guilty of contempt and misconduct. It is his duty to counsel fellow
citizens to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice and
refrain from doing an intentional wrong to their adversaries.
Lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of clients and to temper
their propensity to litigate because his lawyer’s oath to uphold the
because of justice is superior to his duty of his clients.
ON MATTERS OF LAW
As counsel of record, a lawyer has control of the proceedings and
whatever steps his client takes should be within his knowledge and
responsibility.
On matter of law, it is the client who should yield to the lawyer and
not the other way around.
LAWYER IS NOT GUN FOR HIRE
Lawyer must only employ honest and fair meant ot attain the lawful
objective of his client, and wars him not to allow his client to dictate
the procedure in handling the case.
Lawyer should advise clients on matters of decorum and proper
attitude toward courts of justice.
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.
When lawyer is concurrently engaged in business, he must
clarify to client in what capacity he is acting
The fact of being a lawyer does not preclude him from engaging in
business and such practice is not necessarily improper.
Impropriety arises when the business is such of nature or is
conducted in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyer’s
duties as a member of the bar.
To avoid indirect solicitation, the lawyer should keep any business, in
which he is engaged in concurrently with the practice of law, entirely
separate and apart from the latter.
The lawyer should inform the client when he is acting as a lawyer
and when he is not, because certain ethical considerations governing
the client-lawyer relationship may be operative in one case and not
in the other.
50 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
Lawyer cannot divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one
time and a mere citizen at another – he is expected to be competent,
honourable and reliable at all times since he who cannot apply and
abide by the laws in his private affairs, can hardly be expected to do
so in his professional dealing nor lead others in doing so.
Illustrative Cases
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY VS ARQUILLO
A.C. No. 6632. August 2, 2005
Representing conflicting interests is prohibited by the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Unless all the affected clients'
written consent is given after a full disclosure of all relevant
facts, attorneys guilty of representing conflicting interests
shall as a rule be sanctioned with suspension from the
practice of law.
FACTS:
Northwestern University, Inc filed a complaint against Atty. Macario
Arquillo and charged him with deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct
and violation of his oath for engaging in conflicting interest in a case
before the NLRC. Complainant alleges that in a consolidated case,
Atty Arquillo appeared and acted as counsels for both complainants
and one of the ten respondents therein.
Atty. Arquillo claims that there was no conflict of interest in his
representation of both the respondent and the complainants in the
same consolidated cases, because all of them were allegedly on the
same side.
The IBP Board of Governors recommended Arquillo's suspension
from the practice of law for a period of 2 years.
ISSUE: Whether there was conflict of interests.
HELD: YES.
The Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe
candor, fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with
their clients. Corollary to this duty, lawyers shall not represent
conflicting interests, except with all the concerned clients' written
consent, given after a full disclosure of the facts.
When a lawyer represents two or more opposing parties, there is a
conflict of interests, the existence of which is determined by three
separate tests:
(1) when, in representation of one client, a lawyer is
required to fight for an issue or claim, but is also duty-
bound to oppose it for another client;
(2) when the acceptance of the new retainer will require
an attorney to perform an act that may injuriously affect
the first client or, when called upon in a new relation, to
use against the first one any knowledge acquired through
their professional connection; or
(3) when the acceptance of a new relation would prevent
the full discharge of an attorney's duty to give undivided
fidelity and loyalty to the client or would invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance of that
duty.
Atty. Arquillo's acts cannot be justified by the fact that, in the end,
Castro was proven to be not personally liable for the claims of the
dismissed employees. Having agreed to represent one of the
opposing parties first, the lawyer should have known that there was
an obvious conflict of interests, regardless of his alleged belief that
they were all on the same side.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
As counsel for the complainants, Arquillo had the duty to oppose the
Motion to Dismiss filed by Castro. But under the circumstance, it
would be impossible since he is also the counsel of Castro. It also
appeared that Arquillo was the one who prepared the Motion to
Dismiss which he should be opposing. As counsel for Respondent
Castro, it was also his duty to prove the Complaint wrong but Arquillo
cannot do this because he is the counsel for complainants. Here lies
a clear inconsistency.
Thus it has been noted 'The attorney in that situation will not be able
to pursue, with vigor and zeal, the client's claim against the other
and to properly represent the latter in the unrelated action, or, if he
can do so, he cannot avoid being suspected by the defeated client of
disloyalty or partiality in favor of the successful client. The foregoing
considerations will strongly tend to deprive the relation of attorney
and client of those special elements which make it one of trust and
confidence’.
An attorney cannot represent adverse interests. The proscription
applies when the conflicting interests arise with respect to the same
general matter, or even when the attorney acts from honest
intentions or in good faith.
The Court found Atty Arquillo guilty of misconduct and suspended
him from the practice of law for a period of 1 year.
ARTEZUELA V. MADERAZO
A.C. No. 4354, April 22, 2002
FACTS:
Allan Echavia had a vehicular accident, he was driving a Ford Telstar
car owned by a Japanese national named Hirometsi Kiyami, but was
registered in the name of his brother in law, Jun Anthony Villapez.
The car rammed into a small carenderia owned by complainant Lolita
Artezuela, destroying it and causing the cessation of her small
business resulting to her financial dislocation.
Complainant engaged the services of the respondent in filing a
damage suit against Echavia, Villapez and one Bernard Sia. However,
the case was later on dismissed allegedly upon the instance of the
complainant and her husband.
Artezeula then filed a verified complaint or disbarment against the
respondent alleging that respondent grossly neglected his duties as
a lawyer and failed to represent her interest with zeal and
enthusiasm. According to her, respondent did not do anything to
keep the case moving. He also withdrew as counsel without obtaining
complainant’s consent. Complainant also claimed that respondent
engaged in activities inimical to her interests by preparing Echavaria’s
(driver) answer to the amended complaint. The document was even
printed in respondent’s office. Furthermore, complainant averred
that it was respondent who sought the dismissal of the case, which
was made without her consent.
Respondent in his defense denied the allegations and averred that
he withdrew as counsel for the complainant because the latter was
uncooperative and refused to confer with him. He also gave several
notices to the complainant and made known his intention to withdraw
as counsel. Respondent admitted that Echavias Answer to the
Amendended Complaint was printed in his office but denied having
prepared the document and having acted as counsel.
The Investigating Committee of the IBP Visayas Regional Committee
on Bar Discipline, through Comissioner Gabriel T. Ingles, issued a
report finding the respondent guilty of representing conflicting
interests in violation of Canon 15 and Rule 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, as well as, of Canon 6 of the Code of
Professional Ethics. He recommended that the respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
51 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
upheld the findings of the committee with modification only as to the
penalty. Respondent now seeks reconsideration of the IBP resolution.
ISSUE: Whether respondent Atty. Maderazo is guilty of representing
conflicting interests in violation of Canon 15 of the CPR
HELD: YES. To be guilty of representing conflicting interests, a
counsel-of-record of one party need not also be counsel-of-record of
the adverse party. He does not have to publicly hold himself as the
counsel of the adverse party, nor make his efforts to advance the
adverse party’s conflicting interests of record--- although these
circumstances are the most obvious and satisfactory proof of the
charge.
It is enough that the counsel of one party had a hand in the
preparation of the pleading of the other party, claiming adverse and
conflicting interests with that of his original client. To require that he
also be counsel-of-record of the adverse party would punish only the
most obvious form of deceit and reward, with impunity, the highest
form of disloyalty.
It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by
express consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts. Within the meaning of this Canon, a lawyer represents
conflicting interests when in behalf of one of the clients, it is his duty
to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to
oppose.
The relations of attorney and client is founded on principles of public
policy, on good taste. The question is not necessarily one of the rights
of the parties, but as to whether the attorney has adhered to proper
professional standard. With these thoughts in mind, it behooves
attorneys, like Ceasar’s wife, not only to keep inviolate the client’s
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and
double-dealing. Only thus can litigants be encouraged to entrust their
secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK (PNB) vs CEDO
Adm. Case No. 3701, March 28, 1995
The complainant Philippine National Bank charged respondent Atty.
Telesforo Cedo, former Asst. Vice-President of the Asset
Management Group of complainant bank in violation of Canon 6, Rule
6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent appeared as counsel for individuals who had transactions
with the complainant bank which respondent during his employment
with the bank had intervened:
1. Counsel for Milagros Ong Sy in a civil action against the
bank with respect to the sale of steel sheets in which
during respondent’s employment with the bank, he
authorizes the pull-out of the steel sheets;
2. Counsel for spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda with
respect to the loan transactions;
Respondent argues that he never appeared as counsel for the
spouses Almeda; that while the law firm “Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo &
Associates is designated as counsel of record, the case is handled by
Atty. Pedro Ferrer; that he did not enter into a general partnership
with Atty. Ferrer nor the lawyers named therein. They are only using
the aforesaid name to designate a law firm maintained by lawyers
but each one of them handle their own cases independently.
ISSUE: Whether respondent violated Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of CPR.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
RULING: No.
Canon 6: It is unprofessional to represent interests,
except by express conflicting consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer
represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of
one client, it is his duty to contend for that which
duty to another client requires him to oppose.
In light of the attestation that the case of the Almeda spouses is
handled by Atty. Ferrer, it was found out that on one of the hearings
of the Almeda spouses’ case, respondent attended the same and
although he did not enter his appearance, the respondent was
practically dictating to Atty. Ferrer what to say and what to argue
before the court. Furthermore, during the hearing of the application
for a writ of injunction, he impliedly admitted being the partner of
Atty. Ferrer when it was made of record that respondent was working
in the same office as Atty. Ferrer.
Moreover, the IBP also noted that assuming the alleged set-up of the
firm to be true, it is in itself a violation of the Rule 15.02 of the CPR
since the client’s secrets and confidential records and information are
exposed to the other lawyers and staff members.
From the foregoing, the IBP found a deliberate intent on the part of
respondent to devise ways and means to attract as clients former
borrowers of complainant bank since he was in the best position to
see the legal weaknesses of his former employer, a convincing factor
for the said clients to seek his professional services. Having been an
executive of complainant bank, respondent now seeks to litigate as
counsel for the opposite side, a case against his former employer
involving a transaction which he formerly handled while still an
employee of complainant, in violation of Canon 6.
REGALA v. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 105938. September 20, 1996
FACTS:
Petitioners and private respondent, Roco, were then partners of
ACCRA Law Firm. ACCRA performed legal services for its clients which
included the organization and acquisition of business associations or
organizations, with the incidental services where its members acted
as incorporators or stockholders. As members of ACCRA, petitioners
and Roco admit that they assisted in the organization and acquisition
of the companies included in Civil Case No. 33 before the
Sandiganbayan against Eduardo M. Cojuangco Jr. as one of the
principal defendants, including petitioners and Roco as the other
defendants, for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth. In keeping with
office practice, ACCRA lawyers acted as nominees-stockholders of the
corporations involved in sequestration proceedings.
The complaint in Civil Case No. 33 alleged that the defendants,
including herein petitioners and Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. conspired
with each other in setting up through the use of coconut levy funds
the financial and corporate framework and structures that led to the
establishment of UCPB, UNICOM and others and that through
insidious means and machinations, ACCRA, using its wholly-owned
investment arm, ACCRA Investments Corporation, became the holder
of approximately fifteen million shares representing roughly 3.3% of
the total capital stock of UCPB as of 31 March 1987. The PCGG
wanted to establish through the ACCRA lawyers that Mr. Cojuangco
is their client and it was Cojuangco who furnished all the monies to
the subscription payment; hence, petitioners acted as dummies,
nominees and/or agents by allowing themselves, among others, to
be used as instrument in accumulating ill-gotten wealth through
government concessions, etc., which acts constitute gross abuse of
official position and authority, flagrant breach of public trust, unjust
52 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
enrichment, violation of the Constitution and laws of the Republic of
the Philippines.
On August 1991, PCGG filed an Amended Complaint which
excluded private respondent Raul S. Roco from the complaint in
PCGG Case No. 33 as party-defendant. PCGG based its exclusion of
Roco as party-defendant on his undertaking that he will reveal the
identity of the principal/s for whom he acted as nominee/stockholder
in the companies involved in PCGG Case No. 33.
The other ACCRA lawyers in their Answer alleged that their
participation in the acts with which their co-defendant (Roco) are
charged, was in furtherance of legitimate lawyering and that PCGG
should similarly grant the same treatment to them (exclusion as
parties-defendants) as accorded to Roco.
PCGG set the following conditions precedent for the exclusion of
petitioners, namely: (a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients;
(b) submission of documents substantiating the lawyer-client
relationship; and (c) the submission of the deeds of assignments
petitioners executed in favor of its clients covering their respective
shareholdings
Consequently, PCGG presented supposed proof to substantiate
compliance by Roco of the conditions precedent to warrant his
exclusion as party-defendant to wit: (a) Letter to PCGG of the counsel
of Roco reiterating a previous request for reinvestigation by the
PCGG; (b) Affidavit as Attachment to the letter; and (c) Letter of the
Roco, Bunag, and Kapunan Law Offices to PCGG in behalf of Roco
originally requesting the reinvestigation of the evidence of the PCGG
against Roco. It is noteworthy that during the proceedings, Roco did
not refute petitioners’ contention that he did not actually reveal the
identity of the client involved in PCGG Case No. 33, nor had he
undertaken to reveal the identity of the client for whom he acted as
nominee-stockholder.
Sandiganbayan: denied the exclusion of petitioners in PCGG Case No.
33, for their refusal to comply with the conditions required by PCGG.
FIRST ISSUE: WON the ‘confidentiality’ duty of a lawyer in a lawyer-
client relationship may be invoked in refusing to disclose the name
of petitioners’ clients
RULING: YES.
Passed on into various provisions of the Rules of Court, the attorney-
client privilege, as currently worded provides:
“Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. -
The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in
confidence in the following cases:
x x x An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be
examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or his
advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional
employment, can an attorneys secretary, stenographer, or clerk be
examined, without the consent of the client and his employer,
concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in
such capacity.”
Further, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states:
“Sec. 20. It is the duty of an attorney:
(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 clients business except from him or with his
knowledge and approval.”
As a general rule in our jurisdiction, a lawyer may not
invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his
client. The reasons are as follows: First, the court has a right to know
that the client whose privileged information is sought to be protected
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
is flesh and blood. Second, the privilege begins to exist only after the
attorney-client relationship has been established. The attorney-client
privilege does not attach until there is a client. Third, the privilege
generally pertains to the subject matter of the relationship. Finally,
due process considerations require that the opposing party should,
as a general rule, know his adversary. A party suing or sued is entitled
to know who his opponent is. He cannot be obliged to grope in the
dark against unknown forces.
Notwithstanding these considerations, the general rule is however
qualified by some important exceptions:
1) Client identity is privileged where a strong
probability exists that revealing the clients name
would implicate that client in the very activity for
which he sought the lawyers advice.
2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil
liability, his identity is privileged.
3) Where the governments lawyers have no case
against an attorneys client unless, by revealing the
clients name, the said name would furnish the only
link that would form the chain of testimony
necessary to convict an individual of a crime, the
clients name is privileged.
4) Where the nature of the attorney-client relationship
has been previously disclosed and it is
the identity which is intended to be confidential, the
identity of the client has been held to be privileged,
since such revelation would otherwise result in
disclosure of the entire transaction
The facts of the instant case bring it within the exception to
the general rule. First, disclosure of the alleged client's name would
lead to establish said client's connection with the very fact in issue of
the case, which is privileged information.
The link between the alleged criminal offense and the legal
advice or legal service sought was duly established in the case at bar,
by PCGG itself. The key lies in the three specific conditions laid down
by the PCGG which constitutes petitioners ticket to non-prosecution
should they accede: the disclosure of the identity of its clients;
submission of documents substantiating the lawyer-client
relationship; and the submission of the deeds of assignment
petitioners executed in favor of their clients covering their respective
shareholdings. From these conditions, particularly the third, it can be
readily deduced that the clients consulted the petitioners, in their
capacity as lawyers, regarding the financial and corporate structure,
framework and set-up of the corporations in question. In turn,
petitioners gave their professional advice in the form of, among
others, the deeds of assignment covering their clients shareholdings.
There is no question that the preparation of the documents was part
of petitioners legal service to their clients. More important, it
constituted an integral part of their duties as lawyers. Petitioners,
therefore, have a legitimate fear that identifying their clients would
implicate them in the very activity for which legal advice had been
sought, i.e., the alleged accumulation of ill-gotten wealth in the
corporations.
Furthermore, under the third main exception, revelation of the
client's name would obviously provide the necessary link for the
prosecution to build its case, where none otherwise exists.
There are alternative sources of information available to the
prosecutor which do not depend on utilizing a defendant's counsel as
a convenient and readily available source of information in the
building of a case against the latter. Compelling disclosure of the
client's name in circumstances such as the one which exists in the
case at bench amounts to sanctioning fishing expeditions by lazy
prosecutors and litigants. When the nature of the transaction would
be revealed by disclosure of an attorney's retainer, such retainer is
obviously protected by the privilege. It follows that petitioner
attorneys in the instant case owe their client(s) a duty and an
53 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
obligation not to disclose the latter's identity which in turn requires
them to invoke the privilege.
SECOND ISSUE: WON the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse
of discretion in not considering petitioners as similarly situated and
thus, deserving of equal treatment
RULING: NO, respondents failed to show - and absolutely
nothing exists in the records of the case at bar - that private
respondent actually revealed the identity of his client(s) to the
PCGG. Since the undertaking happens to be the leitmotif of the entire
arrangement between Mr. Roco and the PCGG, an undertaking which
is so material as to have justified PCGG's special treatment exempting
the private respondent from prosecution, respondent Sandiganbayan
should have required proof of the undertaking more substantial than
a "bare assertion" that private respondent did indeed comply with
the undertaking. Instead, as manifested by the PCGG, only three
documents were submitted for the purpose, two of which were mere
requests for re-investigation and one simply disclosed certain clients
which petitioners (ACCRA lawyers) were themselves willing to
reveal. These were clients to whom both petitioners and private
respondent rendered legal services while all of them were partners
at ACCRA, and were not the clients which the PCGG wanted disclosed
for the alleged questioned transactions.
To justify the dropping of Roco from the case or the filing of the suit
without him, PCGG should conclusively show that Roco was treated
as a species apart from the rest of the ACCRA lawyers on the basis
of a classification which made substantial distinctions based on real
differences. No substantial distinctions exist from the records of the
case at bench, in violation of the equal protection clause.
The condition precedent required by the respondent PCGG of the
petitioners for their exclusion as parties-defendants in PCGG Case
No. 33 violates the lawyer-client confidentiality privilege. The
condition also constitutes a transgression by respondents
Sandiganbayan and PCGG of the equal protection clause of the
Constitution. Moreover, the PCGGs demand not only touches upon
the question of the identity of their clients but also on documents
related to the suspected transactions, not only in violation of the
attorney-client privilege but also of the constitutional right against
self-incrimination.
It is clear then that the case against petitioners should never be
allowed to take its full course in the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners
should not be made to suffer the effects of further litigation when it
is obvious that their inclusion in the complaint arose from a privileged
attorney-client relationship and as a means of coercing them to
disclose the identities of their clients.
CANON 16 — A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL
MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
The moneys collected by an attorney for his client belong to the
client. The moneys collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment
in favor of his client are held in trust for the client.
RULE 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected or received for or from the client.
Lawyer should keep and maintain adequate records of the client's
moneys or properties in his custody. The lawyer is under strict
obligation to label and to identify his client's property and keep it
separate and apart from his own. This is to avoid the appearance of
impropriety.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
If he unjustly retains the money, he may be punished for contempt
as an officer of the Court. One lawyer was disbarred for using money
without the consent of the client.
If money is not utilized for specific purpose such as filing fee, it must
be immediately returned.
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.
Funds of client should not be commingled with funds of counsel.
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.
Lawyer's failure to deliver upon demand gives rise to the presumption
that he has misappropriated the funds for his own use.
In implementing attorney's retaining or charging liens, lawyer must
give prompt notice to his client for the latter's advisement.
The rule abandoned the old case, where it was held that a lawyer
cannot unilaterally appropriate his client's funds for payment of his
unpaid attorney's fees.
For further protection, the lawyer shall also have a lien to the extent
of his attorney's fees and legal disbursements on all judgment and
executions he has secured for his client.
To enforce the charging lien, it is necessary that the lawyer shall have
caused a statement of such lien to be entered upon the records of
the court which rendered the favorable judgment with written notice
to the client and to the adverse party.
Attorney's retaining lien does not apply to public documents and
exhibits introduced in court.
Attorney's fees of a lawyer which had already been registered as a
charging lien, cannot be altered or defeated by compromising the
case or waiving his rights in favor of the adverse party.
Charging lien may be assigned because it is a property right.
Charging lien survives the death of the client therefore it need not be
enforced in the proceeding for the settlement of the client's estate.
Probate court has no authority to enforce a lien.
RULE 16.04. A lawyer shall not borrow money from his
client unless the client's interests 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.
Intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his
influence over the client.
The second part is to assure lawyer's independent professional
judgment. If the lawyer acquires a financial interest in the outcome
of the case the free exercise of his judgment may be adversely
affected.
54 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
Lawyer may borrow from a client bank, for here the client's interests
are fully protected by the bank's rules and regulations.
The advances made by lawyer shall be subject to reimbursement.
Otherwise, his contract might become champertous, if his attorney's
fees will be payable in kind, which is a void contract.
Illustrative Cases
UNITY FISHING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. ATTY. DANILO
G. MACALINO
A.C. No. 4566, December 10, 2004
FACTS:
Frabal Fishing and Ice Plant Corporation (FRABAL) was the owner of
a parcel of land in Manila which was leased to Wheels Distributors,
Inc. (WHEELS), an authorized dealer of cars and motor vehicles. A
dispute arose between FRABAL and WHEELS with regard to the terms
and conditions of the lease contract which eventually led to a lawsuit.
FRABAL hired the services of Atty. Macalino.
FRABAL merged and was absorbed by petitioner (UNITY FISHING).
Hence, the petitioner was substituted in lieu of FRABAL in the
former’s lawsuit with WHEELS.
As the petitioner’s legal counsel, Atty. Macalino advised the company
to sever all contractual relationship with WHEELS as a step forward
eventually evicting the latter from the property they were occupying.
Hence, by virtue of that advice, the contract of lease between
FRABAL and WHEELS was terminated. He also advised the petitioner
to return the guarantee deposit equivalent to 2 monthly rental or the
amount of P50,000 to WHEELS. The company heeded the advice and
prepared a crossed check worth P50,000.
Atty. Macalino volunteered to bring the check to the office of WHEELS
himself and to make them accept it. He sent his representative to
UNITY FISHING to get the said check and was duly received by his
representative. He then told the company that he was able to deliver
the check to WHEELS.
The suit between petitioner and WHEELS continued for several years.
The suit ended in amicable settlement. In the process of negotiating
the terms and conditions, WHEELS informed UNITY FISHING that it
never received the guarantee deposit. Petitioner was shocked to have
learned this and searched for its files for the subject check. It was
found that at the back of the check was a rubber stamp marking
indicating that it was deposited in UCPB. Petitioner learned that
WHEELS never maintained an account in the aforementioned bank.
Thereafter, petitioner asked for an explanation from Atty. Macalino
why the check in issue never reached WHEELS and how it was
indorsed considering the fact that it was a crossed check. Despite
receipt of the letter, Atty. Macalino never responded nor attempted
to explain his side to what strongly appears to be a gross
misappropriation of the money for his own personal use.
Petitioner filed an action for damages against Atty. Macalino and
UCPB. An employer of the said bank testified that Atty. Macalino was
the one maintaining the account in which the check was deposited.
The IBP Board of Governors passed a resolution approving the report
and recommendation of the Commissioner with a slight modification
to the penalty. It ruled to suspend Atty. Macalino for 1 YEAR. The
resolution was then submitted to the Supreme Court for confirmation.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Macalino is guilty of violating Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings,
conclusion and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors that
Atty. Macalino misappropriated the money entrusted to him which he
failed to account for to his client despite the demand.
His failure to rebut the complainant’s evidence clearly reveals his
failure to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with the
lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His
repeated failure without any valid reason to comply with the orders
of the Court requiring him to comment on the complaint lends
credence to the allegations thereof and manifests his tacit admission
of the same.
Atty. Macalino’s wanton failure to make an accounting and to return
to his client the amount entrusted to him upon demand give rise to
the presumption that he misappropriated it, in violation of the trust
and confidence reposed on him. His act of holding on to the
complainant’s money without its acquiescence is conduct indicative
of lack of integrity and propriety. A lawyer, under his oath, pledges
himself not to delay any man for money and is bound to conduct
himself with all good fidelity to his client.
It is clear that by depositing the check in his own account and
subsequently deceiving his client into believing that he delivered the
same to WHEELS, he is undoubtedly guilty of deceit, malpractice,
gross misconduct and unethical behavior. He caused dishonor, not
merely to himself but to the noble profession to which he belongs. It
cannot be denied that the respect of litigants to the profession is
inexorably diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays their
trust and confidence. Like judges, lawyers must not only be clean;
they must also appear clean. This way, the people’s faith in the
justice system remains undisturbed.
Atty. Macalino was suspended from the practice of law for a period
of one year.
JUNIO vs. ATTY. GRUPO
A.C. No. 5020. December 18, 2001
FACTS:
This is a complaint for disbarment was filed against respondent Atty.
Salvador M. Grupo for malpractice and gross misconduct.
Complainant Rosario N. Junio alleged that she engaged the services
of respondent then a private practitioner, for the redemption of a
parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 20394
registered in the name of her parents, spouses Rogelio and Rufina
Nietes, and located at Concepcion, Loay, Bohol. Complainant
entrusted to respondent the amount of P25,000.00 in cash to be used
in the redemption of the aforesaid property. Respondent, however,
for no valid reason did not redeem the property; as a result of which
the right of redemption was lost and the property was eventually
forfeited. Despite repeated demands made by complainant and
without justifiable cause, respondent had continuously refused to
refund the money entrusted to him.
In his Answer, petitioner admitted receiving the amount in question
for the purpose for which it was given. However, he alleged that the
subject land could really not be redeemed anymore. After he failed
to redeem the property, he requested the complainant that he be
allowed, in the meantime, to avail of the money because he had an
urgent need for some money to help defray his children's educational
expenses. According to respondent, it was a personal request and a
private matter between respondent and complainant. He averred that
the family of the complainant and that of the respondent were very
close and intimate with each other. Complainant, as well as two of
her sisters, had served respondent's family as household helpers for
many years when they were still in Manila. They were considered
practically part of respondent's own family. That is why, when
55 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
complainant requested assistance regarding the problem of the
mortgaged property, respondent had no second-thoughts in
extending a lending hand.
Respondent did not ask for any fee. It was simply an act of a friend
for a friend according to the respondent. Respondent also alleged
that he executed a promissory note for the amount he borrowed from
the complainant.
Complainant filed a reply denying that respondent informed her of
his failure to redeem the property and that respondent requested her
to instead lend the money to him.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a violation of Canon 16.04 of the
CPR.
RULING:
Although complainant denied having loaned the money to
respondent, the fact is that complainant accepted the promissory
note given her by respondent on December 12, 1996. In effect,
complainant consented to and ratified respondent's use of the
money. Respondent's liability is thus not for misappropriation or
embezzlement but for violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which forbids lawyers from borrowing
money from their clients unless the latter's interests are protected by
the nature of the case or by independent advice. This rule is intended
to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over the
client.
This rule is especially significant in the instant case where the
respondent enjoys an immense ascendancy over the complainant
who, as well as two of his sisters, had served respondents family as
household helpers for many years.Having gained dominance over the
complainant by virtue of such long relation of master and servant,
the respondent took advantage of his influence by not returning the
money entrusted to him. Instead, he imposed his will on the
complainant and borrowed her funds without giving adequate
security therefor and mindless of the interest of the complainant.
In this case, respondents liability is thus not for misappropriation or
embezzlement but for violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which forbids lawyers from borrowing
money from their clients unless the latters interests are protected by
the nature of the case or by independent advice. Respondents
liability is compounded by the fact that not only did he not give any
security for the payment of the amount loaned to him but that he
has also refused to pay the said amount. His claim that he could not
pay the loan because circumstances . . . did not allow it and that,
because of the passage of time, he somehow forgot about his
obligation only underscores his blatant disregard of his obligation
which reflects on his honesty and candor. A lawyer is bound to
observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his client
Atty. Grupo was suspended from the practice of law for a period of
one month.
FLAVIANO A. PELMOKA vs. FELIX T. DIAZ, JR
A.M. No. 2662-CFI November 25, 1982
FACTS:
In a verified complaint dated December 4, 1981, Flaviano A. Pelmoka
charged Judge Felix T. Diaz, Jr. of the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Ecija and Attorneys Facundo T. Bautista and Inocencio B.
Garampil, Sr. with serious misconduct relating to Civil Case No. 279-
G, entitled Eustacio Nepomuceno, et al. vs. Ester Garampil, et al.
The charge against Judge Diaz is for (1) gross ignorance of the law
and judicial proceedings; (2) failure to protect the complainant's
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
charging lien as one of the lawyers who intervened in the afore-
mentioned civil case; and (3) partiality, bias prejudice or malicious
motive.
Civil Case No. 279-G was a case for partition and reconveyance filed
with the CFI of Nueva Ecija, Branch IV, on March 4, 1972, long before
respondent judge was appointed to the Bench. When the respondent
judge inherited the case in 1976, there were many side issues and/or
incidents pending to be resolved.
Subsequently, a compromise agreement was reached by the parties
together with their respective lawyers, complainant Pelmoka,
representing the plaintiffs, Atty. Facundo Bautista, representing the
defendants, and Atty. Inocencio Garampil, representing defendant
Ester Garampil. It was approved and ordered to be executed by
Judge Diaz thereafter.
On October 22, 1981, defendant Ester Garampil filed a motion for the
withdrawal of the sum of P20,060.00 from the amount deposited with
the court, representing partial payment of her share in the estate
pursuant to the expressed agreement of the heirs of the deceased
contained in the compromise agreement, which motion was granted
by the respondent judge. The other parties thereafter moved to
withdraw their respective shares in the cash deposit with the court,
and based on the said motions, respondent judge issued the Order
dated October 30, 1981, allowing the defendants to withdraw their
shares; and the Order dated November 20, 1981, granting the
request of the other parties for the withdrawal of their respective
shares.
The complainant alleged that the respondent judge failed to protect
his charging lien for his attorney's fees when he allowed plaintiffs to
withdraw their share from the said deposit. He likewise charged
respondent judge with bias and partiality when he allowed all the
parties to withdraw their respective shares while the complainant was
not allowed to do the same in so far as his charging lien is concerned.
ISSUE: Whether the Judge acted in (1) gross ignorance of the law
and judicial proceedings; (2) failed to protect the complainant's
charging lien as one of the lawyers who intervened in the afore-
mentioned civil case; and (3) acted in partiality, bias prejudice or
malicious motive.
RULING:
1. The respondent judge cannot be faulted for dismissing
complainant's motion for appointment of commissioners as
well as his motion to exclude defendant Ester Garampil as
an heir. The respondent judge had to dismiss the said
motions to avoid piecemeal adjudication of the issues
raised before him. In fact, respondent judge even
suspended the trial of the case until after the Court of
Appeals shall have resolved the issue pending before it
which involved the same parties and the same properties
being litigated.
2. The respondent should not have allowed the clients of the
complainant to withdraw their shares from the cash
deposit without extending ample protection to the latter's
claim. This error was compounded by his order allowing
even Ester Garampil to withdraw her share when she did
not sign the compromise agreement of July 1, 1981.
It was grossly unfair for the respondent to leave the
complainant holding an empty bag, so to speak, after he
had rendered his professional services as counsel to the
plaintiffs. True it is that the compromise agreement
stipulates that the parties shall be separately responsible
for the payment of the fees for their respective lawyers;
nevertheless, the respondent should not have
56 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
improvidently allowed the clients of the complainant to
withdraw their shares without first determining his
reasonable fees.
3. The respondent judge was likewise justified in granting the
motion of the parties to withdraw their respective shares
from the cash portion of the estate. The respondent judge
only implemented the compromise agreement entered into
by all the parties and signed by all their respective lawyers
including complainant herein.
DANIEL LEMOINE v. ATTY. AMADEO E. BALON, JR.
A.C. NO. 5829, OCTOBER 28, 2003
FACTS:
Complainant Daniel Lemoine, a French national, filed a verified
complaint against respondent Atty. Balon, Jr., for estafa and
misconduct before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for failure to
turn over to complainant the proceeds of the latter’s insurance claim
despite repeated demands.
Respondent justified his act by arguing that he had a lien on
complainant’s funds for his attorney’s fees.
ISSUE: Whether respondent violated Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
RULING: Yes. Respondent’s failure to promptly account for the
funds he received and held for the benefit of his client, he committed
professional misconduct. Such misconduct is reprehensible at a
greater degree, for it was obviously done on purpose through the
employment of deceit to the prejudice of complainant who was kept
in the dark about the release of the check, until he himself discovered
the same, and has to date been deprived of the use of the proceeds
thereof.
Respondent before receiving the check, proposed a 25% attorney’s
fees. After he received the check and after complainant had
discovered its release to him, he was already asking for 50%,
objection to which complainant communicated to him. Why
respondent had to doubly increase his fees after the lapse of about
one year when all the while he has been in custody of the proceeds
of the check defies comprehension. At any rate, it smacks of
opportunism, to say the least.
A lawyer who practices or utilizes deceit in his dealings with his client
not only violated his duty of fidelity, loyalty and devotion to the
client’s cause but also degrades himself and besmirches the fair name
of an honorable profession.
Respondent Atty. Balon, Jr., is found GUILTY of malpractice, deceit
and gross misconduct in the practice of his profession as a lawyer
and he is hereby DISBARRED.
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.
In the practice of Legal Profession:
1) Fidelity to the cause of client must always be maintained.
2) Relationship of lawyer-client is highly fiduciary.
3) No fear of judicial disfavor or public popularity should restrain the
lawyer from full discharge of his duty.
The lawyer owes loyalty to his client even after the relation of
attorney and client has terminated. It is not good practice to permit
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
him afterwards to defend in another case other persons against his
former client under the pretext that the case is distinct from and
independent of the former case. (Lorenzana Food Corp. vs. Daria,
197 SCRA 428)
But the lawyer owes a higher loyalty to the courts. Thus, when
a conflict between the client and the court arises, his first duty is to
render loyalty and obedience to the courts.
Illustrative Cases
ROSACIA VS. ATTY. BULALACAO
A.C. No. 3745, October 2, 1995
This is a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Bulalacao filed by
Cynthia Rosacia, the President of Tacma, Phils., Inc., a corporation
who formerly hired the services of Atty Bulalacao as retained counsel
for the corporation. It was alleged that after the termination of such
lawyer-client relationship, several employees of the corporation
(Tacma Phils, Inc.) consulted the respondent for the purpose of filing
an action for illegal dismissal, to which the latter agreed to handle as
against Tacma, Phils., Inc.
ISSUE
Whether respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
HELD
Yes. An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the
case in which he has represented him but also after the relation of
attorney and client has terminated as it is not good practice to permit
him afterwards to defend in another case other person against his
former client under the pretext that the case is distinct from, and
independent of the former case. It behooves respondent not only to
keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of treachery and double dealing for only then can
litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys
which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.
The relation of attorney and client is one of confidence and trust in
the highest degree. Under Canon 17, a lawyer owes fidelity to the
cause of his client and he ought to be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.
LORENZANA FOOD CORPORATION vs. ATTY. FRANSCISCO DARIA
(A.C. NO. 2736, MARCH 27, 1991)
FACTS: Respondent Atty. Francisco Daria was hired by complainant
Lorenzana Food Corporation (LFC) as its legal counsel. In the course
of such employment, he represented LFC in a case filed by one of its
former employees, Violeta Hanopol for illegal dismissal and other
monetary claims against LFC. Daria failed to appear on two hearings
scheduled by the Labor Arbiter. On his first failure, he interposed the
defense that Hanopol was supposed to go to his office which is why
he was not able to attend the hearing. He also failed to appear on a
scheduled hearing the second time due to a conflict in his schedule.
He alleged that he called, through his secretary, the Office of the
Labor Arbiter (LA) to move to postpone the hearing. However, this
telephone message was never received by the Labor Arbiter. Thus,
the case was submitted for decision ordering LFC to pay Hanopol the
total sum of P6,469.60 in labor benefits, on the basis of Hanopol's
evidence alone.
Daria appealed the decision to the NLRC and the latter remanded the
case to the LA for further proceedings. During the course of such
suit, Daria signified to the management of his intention to resign.
Thus, the case was endorsed to Atty. Urdabe and consequently to
Atty. Loy. For failure of the counsel of LFC to appear, Hanopol filed
a Manifestation and Motion praying for the revival of the earlier
57 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
decision of the LA. The decision of the Labor Arbiter had been
revived.
On another case during the employment of respondent as legal
counsel of LFC, Roberto San Juan, an employee of LFC, was placed
under preventive suspension for an alleged double liquidation and
unliquidated cash advances. After the resignation of respondent, he
was approached by San Juan for assistance in preparing the latter’s
counter affidavit in a complaint for estafa lodged by complainant,
LFC). Thus, respondent Daria was administratively charged for
Negligence and Betrayal of his former client’s confidences.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Daria is guilty of Negligence and Betrayal of
his former client’s confidences in violation of Canons 18 and 17,
respectively of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: The Supreme Court Ruled in the affirmative.
CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.
The Supreme Court held that respondent Daria was remiss in his duty
under Canon 18. It reasoned that “had respondent attended the two
scheduled hearings and filed the required position paper, then at
least, there would have been no delay in the resolution of the case,
which, perhaps, would have been in favor of complainant. The delay,
by itself, was prejudicial to complainant because it deprived
successor-counsel Atty. Loy of time which he should be devoting to
other cases of complainant.”
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.
According to the SC, “An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only
in the case in which he has represented him but also after the relation
of attorney and client has terminated, and it is not a good practice to
permit him afterwards to defend in another case other persons
against his former client under the pretext that the case is distinct
from and independent of the former case.”
Thus, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a
period of six (6) months.
CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
“The price of success is eternal diligence to the cause of the client.”
Diligence — the attention and care required of a person in a given
situation and is the opposite of negligence.
PRESUMPTION OF DILIGENCE.
In the absence of any contrary evidence, a lawyer is presumed to be
prompt and diligent in the performance of his duties and to have
employed his best efforts, learning and ability in the protection of his
client’s interest and in the discharge of his duties as an officer of the
court.
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE, NOT REQUIRED.
Practice of law does not require extraordinary diligence, all that is
required is that degree of vigilance and attention of a good father of
a family. A lawyer must always be protective of the interests of his
clients as a good father would be protective of his own family.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
RULE 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.
IMPLICATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF CASES
When a lawyer accepts a case, whether for a fee of not, his
acceptance is an implied representation that:
b. He possesses the requisite degree of academic learning,
skill, and ability which is necessary to thin the practice of
his profession;
c. He will exert his best judgment in the prosecution or
defense of the litigation entrusted to him;
d. He will exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence
in the use of his skill and in the application of his
knowledge to his client’s cause;
e. He will take such steps as will adequately safeguard his
client’s interest.
CLIENTS ENTITLED TO EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.
Not only does everyone have the right to representation but he has
a right to an effective representation.
GR: A lawyer is directed not to undertake legal service which he
knows or should know he is not qualified or competent to render.
XP: If his client consents, the lawyer can take as collaborating
counsel another lawyer who is competent on the matter.
RULE 18.02. A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter
without adequate preparation.
Lawyer should safeguard his client’s rights and interests by:
1. Thorough study and preparation;
2. Mastering applicable law and facts involved in a case,
regardless of the nature of the assignment; and
3. Keeping constantly abreast of the latest jurisprudence
and developments in all branches of the law.
RULE 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
If by reason of the lawyer’s negligence, actual loss has been caused
to his client, the latter has a cause of action against him for damages.
However, for the lawyer to be held liable, his failure to exercise
reasonable care, skill and diligence must be the proximate cause of
the loss.
LAWYERS SHOULD ACCEPT ONLY SO MUCH CASES HE CAN
HANDLE.
A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his cases.
This is the reason why a practicing lawyer should accept only so many
cases he can handle. Once he agrees to handle a case, he should
undertake the task with dedication and care. If he should do any less,
then he is not true to his oath as a lawyer.
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.
The client has the right to be fully informed of the status of the case
particularly on the important movements or development therein.
Vis-à-vis this right, the lawyer has the corresponding duty to notify
58 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
his client of the important orders or decisions not yet known to the
client.
In case of adverse decision, the client must be informed within the
period of appeal to enable him to decide whether or not he will still
seek an appellate review of the decision.
Illustrative Cases
CESARIO ADARNE VS. ATTY. DAMIAN ALDABA
(A.M. No. 801, June 27, 1978)
FACTS: Sometime in 1958, spouses Cumpio filed an action for
forcible entry against herein complainant Cesario Adarne, Aning
Arante and Miguel Inokando with the Justice of Peace of Alang-alang
Leyte. They were represented by Atty. Isauro Marmita. They raised
the issue of lack of jurisdiction, which subsequently prompted the
Justice of Peace to dismiss the case. The plaintiffs therein appealed
to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Leyte. The CFI remanded the
case to the Justice of Peace after a finding of jurisdiction. After the
trial on the merits, the Justice of Peace dismissed the case. Plaintiffs
appealed the case to the CFI.
At the hearing of the case on August 7, 1961, Cesario Adarne, noting
that his attorneys had not yet arrived, prevailed upon the respondent
Atty. Damian Aldaba to appear as counsel for them and ask for the
Postponement of the trial. Atty. Aldaba entered a special appearance
but instead moved for the dismissal of the case since the plaintiffs
and their counsel were not present in court.
At the hearing of the case on October 23, 1964 before the Court of
First Instance of Leyte, the respondent was again prevailed upon by
the complainant to appear in his behalf. The respondent entered a
"special appearance" for the complainant and thereafter argued that
the interest of justice would best be served if the defendants were
allowed to file an action for quieting of title and the case heard jointly
with the pending action for forcible entry. The court allowed this and
ordered the filing of an action for quieting of title within one week.
However, the court declared the defendants in default and
subsequently rendered a decision against them. This prompted
Cesario Adarne to file a suit against Atty. Aldaba for gross negligence
and misconduct.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Damian Aldaba should be held guilty for gross
negligence and misconduct.
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The Court held that
the respondent could not be faulted for the judgment by default
rendered against Adarne, since it was the latter who engaged
services of several lawyers without withdrawing the authority he had
given to them to appear in his behalf as to place the responsibility
upon the respondent.
The SC held that no substitution of attorneys will be allowed unless
there be filed: (1) a written application for such substitution; (2) the
written consent of the client; (3) the written consent of the attorney
substituted; and (4) in case such written consent cannot be secured,
there must be filed with the application proof of service of notice of
such motion upon the attorney to be substituted, in the manner
prescribed by the rules. Failure to comply with such formalities will
result in the attorney who properly appeared last in the cause, before
such application for substitution, to be regarded as the attorney of
record and will be held responsible for the proper conduct of the
cause. In this case, there being no compliance with the formalities,
respondent Aldaba should not be made to shoulder the liability.
Also, the Court held that Aldaba honestly believed that his
appearance was merely temporary and for a special purpose so he
did nothing about the case after his special appearances. To this, the
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
Court reasoned that “It was neither gross negligence nor omission to
have entertained such belief. An attorney is not bound to exercise
extraordinary diligence, but only a reasonable degree of care and
skill, having reference to the character of the business he undertakes
to do. Prone to err like any other human being, he is not answerable
for every error or mistake, and will be protected as long as he acts
honestly and in good faith to the best of his skill and knowledge.”
Thus, the case was dismissed.
REYES VS VITAN
A.C. No. 5835, April 15, 2005
An administrative complaint for disbarment was filed by Carlos Reyes
against Atty. Jeremias Vitan for gross negligence, alleging that he
hired the services of the latter for the purpose of filing the
appropriate complaint or charge against his sister-in-law, Estelita
Reyes, and the latter’s niece, Julieta P. Alegonza; that both women
refused to abide with the Decision of Judge Juan C. Nabong, Jr., of
the Regional Trial Court, in a civil case ordering the partition of the
properties left by complainants brother Damaso B. Reyes; and that
respondent, after receiving the amount of P17,000.00, did not take
any action on complainant’s case.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Vitan violated Canon 18 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
HELD
Yes, the act of receiving money as acceptance fee
for legal services in handling complainant’s case and
subsequently failing to render such services is a clear
violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall serve his client
with competence and diligence. More specifically, Rule 18.03 states:
Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable.
When respondent accepted the amount of P17,000.00
from complainant, it was understood that he agreed to take up the
latter’s case and that an attorney-client relationship between them
was established. From then on, it was expected of him to serve his
client, herein complainant, with competence and attend to his cause
with fidelity, care and devotion. When a lawyer takes a client’s cause,
he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting his
rights. The failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention
expected of a good father of a family makes such lawyer unworthy
of the trust reposed in him by his client and makes him answerable
not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and
society.
CANON 19 — A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT
WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
In representing a client, you represent him with zeal. The key phrase
there – “within the bounds of the law.” No amount of zeal can ever
justify by breaking the law. A lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to
the administration of justice. To that end, his client’s success is fully
subordinate and his conduct ought to and always be scrupulously
observant of law and ethics. The office of the attorney does not
permit him to violate any law or commit fraud or any chicanery.
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.
59 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
The lawyer may only employ honorable and honest means in the
maintenance of his client’s cause.
• Should not offer false evidence
• Should not offer false witness
Lawyers should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless
cases against the adversaries of his client.
This is usually done in order to secure leverage, to compel
the other party to withdraw or to compel them to yield.
Counter suits are alright if they are founded on facts and
law but if they are just there to intimidate, to oppress, to
gain leverage or advantage, they are unethical.
RULE 19.02. A lawyer who has received information that
his client has, in the course of the representation,
perpetuated 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.
A lawyer should not allow his client to perpetuate fraud. He must
restraint and prevent his client from doing acts which he himself
ought not to do. If the client persists then the lawyer should
terminate their relation.
If in the course of the trial he founds that the client has committed a
fraud upon a person or tribunal then he must advise the client to
rectify the same and if he does not then he must withdraw from the
case.
RULE 19.03. A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate
the procedure in handling the case.
The attorney is given the full charge of the remedy and the procedure
because he is trained and skilled in the law. The client has no
knowledge of procedure and necessarily entrusts this to the attorney
he employs.
OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH CLIENT’S REQUEST
When the client’s requests are proper and lawful the lawyer has the
duty to oblige. If the request is illegal or repugnant to the lawyer’s
sense of honor and propriety then his remedy is to withdraw.
The lawyer must know the difference between matters that he as
the lawyer should decide and matters which his client should
rightfully decide.
He (the lawyer) should follow his own decision and not that of the
client. Thus, a lawyer may agree to postpone the trial of the case
despite the client’s contrary wishes, if the opposite counsel is sick or
under bereavement, or under other justifiable cause.
Illustrative Case
NICANOR GONZALES and SALUD B. PANTANOSAS v.
ATTY. MIGUEL SABACAJAN
A.C. NO. 4380. October 13, 1995
FACTS:
Complainants filed an administrative case against Atty. Sabacajan,
respondent, for refusing without any justification to give the owner’s
duplicate of title covering the lands of complainants. The
complainants’ alleged that when confronted, respondent challenged
the complainants to file any case in any court even in the Honorable
Supreme Court. Complainants’ also alleged that it is a clear
manifestation of respondent’s arrogance taking undue advantage of
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
his legal profession over the simplicity, innocence and ignorance of
the complainants, one of whom is his blood relative, his aunt.
However, respondent denies complainants’ allegation that he is
arrogant but admitted having taking possession of the certificates of
title. He asserts that he was holding the certificates of title in behalf
of his client, Sam M. Uy.
ISSUE: Whether respondent is guilty of violating Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).
RULING: Yes. The Court accordingly finds that respondent has not
exercised the good faith and diligence required of lawyers in handling
the legal affairs of their clients. Respondent should know that there
are lawful remedies provided by law to protect the interest of his
client but instead he merely resorting to unexplained, if not curt,
refusals to accommodate the requests of complainants.
Respondent has disregarded Canon 15, Rule 15.07 of CPR which
provides that a lawyer shall impress upon his client the need for
compliance with the laws and principles of fairness. Instead, he
unjustly refused to give to complainants their certificates of titles
supposedly to enforce payment of their alleged financial obligations
to his client and presumably to impress the latter of his power to do
so.
Also, under Canon 19, Rule 19.01 ordains that, “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 charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding”. Respondent has closely skirted this proscription, if he
has not in fact transgressed the same.
Thus, respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law until he can
duly show to the Court that the disputed certificates of title have
been returned to and the receipt thereof duly acknowledged by
complainants or can present a judicial order or appropriate legal
authority justifying the possession by him or his client of said
certificates.
60 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CANON 20 — A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND
REASONABLE FEES.
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 services 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.
TWO CONCEPTS OF ATTORNEY’S FEES
1) Ordinary Concept – reasonable compensation paid to the
lawyer for the legal services he has rendered to a client.
Basis: Fact of employment
2) Extraordinary Concept – an attorney’s fees is an indemnity
for damages ordered by the court to be paid by the losing
party to the prevailing party in the litigation
Basis: Any of the case authorized by law and is payable not
to the lawyer but to the client – unless they have agreed
that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional
compensation.
BASIS OF DEMAND FOR COMPENSATION
The fact of employment as a lawyer by the client. Thus, if the client
did not employ the lawyer, the latter cannot recover compensation
no matter how valuable the results.
Exception: If there is a quasi-contract, the compensation of which
will be based on quantum merit
FORMS OF EMPLOYMENT
1) Oral – there is an implied promise
2) Written
Advantage: The contract is generally held conclusive as to
the amount of compensation and in case of unjustified
dismissal, the lawyer shall be entitled to recover full
compensation stipulated in the contract.
COMMENCEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT
Once there is meeting of the minds between the lawyer and the
client, the lawyer is deemed employed even if no acceptance fee is
paid yet. When a client employs the services of a law firm, he does
not employ the lawyer who is assigned to personally handle the case
– he employs the entire law firm.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
Take Note: The proper time for fixing compensation is at the
commencement of the employment. It is advisable for the benefit of
the lawyer and the client. This is to avoid misunderstandings.
SITUATIONS WHEN COUNSEL CANNOT RECOVER FULL
AMOUNT, DESPITE WRITTEN CONTRACT FOR ATTORNEY’S
FEES
1) When the services called for were not performed as when
the lawyer withdrew before the case is finished
2) When there is a justified dismissal of the attorney, the
contract will be nullified and payment will be on the basis
of quantum meruit only
3) When the stipulated attorney’s fees are unconscionable –
that is, when they are so disproportionate compared to the
value of services rendered and is revolting to human
conscience
4) When the stipulated fees are in excess of what is expressly
fixed by law
5) When the lawyer is guilty of fraud and bad faith toward his
client in the matter of his employmeny
6) When the counsel’s services were worthless because of his
negligence
7) When the contract of employment is illegal, against morals
or public policy
8) Serving adverse interests
RETAINER, CONCEPT
This is the act of the client by which he employs a lawyer to manage
for him a cause to which he is a party, or otherwise to advise him as
a counsel
This also refers to the fee which the client pays his attorney whom
he retains, that is, the retaining fee.
KINDS OF RETAINER AGREEMENT
1) General Retainer or Retaining Fee
Fee paid to a lawyer to secure his future services as general
counsel for any ordinary legal problem that may arise in the
ordinary business of the client and referred to him for legal
action.
Retaining Fee is a preliminary fee given to an attorney or counsel
to insure and secure his future services, and induce him to act
for the client. It is intended to remunerate counsel for being
deprived, by being retained by one party, of the opportunity of
rendering services to the other and of receiving pay for him, and
the payment of such fee, in the absence of a n express
understanding to the contrary, is neither made or received in
payment of the services contemplated.
2) Special Retainer
Fee for a specific case or services rendered by the lawyer for a
client. A client may have several cases. If for every case there is
a separate and independent contract for attorney’s fees, each fee
is considered a special retainer.
CHAMPERTOUS CONTRACT, VOID
In this case, the lawyer agrees to spend for all the litigation expenses
in consideration for a bigger percentage as fees on the property
subject of litigation. It is void being against public policy.
QUANTUM MERUIT, CONCEPT
It means “as much as he has deserved.” It is a legal mechanism in
legal ethics which prevents as unscrupulous client from running away
with the fruits of the legal services of a counsel without paying
therefor.
It is authorized when:
61 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
a) there is no express contract for the payment of attorney’s
fees;
b) when although there is a formal contract of attorney’s fees,
the fees stipulated are found unconscionable or
unreasonable;
c) when the contract for attorney’s fees is void due to purely
formal matters r defects of execution;
d) when the counsel, for justifiable cause, was not able to
finish the case to its conclusion and;
e) when lawyer and client disregard the contract for fees and
placed themselves as though there was no express
stipulation as to the attorney’s fees
Take Note: Attorney’s fees must be specifically prayed for and proven
and justified in the decision. It is not deemed incorporated in the
general prayer for “such other relief and remedy as this court may
deem just and equitable.
Legal Interest cannot be imposed on attorney’s fees because legal
services stand upon an entirely different footing from contracts for
the payment of compensation for any other services.
GUIDE IN DETERMINING ATTORNEY’S FEES BASED ON
QUANTUM MERUIT
To determine the attorney’s fees, a full-blown trial is necessarily
needed because the factors must be established by evidence.
1) Time Spent and the Extent of the Services Rendered or Required
It is justified in fixing higher fees when the case is so complicated
and requires more time and efforts to finish it.
2) Importance of Subject Matter
The more important the subject matter or the bigger value of the
interest or property in litigation, the higher is the attorney’s fee.
3) Novelty and Difficulty of Questions Involved
When the questions in a case are novel and difficult, greater efforts,
deeper study and research, are bound to burn the lawyer’s time and
stamina considering that there are no local precedents to rely upon.
4) Skill demanded of the Lawyer
The totality of the lawyer’s experience provides him the skill and
competence admired in lawyers.
5) Probability of losing Other Employment
A lawyer is entitles to a better compensation if by reason of his
rentention as counsel by a client, he loses the opportunity or chance
to be employed by the opposite party because of the prohibition
against representing conflicting interests.
6) Customary Charges for Similar Services and Schedule of Fees of
IBP
Schedule must be applied as close as possible to avoid unnecessary
competitions among lawyers on the matter of rendering legal
services.
7) Amount Involved in the Case Handled.
The greater the amount or the greater the value of the property
involved, the greater is the responsibility of the lawyer. The greater
responsibility means greater exertion of efforts, more time and more
expenses.
8) Contingency or Certainty of Compensation
A contingent fee contract is one which stipulates that the lawyer will
be paid for his services only if the suit or litigation ends favorably to
the client.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
CHAMPERTOUS CONTRACT VS. CONTINGENT CONTRACT
Contingent Champertous
Payable in cash Payable in kind
Lawyers do not undertake to Lawyers undertake to pay the
pay the litigation expenses expenses for litigation
Not prohibited Void
9) Professional Standing of the Lawyer
The standing is measure by his sill and competency as evidence by
the result of his work. A seasoned lawyer known for his ability and
competency, not only in the practice of law but also in his other
endeavors, is entitled to higher fees that an inexperienced lawyer.
Take note: That the enumeration above are only guideline, thus is
not controlling.
When is a fee reasonable?
It will depend according to the facts of the case. It is reasonable if it
is within capacity of the client to pay, and is directly commensurate
with the value of the legal services rendered.
RULE 20.02. A lawyer shall, in cases of referral, with the
consent of the client, be entitled to a division of fees in
proportion to the work performed and responsibility
assumed.
Sharing of Attorney’s Fees, when allowed
General Rule: When lawyers jointly represent a common client for a
given fee without any express agreement on how much
each will receive, they will share equally as they are
considered special partners for a special purpose.
But if there are specific contracts for the payment of the fees of each
lawyer, the contracts shall prevail unless found unconscionable.
Take note: Attorney’s fees cannot be shared to a non-lawyer. It is
immoral.
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.
Rationale: The reason for the rule is to secure the fidelity of the
lawyer to his clients’ cause and to prevent situation in which the
receipt by him of a rebate or commission from another with the
client’s business may interfere with the full discharge of his duty to
his client. “There should be no room for suspicion on the part of the
client that his lawyer is receiving compensation in connection with
the case from third persons with hostile interests.”
Exception: The only exception whereby a lawyer may receive
compensation from a person other than his client is when the latter
has full knowledge and approval thereof.
Compensation
It is used in its general connotation and will include any fee, reward,
costs, commission, interest, rebate, forwarding allowance ot any
other benefits received from any other person/s – in relation to the
lawyer’s employment in a case.
62 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
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.
General Rule: A lawyer should avoid the filing of any case against
clients for the enforcement of his attorney’s fees
Exception: To prevent 1) imposition, 2) injustice, 3) fraud.
JUDICIAL ACTION TO RECOVER ATTORNEY’S FEES
(1) In the same case
He may enforce his attorney’s fees by filing an appropriate
motion or petition as an incident in the main action where he
rendered legal services;
(2) In a separate civil action
The lawyer may also enforce his attorney’s fees by filing an
independent separate action for collection of attorney’s fees.
Suits to collect fees should be avoided and only when the
circumstances imperatively require should a lawyer resort
to lawsuit to enforce payment of fees. This is but a logical
consequence of the legal profession not primarily being for economic
compensation. [Agpalo]
Illustrative Cases
BENEDICTO LEVISTE V. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. L-29184, January 30, 1989
FACTS:
Petitioner Benedicto Leviste entered into a written agreement with
private respondent Rosa del Rosario to appear as her counsel in a
petition for probate of the holographic will. It was agreed that
petitioner's contingent fee would be thirty-five per cent (35%) of the
property that Rosa may receive upon the probate of the will. He
performed services in favor of private respondent, such as research,
filing of petition and presentation of witnesses. However, petitioner
received a letter from private respondent, informing him that she was
terminating his services as her counsel due to “conflicting interest.”
Petitioner then filed a “Motion to Intervene to Protect His Rights to
Fees for Professional Services.” But the trial court denied his motion
on the ground that he had “not filed a claim for attorney's fees nor
recorded his attorney's lien. Thus, petitioner filed a “Formal
Statement of Claim for Attorney's Fees and Recording of Attorney's
Lien,” which was noted by the court.
Then, Del Rosario moved to withdraw the probate of will alleging that
she waived her rights to the devise. The trial court denied the motion
to withdraw the petition for being contrary to public policy.
Nonetheless, it disallowed the will, holding that the legal
requirements for its validity were not satisfied.
Petitioner then filed an appeal bond, notice of appeal, and record on
appeal. Private respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on
the ground that petitioner was not a party in interest. Petitioner
opposed the motion to dismiss his appeal, claiming that he has a
direct and material interest in the decision sought to be reviewed.
The trial judge dismissed the notice of appeal. Petitioner filed a
petition for mandamus before the Court of Appeals but the same was
dismissed.
ISSUE: Whether petitioner Leviste, who was engaged by Del Rosario
on a contingent fee basis, is entitled to attorney’s fees.
RULING: No. The payment of his fees is contingent and dependent
upon the successful probate of the holographic will. Since the petition
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
for probate was dismissed by the lower court, the contingency did
not occur. Attorney Leviste is not entitled to his fee. In Morente v.
Firmalino, the Supreme Court ruled that: “attorney's lien did not
entitle the attorney-appellant to subrogate himself in lieu of his client.
It only gives him the right to collect a certain amount for his services
in case his client is awarded a certain sum by the court.”
LICUDAN V COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 91958, January 24, 1991
The practice of law is a profession rather than trade. Courts must
guard against the charging of unconscionable and excessive fees by
lawyers for their services when engaged as counsel. Whether or not
the award of attorney's fees in this case is reasonable, being in the
nature of contingent fees, is the principal issue.
FACTS:
Atty. Teodoro Domalanta was the counsel of his sister and brother-
in-law. He represented them in two civil cases and in both, he
obtained judgment in favor of his clients.
On August 13,1979, the respondent lawyer filed a Petition for
Attorney's Lien with Notification to his Clients which substantially
alleged that his clients executed two written contracts for
professional services in his favor which provided that:
a) The undersigned counsel is entitled to own 97.5
square meters of the plaintiff's share of the lot in
question.
b) The undersigned counsel shall have a usufructuary
right for a period of ten (10) years of plaintiffs' share
of the lot in question.
c) And that all damages accruing to plaintiffs to be paid
by the defendant is for the undersigned counsel.
A series of hearings were made and the trial court ruled in favor of
the lawyer. 10 months after, the heirs of the lawyer’s (deceased)
clients filed a motion to set aside the orders of the trial court.
The lawyer stressed the fact that the payment of the professional
services was pursuant to a contract which could no longer be
disturbed as it has already been implemented and since then had
become final and CA ruled in favor of the lawyer. Hence the instant
petition. The petitioners now fault the respondent court for its failure
to exercise its inherent power to review and determine the propriety
of the respondents’ lawyer’s fees. They also accuse their lawyer of
having committed an unfair advantage or legal fraud by virtue of the
Contract for Professional Services devised by him.
According to the petitioners, they may have won the cases (where
the lawyer represented them) but would lose the entire property won
in the litigation to their lawyer. They would be deprived of their house
and lot and the recovered damages since everything would just go
to lawyer’s fees. Furthermore, a portion of the land that they would
recover would still go to lawyer’s fees since it pertains to the lawyer’s
son by way of usufruct for 10 years.
ISSUE: W/N the attorney’s fees in this case is reasonable, being in
the nature of contingent fees
RULING: No. The attorney’s fees in this case is unconscionable and
unreasonable.
The contract relating to the lawyer’s fees entered into by Domalanta
and his clients cannot become final as it pertains to a contingent fee
which is always subject to the supervision of the Court with regard
to its reasonableness (Section 13, Canon of Professional Ethics).
63 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
Under Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a
lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. In
determining whether or not the lawyer fees are fair and reasonable,
Rule 20-01 of the same Code enumerates the factors to be
considered in resolving the said issue. They are as follows:
a) The time spent and the extent of the services 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 proferred 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.
Considering the extent of the services rendered, the case the lawyer
handled was just a simple case if partition and no special skill nor any
unusual effort was required. There is no doubt, then, that Atty.
Domalanta took advantage of the situation to promote his own
personal interests. There should never be an instance where a
lawyer gets as attorney’s fees the entire property involved in the
litigation. It is unconscionable for the client to lose everything he won
to the fees of his own lawyer. The practice of law is a profession
rather than a trade.
The instant petition is granted, and the Court of Appeals’ decision
reversed and set aside. Atty. Domalanta is awarded reasonable
attorney’s fees in the amount of P20,000.
Legal maxim: a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession so that his basic ideal becomes one of
rendering service and securing justice, not money-making.
RETUYA vs. ATTY. GORDUIZ
A.C. No. 1388, March 28, 1980
FACTS:
Retuya, a widow with four minor children, filed a claim for workmen's
compensation against Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., the employer of
her husband who died.
Retuya accepted the proposal of the employer on the reduced award
with a covering letter explaining her lawyer, Atty. Gorduiz, did not
sign the joint motion to dismiss the claim because he wanted 20% of
the award as his attorney's fees. She was only willing to give him
10% or P600 as his attorney's fees but he demanded a bigger
amount.
Atty. Gordiuz lodged a complaint for estafa against her. The estafa
case was later dismissed when Retuya paid him P500.
In spite of the dismissal of the estafa case Retuya felt aggrieved and
filed for the disbarment or suspension of Atty. Gorduiz.
ISSUE: Whether the disbarment or suspension case will prosper.
RULING: Yes, because Atty. Gordiuz acted precipitately in filing a
criminal action against his client for the supposed misappropriation
of his attomey's fees. It is not altogether clear that his client had
swindled him and, therefore, there is some basis for concluding that,
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
contrary to his lawyer's oath, he had filed a suit against her and had
harassed and embarrassed her.
Paragraph 14 of the Canons of Legal Ethics prescribes that
"controversies with clients concerning compensation are to be
avoided by the lawyer so far as shall be compatible with his self-
respect and with his right to receive reasonable recompense for his
services; and lawsuits with clients should be resorted to only to
prevent injustice, imposition or fraud."
He is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months
counted from notice of this decision.
RAMOS vs NGASEO
A.C. No. 6210. December 9, 2004
FACTS:
Sometime in 1998, complainant Federico Ramos went to respondent
Atty. Patricio Ngaseo's Makati office to engage his services as counsel
in a case involving a piece of land in San Carlos, Pangasinan.
Respondent agreed to handle the case for an acceptance fee of
P20,000.00, appearance fee of P1,000.00 per hearing and the cost
of meals, transportation and other incidental expenses.
Complainant alleges that he did not promise to pay the respondent
1,000 sq. m. of land as appearance fees. Respondent alleged that
sometime in the late 1997, a former client, Federico Ramos went to
his Makati office. Six months later, complainant told respondent that
he was willing to pay an acceptance fee of P40,000.00, P20,000.00
of which shall be paid upon engagement and the remaining
P20,000.00 to be paid after their treasure hunt operations in Nueva
Viscaya. Further, complainant offered, in lieu of P3,000.00 per
appearance, 1,000 sq. m. of land from the land subject matter of the
case, if they win, or from another piece of property, if they lose.
The Court of Appeals rendered a favorable decision ordering the
return of the disputed 2-hectare land to the complainant and his
siblings. The said decision became final and executory. Since then
complainant allegedly failed to contact respondent, which compelled
him to send a demand letter.
Complainant filed a complaint before the IBP charging his former
counsel, respondent Atty. Ngaseo, of violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for demanding the delivery of 1,000 sq.
m. parcel of land which was the subject of litigation.
In a report dated July 18, 2003, IBP Commissioner Rebecca
Villanueva-Maala found the respondent guilty of grave misconduct
and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer in violation of the CPR and
recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for 1
year.
On August 30, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution
suspending Atty. Ngaseo for 6 months. Respondent then filed a
petition for review assailing the said IBP Resolution.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Ngaseo’s violation fell within the
purview of Art. 1491 of the NCC.
RULING:
No. Under Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, lawyers are prohibited
from acquiring either by purchase or assignment the property or
rights involved which are the object of the litigation in which they
intervene by virtue of their profession.
Invariably, in all cases where Article 1491 was violated, the illegal
transaction was consummated with the actual transfer of the litigated
property either by purchase or assignment in favor of the prohibited
individual.
64 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
In the instant case, there was no actual acquisition of the property
in litigation since the respondent only made a written demand for its
delivery which the complainant refused to comply. Mere demand for
delivery of the litigated property does not cause the transfer of
ownership, hence, not a prohibited transaction within the
contemplation of Article 1491.
Even assuming arguendo that such demand for delivery is unethical,
respondent's act does not fall within the purview of Article 1491. The
letter of demand dated January 29, 2003 was made long after the
judgment in Civil Case No. SCC-2128 became final and executory on
January 18, 2002.
We note that the report of the IBP Commissioner, as adopted by the
IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XVI-2003-47, does not
clearly specify which acts of the respondent constitute gross
misconduct or what provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility have been violated.
We find the recommended penalty of suspension for 6 months too
harsh and not proportionate to the offense committed by the
respondent.
The power to disbar or suspend must be exercised with great caution.
Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing
and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and member
of the bar will disbarment or suspension be imposed as a penalty.
Atty. Patricio A. Ngaseo is found guilty of conduct unbecoming a
member of the legal profession in violation of Rule 20.04 of Canon
20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is REPRIMANDED
with a warning that repetition of the same act will be dealt with more
severely.
DIRECTOR OF LANDS VS. ABABA
G.R. No. L-26096, February 27, 1979
FACTS:
This is an appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Cebu
dated March 19, 1966 denying the petition for the cancellation of an
adverse claim registered by the adverse claimant on the transfer
certificate of title of the petitioners.
The adverse claimant, Atty. Alberto B. Fernandez was retained as
counsel by petitioner, Maximo Abarquez, in Civil Case No. R-6573 of
the Court of First Instance of Cebu, entitled "Maximo Abarquez vs.
Agripina Abarquez", for the annulment of a contract of sale with right
of repurchase and for the recovery of the land which was the subject
matter thereof. The Court of First Instance of Cebu rendered a
decision on May 29, 1961 adverse to the petitioner and so he
appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Litigating as a pauper in the lower court and engaging the services
of his lawyer on a contingent basis, petitioner, unable to compensate
his lawyer whom he also retained for his appeal, executed a
document on June 10, 1961 in the Cebuano-Visayan dialect whereby
he obliged himself to give to his lawyer or one-half (1/2) of whatever
he might recover from Lots 5600 and 5602 should the appeal
prosper.
ISSUE: Whether the contract for a contingent fee is prohibited by
the Article 1491 of the New Civil Code and Canon 13 of the Canons
of Professional Ethics.
RULING: No. Article 1491 prohibits only the sale or assignment
between the lawyer and his client, of property which is the subject
of litigation.: The prohibition in said article applies only to a sale or
assignment to the lawyer by his client of the property which is the
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
subject of litigation. In other words, for the prohibition to operate,
the sale or assignment of the property must take place during the
pendency of the litigation involving the property"
Canon 13, on the other hand, allows a reasonable contingent fee
contract, thus: "A contract for a contingent fee where sanctioned by
law, should be reasonable under all the circumstances of the case,
including the risk and uncertainty of the compensation, but should
always be subject to the supervision of a court, as to its
reasonableness." As pointed out by an authority on Legal Ethics:
"Every lawyer is intensely interested in the successful
outcome of his case, not only as affecting his
reputation, but also his compensation. Canon 13
specifically permits the lawyer to contract for a
contingent fee which, of itself, negatives the thought
that the Canons preclude the lawyer's having a stake
in his litigation. As pointed out by Professor
Cheatham on page 170 n. of his Case Book, there is
an inescapable conflict of interest between lawyer
and client in the matter of fees. Nor, despite some
statements to the contrary in Committee opinions, is
it believed that, particularly in view of Canon 13,
Canon 10 precludes in every case an arrangement to
make the lawyer's fee payable only out of the results
of the litigation. The distinction is between buying an
interest in the litigation as a speculation, which
Canon 10 condemns, and agreeing, in a case which
the lawyer undertakes primarily in his professional
capacity, to accept his compensation contingent on
the outcome"
CANON 21 — A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE
CONFIDENCES OR SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER
THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS TERMINATED.
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.
Confidence – refers to the information protected by the attorney-
client privilege protected under the Revised Rules of Court (Rule 130,
Sec. 24[b])
Secrets – refers to other information gained in the professional
relationship that the client has requested to be held inviolate and the
disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would likely be
detrimental to the client.
COMMUNICATION MUST BE INTENDED TO BE
CONFIDENTIAL
Otherwise, the client’s privilege will not attach and the lawyer has no
duty to preserve the communication. Mere existence of an attorney-
client relationship is not enough. The communication itself must be
relayed in confidence, with the expectation that it will not be shared
to third persons.
The said communication may be verbal, written, or through any other
means.
65 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
LAWYER’S DUTY IS PERPETUAL AND COVERS PROSPECTIVE
CLIENTS
It outlasts the lawyer’s employment and the duty remains even after
the attorney-client relationship is terminated. It also applies to
prospective clients, who may have sought legal advice with the view
of future employment. The lawyer also remains duty-bound even if
the relationship with the prospective client never materializes.
RATIONALE OF THE RULE
To encourage free flow of information between the lawyer and the
client, as to enable the former to effectively provide legal service to
the latter.
Another reason is that, the relationship is characterized as one of
trust and confidence in the highest degree. The client puts
himself in a vulnerable position by revealing sensitive information to
his lawyer. Hence, the need for protection.
Thus, a lawyer who betrays the trust of his client will not only be
subject to administrative sanctions but also criminal liability under
Art. 209 of the Revised Penal Code.
EXCEPTIONS
(a) When authorized by the client after acquainting him of
the consequences of the disclosure;
In order for there to be a sufficient authorization, the lawyer must
fully inform the client of the consequences of his waiver.
However, if the client waives his right with regards to privileged
communication given to the lawyer’s secretary, stenographer, or
clerk in their professional capacity, it is necessary that the consent of
the lawyer. Without which, the secretary, stenographer, or clerk
cannot make any disclosure with respect to such.
(b) When required by law;
As between the attorney-client privilege and a positive obligation
imposed by law, the latter would prevail. By this, it must be taken to
mean that the law can never sanction the act of an attorney in
providing legal services that will enable a client to commit a future
crime or fraud. If the client does announce such intentions, an
attorney is obliged by law and public policy to make the necessary
disclosures to prevent the planned commission of a crime. Of course,
it is understood that disclosure of a past crime is still within the
protection of the privilege.
(c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself,
his employees or associates or by judicial action.
The disclosures, however, must be limited to what is necessary to
sustain the lawyer’s action or defense. Any privileged information not
necessary for such purposes remains protected and may not be
disclosed by the lawyer.
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.
The Rule prohibits the use of any information acquired in the course
of employment, without distinguishing whether it is privileged or not,
if it is done so:
(1) To the disadvantage of the client;
(2) The lawyer’s own advantage; or
(3) To the advantage of a third person.
Exception: If the client consents with full knowledge of the
circumstances thereto.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
Exception to the Exception: If the matter is unprivileged, then the
lawyer may be judicially compelled to make a disclosure (if material
to a case) even at the client’s objection. If the matter is privileged,
then the exceptions under Rule 21.01 will govern.
RULE 21.03. A lawyer shall not, without the written
consent of his client, give information from his 1les to an
outside agency seeking such information for auditing,
statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data processing, or
any similar purpose.
The consent of the client must be written.
The client not only have the right to have such files protected from
being disclosed by the lawyer but may enforce it against persons and
outside agencies who acquire it without the said lawyer’s
intervention.
Illustrative Case:
People v. Sy Juco
Facts: A lawyer’s cabinet was seized by government agents by virtue
of a search warrant. The lawyer claimed that the cabinet contained
confidential files involving his client and demanded its return.
Held: The cabinet must be returned. To allow the government agents
to keep the cabinet and open its contents will be tantamount to
compelling the lawyer to violate his duty to protect the confidential
files of his client.
RULE 21.04. A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client
of the 1rm to partners or associates thereof unless
prohibited by the client.
Unless there is a prohibition, a lawyer may disclose such affairs to his
partners and associates in the law firm. This is understandable since
the usual operations of a law firm often requires the participation of
several lawyers forming a team to tackle a single case.
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 con1dences or secrets of
the client.
These measures include initiating a careful selection and employment
process of prospective employees and training programs of those
already employed.
RULE 21.06. A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation
about a client's affairs even with members of his family.
These measures include initiating a careful selection and employment
process of prospective employees and training programs of those
already employed.
RULE 21.07. A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been
consulted about a particular case except to avoid possible
conflict of interest.
As mentioned before, confidential information relayed by prospective
clients are covered by the privilege, even if the relationship with the
prospective client never materializes.
Exception: The exception in this rule contemplates a situation
wherein a lawyer is consulted by a subsequent client whose legal
needs might drive the lawyer to serve conflicting interest with respect
to a prior client. If so, the lawyer may disclose that he was previously
66 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
consulted on the prior case in order to apprise the subsequent client
of the conflict of interest.
Illustrative Case
FEDERICO C. SUNTAY vs. ATTY. RAFAEL G. SUNTAY
A.C. No. 1890. August 7, 2002
This Complaint for disbarment was filed by Federico C. Suntay
against his nephew, Atty. Rafael G. Suntay, alleging that respondent
was his legal counsel, adviser and confidant who was privy to all his
legal, financial and political affairs from 1956 to 1964. However, since
they parted ways because of politics and respondent's overweening
political ambitions in 1964, respondent had been filing complaints
and cases against complainant, making use of confidential
information gained while their attorney-client relationship existed,
and otherwise harassing him at every turn.
The OSG submitted its Report and Recommendation dated 14
October 1982 enumerating the following findings against respondent,
to wit:
The evidence presented by complainant which was largely
unrebutted by respondent establish two counts of malpractice
against respondent, one count of violating the confidentiality of
client-lawyer relationship and one count of engaging in unethical
conduct.
1. Respondent committed malpractice when he represented
Magno Dinglasan in the case for false testimony and grave
oral defamation filed by Magno Dinglasan against
complainant before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of
Bulacan.
a. Magno Dinglasan was a BIR officer and
Complainant testified in this disbarment
proceeding that he consulted respondent, who
was then his counsel, about the demand made
in 1957 or 1958 by Magno Dinglasan for
P150,000.00 as consideration for the destruction
of complainants record in the Bureau of Internal
Revenue. Respondents advice was for
complainant to disregard the demand as it was
improper. Later, when Magno Dinglasan
reduced the amount to P50,000.00, complainant
again consulted respondent. Respondent
likewise advised complainant not to heed the
demand.
b. Respondent’s representation of Magno
Dinglasan in I.S. No. 77-1523 constitutes
malpractice (Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of
Court) for respondent was previously the lawyer
of complainant and respondent was consulted
by complainant regarding the very matter which
was the subject of the case. By serving as the
lawyer of Magno Dinglasan, in I.S. No. 77-1523,
respondent thus represented an interest which
conflicted with the interest of his former client.
2. Respondent again committed malpractice when he served
as lawyer of Magno Dinglasan in Civil Case No. 112764
before the Court of First Instance of Manila.
3. In filing a charge against complainant for alleged illegal
destruction of dikes, respondent violated the
confidentiality of information obtained out of a client-
lawyer relationship.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
4. The evidence also establishes the commission of unethical
conduct by respondent for serving as lawyer of Panganiban
and Lopez x x x and for himself filing criminal charges
against complainant which were later dismissed. The cases
wherein respondent served as lawyer for the adversary of
complainant or filed by respondent himself against
complainant.
The IBP recommended that respondent Atty. Suntay be
suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years for immoral
conduct. In so recommending the Investigating Commissioner
adopted in toto the findings of the OSG in its Report and
Recommendation.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent violated the confidentiality of client-
lawyer relationship and engaged in unethical conduct.
RULING: YES. For violating the confidentiality of lawyer-client
relationship and for unethical conduct, respondent Atty. Rafael G.
Suntay is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years
effective upon the finality hereof.
The Court finds the IBP Recommendation to be well taken. As found
by both the OSG and the IBP Investigating Commissioner,
respondent Atty. Rafael G. Suntay acted as counsel for
clients in cases involving subject matters regarding which he
had either been previously consulted by complainant or
which he had previously helped complainant to administer
as the latter's counsel and confidant from 1956 to 1964. Thus
in Civil Cases Nos. 4306-M and 4726-M respondent acted as counsel
for estranged business associates of complainant, namely, Carlos
Panganiban and Narciso Lopez, the subject matter of which were the
two (2) fishponds which respondent had previously helped to
administer.
As the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
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 21.01. - 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.
While there may be validity to respondent’s contention that it is not
improper for a lawyer to file a case against a former client, especially
when the professional relationship had ended several years before,
yet under the over-all circumstances of the case at bar it can not be
said that respondent acted ethically. Complainant was not a mere
client of respondent. He is an uncle and a political benefactor. The
parties for whom respondent filed cases against complainant were
former friends or associates of complainant whom respondent met
when he was serving as the lawyer and general adviser of
complainant. The cases filed by respondent were about properties
which respondent had something to do with as counsel and
administrator of complainant.
A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his clients
even after termination of the attorney-client relation. As his defense
to the charges, respondent averred that complainant failed to specify
the alleged confidential information used against him. Such a defense
is unavailing to help respondent's cause.
67 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CANON 22 — A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS
SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE
APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
RULE 22.01. A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of
the following cases:
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.
When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in
connection with the matter he is handling
If a client insists upon an unjust or immoral course in the conduct of
his case, the lawyer may withdraw on due notice to the client and
shall allow him time to engage another lawyer to protect his interest
A lawyer who connives with a client can be punished by imposing
disciplinary actions
When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of
these canons and rules
A lawyer should use his best efforts to restrain and to prevent his
clients from doing those things which the lawyer himself ought not
to do. If client persists, lawyer may terminate the relation.
When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best
interest of the client
If the client has two or more counsel and the lawyers could not get
along, the lawyer may withdraw.
When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it
difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively
If after the services of counsel had been engaged by a client and
later he became mentally or physically incapable to carry out
effectively his employment as lawyer due to sickness or some other
kinds of disability, the lawyer may withdraw. However, if the disability
is merely temporary, the lawyer is not obliged to withdraw. Insanity
of the lawyer terminates their relation.
When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or
fails to comply with the retainer agreement
The failure to pay fees must be deliberate. The right of a lawyer to
demand payment for his services depends on the fact of
employment. However, if the client refuses to an increase of
attorney’s fees, the lawyer is not allowed to withdraw.
When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office
The reason is incompatibility of office. The same rule applies to a
lawyer who is appointed as judge and fiscal. The lawyer has the duty
to inform the court of his appointment to a position which prohibits
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
his practice of law. However, if the position allows concurrent
practices, he should use his sound discretion whether to withdraw or
not.
Other similar cases
Where the client conducts in a manner which tend to degrade his
attorney. When it is apparent that the lawyer may be called as
witness on substantial matters. When the client refuses to extend
cooperation. A lawyer who renders services to his client, but the latter
refuses to pay him.
APPEARANCE, CONCEPT
It refers to the act of submitting or presenting oneself to the court,
either as a plaintiff or defendant, personally or through counsel, and
seeking general reliefs or special reliefs from the court.
In civil cases, the plaintiff appears in court by filing a complaint. The
defendant appears when he files an answer thereto. The voluntary
appearance of a defendant in an action is equivalent to service of
summons.
KINDS OF APPEARANCE
1. General Appearance — one where the party comes to
court either as plaintiff or defendant and seeks general
reliefs from the court for satisfaction of his claims.
2. Special Appearance — one where a defendant appears
in court solely for the purpose of objecting the court’s
jurisdiction over his person. If he seeks other relief, it is
considered general even though it has been named as
special.
An attorney must make a notice of appearance in order to be
considered as counsel of record. Furthermore, in practice, the notice
of appearance bears the written conformity of the client and the first
counsel, in case the second lawyer is appearing as collaborating
counsel.
If counsel appears without any notice of appearance which usually
bears the written conformity of the client, he may be required, on
motion and on reasonable grounds, to produce or prove his authority
to appear for the client.
Death of the client automatically terminates client-lawyer
relationship. Upon death of the client, the lawyer has the duty to
immediately inform the court about such event.
Death of the attorney also terminates lawyer-client relationship.
However, if the lawyer is a member of a law firm, which firm appears
as the counsel of the client, death of said attorney shall not cease
the lawyer-client relationship.
Dissolution of law firm does not terminate lawyer-client relationship
and obligations of the partners to the clients who have previously
engaged the partnership to represent them.
Right of the client to terminate the relation is absolute, but the right
of an attorney to withdraw is restricted.
MECHANICS OF WITHDRAWAL AS COUNSEL
1. written consent of the client; or
2. Permission of the court after due notice and hearing
Unless properly relieved, the counsel is responsible for the conduct
of the case.
Note: An attorney who could not get the written consent of his client
must make an application to the court, for the relation does not
68 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
terminate formally until there is a withdrawal of the client. Notice of
withdrawal without conformity of client is a mere scrap of paper.
Requirement when appearance of new counsel is occasioned by the
death of original counsel of record — verified proof of death of such
attorney.
Termination of lawyer’s employment must be subject to a proper
substitution of counsel.
A case arising from a simple misunderstanding between client and
counsel does not fall under any of the grounds where a lawyer may
validly withdraw. Where the client’s failure to pay the fees of the
lawyer is not deliberate and in fact, had exerted efforts to pay his
obligation, there is no good cause for lawyer’s withdrawal.
THE LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP MAY BE TERMINATED
BY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CAUSES
1. withdrawal of the lawyer under Rule 22.01
2. Death of the lawyer unless it is a law firm representing the client
3. Death of the client
4. Discharge or dismissal of the lawyer by a client
5. Appointment or election to a government office which prohibits
practice of law
6. Full termination of the case
7. Disbarment or suspension of a lawyer from the practice of law
8. Intervening capacity or incompetency during the pendency of the
case
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 cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer
of the matter, including all information necessary for the
proper handling of the matter.
THE LAWYER WHO IS DISCHARGED BY HIS CLIENT OR WHO
WITHDREW FROM A CASE MUST:
a. Immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client
is entitled
b. Shall cooperate with the succeeding lawyer in the orderly transfer
of the case
THE TURNOVER OF ALL PAPERS AND PROPERTY IS SUBJECT
TO THE LAWYER’S RETAINER LIEN.
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 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 caused written notice thereof to be delivered to his client
and to the adverse party; 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.
FIRST PORTION COVERS THE RETAINING LIEN; THE
SECOND PORTION REFERS TO CHARGING LIEN.
The courts are bound to respect and protect the attorney’s lien. So if
papers are improperly taken award from the custody of an attorney,
his lien is not lost thereby and an attorney from whom papers. Which
he has the right to hold to secure payment for his services, have been
taken by an order and decree of the court, is entitled to the payment
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018

of the funds realized from the sale of the client’s property, the debts
for which the papers were held. Coverage Covers only papers, Covers all
documents and judgments for the
Rule 22.02 applies only to retaining liens. A retaining lien is a passive property in the payment of money
lien and may not be actively enforced. It amounts to a mere right to lawful possession of and executions
retain the papers as against the client until the lawyer is fully paid. the attorney by issued in pursuance
reason of his of such judgments.
The refusal of the lawyer to return documents or receipts that had professional
come into his possession as attorney, whose professional service had employment. Note: It cannot
been engaged by complainant to bring the action against the latter attach to
debtors, may not be the proper conduct, but is held to be not devoid judgments for
of jurisdiction where the respondent believed he was entitled to delivery of real
retain them unless his fees agreed upon in writing be paid first. estate or for
annulment of
REQUISITES OF A RETAINING LIEN contract.
1. Lawyer-client relationship exists
2. Claims for attorney’s fees are not satisfied Effectivity As soon as the As soon as the
3. Counsel is in possession of the subject papers, documents, and attorney gets claim for attorney’s
funds possession of the fees had been
4. His possession must be lawful papers, documents entered into the
or property. records of the case.
Retaining lien expires when possession ends as it is dependent upon
possession and does not attach to anything not in the attorney’s Notice Client need not be Client and adverse
hands. In short, this kind of lien only exists so long as the attorney notified to make it party must be
retains possession of the subject matter and expires when possession effective. notified to make it
ends. effective.

Charging lien - an equitable right of an attorney to have the fees Applicability May be exercised Generally, it is
due him for services in a particular suit secured by the judgment or before judgment or exercisable only
recovery in such suit. The object of this lien is to protect the claim on execution, or when the attorney
the fruits of the lawyer’s labor. This lien may be exercised on all regardless thereof. had already
judgments for the payment of money and executions issued in secured a favorable
pursuance of such judgments which the attorney had secured for his judgment for his
client in litigations. client.

REQUISITES OF CHARGING LIEN

1. Existence of lawyer-client relationship Illustrative Cases
2. Favorable judgment secured by the counsel for his client which
judgment is a money judgment FELICISIMO M. MONTANO vs. INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
3. Nothing into the records of the case through the filing of an PHILIPPINES and ATTY. JUAN S. DEALCA
appropriate motion of the statement of the lawyer’s claim for
attorney’s fees with copies furnished to the client and adverse party. Facts: Complainant hired the services of Respondent Dealca. They
agreed upon the attorney’s fees which was payable upon acceptance
A charging lien be can be entered into the records even before a of the case and the remaining balance upon the termination of the
judgment is rendered. However, it can be enforced only after the case. Respondent Dealca withdrew his appearance as the counsel
judgment is secured in favor of client. without complainant’s prior knowledge and/or conformity when the
• Once the lawyer’s charging line is entered upon the records former demanded payment of the remaining balance and latter was
of the case, the lawyer’s fee is protected. unable to do so.
• A charging lien which is enforceable by writ of execution,
may be enforced against the attorney’s client or judgment Issues:
debtor. (1) Was Atty. Dealca’s conduct just and proper?
• May lawyer exercise a charging lien on the land of his (2) Should Atty Dealca be disbarred?
client? Generally, no because there is no money judgment
on which it can arise. However, there can be an exception Ruling:
as when the lawyer and the client entered into an
(1) No. Atty Dealca’s conduct was unbecoming of a member of the
agreement authorizing it.
legal profession.
RETAINING LIEN CHARGING LIEN
Under Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer
Nature Passive lien. It Active lien. It can
shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice
cannot be actively be enforced by
appropriate in the circumstances.
enforced. It is a execution. A special
general lien. lien.
Although he may withdraw his services when the client deliberately
fails to pay the fees for the services, under the circumstances of the
Basis Lawful possession
Securing a present case, Atty. Dealca's withdrawal was unjustified as
of papers,
favorable money complainant did not deliberately fail to pay him the attorney's fees.
documents,
judgment for client. In fact, complainant exerted honest efforts to ful1ll his obligation.
property belonging
to client.

69 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
Further, under Rule 20.4 of Canon 20, a lawyer shall avoid
controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall
resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.
Sadly, for not so large a sum owed to him by complainant,
respondent lawyer failed to act in accordance with the demands of
the Code.
(2) No.
The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution. Only in a
clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and
character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the
bar will disbarment be imposed as a penalty. It should never be
decreed where a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension,
would accomplish the end desired. In the present case, reprimand is
deemed sufficient.
ELMER CANOY vs. ATTY. JOSE MAX ORTIZ
Atty. Ortiz was the lawyer of Canoy in the illegal dismissal case filed
by Canoy against his employer. While the case was pending, Canoy
didn’t hear anything from atty. Ortiz regarding the case. Later on, he
found out that the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute and
that parties did not submit their position papers. Thus, a complaint
against Atty. Ortiz for misconduct and malpractice was files with the
office of the Bar Confidant.
Atty. Ortiz commented Canoy was among those low-income clients
whom Atty. Ortiz deigned to represent. He claims having prepared
the position paper of Canoy, but before he could submit the same,
the Labor Arbiter had already issued the order dismissing the case.
He attributes this failure to timely file the position paper to the fact
that after his election as Councilor of Bacolod City, he was frankly
preoccupied with both his functions as a local government official and
as a practicing lawyer. Eventually, his desire to help was beyond
physical limitations, and he withdrew from his other cases and his
free legal services.
Issue: Whether Atty. Ortiz is guilty of misconduct and malpractice.
Held: Yes.
A client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and
defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect
his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. If much is
demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to
practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client
but also to the court, to the bar and to the public. A lawyer who
performs his duty with diligence and candor not only
protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of
justice, does honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect
of the community to the legal profession.
In this case, Atty. Ortiz failed to avail some remedies that might save
the case. He did not exercise the necessary degree of care by either
filing the position paper on time or informing Canoy that the paper
could not be submitted seasonably. Hence, Atty. Ortiz is guilty of
misconduct and malpractice.
70 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
Recent Cases (2014-2017)
1. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship
between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust and
confidence. And as true as any natural tendency goes, this “trust and
confidence” is prone to abuse. The rule against borrowing of money
by a lawyer from his client is intended to prevent the lawyer from
taking advantage of his influence over his client. The rule presumes
that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use all the
legal maneuverings to renege on his obligation. In Frias v. Atty.
Lozada, the Court categorically declared that a lawyer’s act of asking
a client for a loan, as what herein respondent did, is unethical, to wit:
Likewise, her act of borrowing money from a client was a violation of
[Rule] 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer shall
not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case and by independent advice. A
lawyer’s act of asking a client for a loan, as what respondent did, is
very unethical. It comes within those acts considered as abuse of
client’s confidence. The canon presumes that the client is
disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use all the legal
maneuverings to renege on her obligation. (SPOUSES HENRY A.
CONCEPCION AND BLESILDA CONCEPTION vs ATTY. ELMER DELA
ROSA, A.C. No. 10681, February 3, 2015)
2. Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 provides that “A lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.” This rule was violated
by Atty. Delfin when he failed to file an action in court despite receipt
receipt of P48,000. Furthermore, respondent also violated Rules
16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR when he failed to refund said
amount that complainant gave him despite repeated demands. Rule
16.01 provides that “A lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client.” Rule 16.03 states that
“A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due
or upon demand.” (EDUARDO A. MAGLENTE vs. ATTY. DELFIN R.
AGCAOILI, JR., A.C. No. 10672, March 18, 2015)
3. Respondent represented complainant herein in a criminal
case, however, the former no longer kept track of complainant’s
criminal case and assumed that it was amicable settled and
terminated. Thereafter the respondent knew that the case was still
on-going, which he attended and discovered the RTC’s issuance of
an order which is prejudicial to his client’s cause. Despite it,
respondent did not immediately seek any remedy to further the
interest of his client. Instead he merely relied on the court’s
employees to send him a copy of the order. Worse, when he received
the order, it took him a year to move to reconsider. Which Naturally
the RTC and the CA denied the motion for being filed way beyond
the reglementary period. Clearly respondent failed to exercise such
skill, care, diligence as men of the legal profession commonly possess
and exercise in matters of professional employment.
The Supreme Court concurs with the IBP’s findings that under Canon
17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It is the lawyer’s
duty to serve his clients duty with zeal, candor and diligence. As such,
he must keep abreast with the developments of his client’s case and
should inform the latter of the same as it is crucial in maintaining the
latter’s confidence.
As an officer of the court, it is his duty to inform his client of whatever
important information he may have acquired affecting his client’s
case. He should notify his client of any adverse decision to enable his
client to decide whether to seek an appellate review thereof. The
lawyer should not leave the client in the dark on how the lawyer is
defending the client’s interests. In this connection, the lawyer must
constantly keep in mind that his actions, omissions, or nonfeasance
would be binding upon his client. As such, the lawyer is expected to
be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure, and a
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018

clientwho deals with him has the right to expect not just a good
amount of professional learning and competence but also a whole-
hearted fealty to the client’s cause. (FELIPE LAYOS v. ATTY.
MARLITO I. VILLANUEVA, A.C. No. 8085, December 01, 2014)

4. A lawyer’s act of representing and defending the other

party of the case who was impleaded as one of the defendants in a
case filed by his client during the subsistence of the Retainer
Agreement is a clear violation of Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which mandates that a lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. (DARIA O.
DAGING vs. ATTY. RIZ TINGALON L. DAVIS, A.C. No. 9395,
November 12, 2014)

5. Atty. Alvarez’s unfulfilled promise to settle his obligation

and the issuance of worthless checks have seriously breached the
complainant’s trust. "The relationship of an attorney to his client is
highly fiduciary. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that ‘a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in
all his dealings and transactions with his client.’ Necessity and public
interest enjoin lawyers to be honest and truthful when dealing with
his client." (ALMIRA C. FORONDA vs. ATTY. JOSE L. ALVAREZ, JR.,
A.C. No. 9976, June 25, 2014)

71 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY AND PROCEDURE
AGAINST LAWYERS
Right to Practice Law Being Just a Privilege is Burdened with
Conditions
Ø By far, the most important of these conditions, is the
mindfulness that a lawyer is an officer of the court. The
legal profession, unlike any other calling, is subservient to
the court.
Ø Membership in the Bar being a mere privilege, it may be
suspended or removed from the lawyer for reasons
provided in the Rules, Law and Jurisprudence.
Ø Actuations of lawyers are subject to scrutiny at all times.
As such, disbarment proceedings may be anchored on acts
committed in or out of court.
Warning, Admonition and Reprimand distinguished
Warning
Ø In ordinary parlance, it is an act or fact putting one on his
guard against an impending danger, evil consequences or
penalties.
Admonition
Ø Refers to a gentle or friendly reproof, mild, rebuke,
warning or reminder, counselling, on a fault, error or
oversight; an expression of authoritative advice or warning
Ø It is not considered as a penalty
Reprimand
Ø This is a more severe nature and more than just a warning
or an admonition.
Ø Defined as a public and formal censure or severe reproof,
administered to a person in fault by his superior officer or
a body to which he belongs.
Ø Censure is an official reprimand.
TN: Warning, Admonition and Reprimand have the same
connotations and meanings in the legal profession. As such, when
the unethical act committed by a lawyer is not so serious, he may
simply be warned, admonished or reprimanded with a warning that
a repetition of a similar act in the future will be dealt with severely.
Suspension
Ø The act of the Court in temporarily withholding the lawyer’s
privilege to practice his profession for a certain period or
for an indefinite period of time.
Indefinite Suspension is not a cruel punishment when warned
Ø It gives the lawyer the key to the restoration of his right
by giving him a chance to purge himself in his own good
time of his contempt or misconduct by acknowledging his
misconduct, exhibiting appropriate repentance and
demonstrating his willingness to live up to the exacting
standards required of every lawyer
Disbarment
Ø An act of the Supreme Court in withdrawing from an
attorney, the privilege to practice law.
Ø As such, the name of the lawyer is stricken out from the
Roll of Attorneys; he does not have the right to put in his
name even the prefix “Atty.”; neither can he sign pleadings
even if he does not personally appear in court.
TN: Contempt and Disbarment are two different things. The exercise
of one does not exclude the exercise of the other.
Who has the power to discipline errant lawyers?
Ø The Supreme Court has the full authority and power to
warn, admonish, reprimand, suspend and disbar a lawyer.
72 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
Ø The RTC and CA are also empowered to do so. However,
they cannot disbar a lawyer.
Ø The inferior courts (MTCs) are not empowered even just
to suspend an attorney. Although, they may cite or hold a
lawyer in contempt of court for contemptuous acts.
Judges and Justices may also be disbarred. However, Justices of the
Supreme Court may not be disbarred unless and until they shall have
been first impeacher in accordance with the Constitution. The same
is true with the other impeachable officers who are members of the
Bar.
Main Objects of Disbarment and Suspension
1. To compel an attorney to deal fairly and honestly with his
clients;
2. To remove from the profession a person whose misconduct
has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities belonging to the officer of an attorney;
3. To punish the lawyer;
4. To set an example or a warning for the other members of
the Bar;
5. To safeguard the administration of justice for
incompetence and dishonesty of lawyer; and
6. To protect the public
No private interest is involved in Disbarment
Ø They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public
welfare
Ø The complainant or the person who called the attention of
the court as to the attorney’s alleged misconduct is in no
sense a party and has no general interest in the outcome.
Ø A decision in a disbarment case cannot be a source of right.
Goal of Disbarment
Ø Restorative Justice is the goal in disciplinary proceedings
against lawyers.
The power to discipline lawyers in Judicial in Nature
Ø The power to suspend or disbar a lawyer can be exercised
only by the courts.
Ø It cannot be defeated by the legislative or executive
departments.
The authority of the Supreme Court to discipline lawyers is rooted in
its constitutional prerogative to regulate the practice of law and the
admission of persons to engage therein.
NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF
DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AGAINST LAWYERS
It is judicial in nature and can be exercised only by the courts. The
authority of the Supreme Court is to discipline lawyers is rooted in its
constitutional prerogative to regulate the practice of law and the
admission of persons to engage therein.
A disbarment proceeding is a class by itself. It is sui generis. It has
the following characteristics:
1. It is neither civil nor criminal proceeding.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
2. Double jeopardy cannot be availed of in a disbarment
proceeding against an attorney. Disbarment does not
partake of a criminal proceeding.
3. It can be initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court or
by the IBP. It can be initiated without a complaint.
4. It can proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of
the complainants if the facts proven so warrant.
5. It is imprescriptible.
6. It is conducted confidentiality being confidential in nature
until its final determination.
7. It is itself due process of law.
8. Whatever has been decided in a disbarment case cannot
be a source of right that may be enforced in another
action.
9. In pari delicto rule is not applicable.
Such power is not arbitrary or despotic one to be exercised at the
pleasure of the court or in the form of passion, prejudice or personal
hostility. The power to disbar attorneys must always be exercised
with great caution and only in clear cases of misconduct which
seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an
officer of the court and member of the bar.
GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OR DISBARMENT OF
MEMBERS OF THE BAR
GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OR DISBARMENT OF MEMBERS
OF THE BAR
The grounds under Sec 27 Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court
are not limitative. Any gross misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his
professional or private capacity which puts his moral character in
serious doubt as a member of the Bar, will render him unfit to
continue in the practice of law.
1. Deceit
May consist in a misrepresentation, or in the positive assertion of a
falsehood, or in the creation of a false impression by words or acts,
or in any trick or device.
Important: There is no presumption of innocence in favour of the
lawyer as an attorney is in an easy position to take advantage of the
credulity and ignorance of his client.
2. Malpractice or other gross misconduct in office
Malpractice- Refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty
committed by a lawyer
Gross misconduct- Any inexcusable, shameful or flagrant unlawful
conduct on the part of the person concerned in the administration of
justice which is prejudicial to the rights of the parties.
3. Grossly immoral conduct
When it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled
as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under
such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the
community’s sense of decency
Important: As to whether cohabitation with a woman not the lawyer’s
wife or without marriage is grossly immoral as to merit disciplinary
action depends upon the circumstance of each case.
73 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
4. Conviction of a crime of moral turpitude
Everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty or good
morals.
Important: Mere existence of criminal charges against the lawyer
cannot be a ground for his disbarment or suspicion. He is presumed
to be innocent unless otherwise proven guilty with finality.
5. Violation of oath of office
6. Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court
7. Corrupt or wilful appearance as an attorney to case
without authority to do so
It is prohibited for a lawyer to appear for a person in court without
being hired or employed unless there is leave of court first obtained.
Disbarment or suspension of a Filipino lawyer in a foreign
country
If the Filipino lawyer is disbarred or suspended from the practice of
law by a competent court or disciplinary agency in a foreign
jurisdiction where he has been admitted as an attorney, and the
ground thereof include any of the acts enumerated in Sec 27, Rule
138 of the RRC, such disbarment of suspension is a ground for his
disbarment or suspension in the Philippines.
LIABILITIES OF A LAWYER –
ADMINISTRATIVE, CIVIL, CRIMINAL
Right to practice law being just a privilege is burdened with
conditions.
§ Membership of the bar being a merely a privilege, the
same may be suspended or removed from the lawyer for
reasons provided in the Rules, law and jurisprudence.
§ The actuations of lawyers are subject to scrutiny at all
times. The professional activities as well as the lawyer’s
private lives, insofar as it may reflect unfavorably upon
the good name and prestige of the profession and the
courts, may at any time be the subject of inquiry by
proper authorities. (People v Andan, CA-GR No. 3173-R,
May 17, 1949)
Power to discipline errant lawyers
A. Judicial in Nature
§ The power to suspend or disbar a lawyer can only
be exercised by courts. The legislature cannot
restrict the general power of the court over
attorneys who are its officers.
§ The authority of the Supreme Court to discipline
lawyers is rooted in its constitutional prerogative to
regulate the practice of law and the admission of
persons to engage therein. [1987 Constitution, Art.
VIII, Sec. 5(5)]
B. Who Has the Power
§ The Supreme Court – has the full authority and
power to warn, admonish, reprimand, suspend and
disbar a lawyer
§ The Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial
Courts – empowered to warn, admonish,
reprimand, and suspend only. They cannot disbar a
lawyer
§ The inferior courts (MTCs) are not empowered even
just to suspend, although may cite or hold a lawyer
in contempt of court for contemptuous acts.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY
1. Warning, Admonition and Reprimand
Distinguished.
§ Warning is an act or fact of putting one on his guard
against and impending danger, evil consequences or
penalties;
§ Admonition refers to a gentle or friendly reproof,
mild rebuke, warning or reminder, counselling, on a
fault, error or oversight, an expression of
authoritative warning;
§ Reprimand is of a more severe nature, a public and
formal censure or severe reproof, administered to a
person in fault by his superior officer or a body to
which he belongs. It is more than just a warning or
an admonition.
2. Suspension
§ Suspension is the temporary holding of a lawyer’s
privilege to practice his profession for a certain
period, or for an indefinite period of time
§ Indefinite suspension is not a cruel punishment
when warranted. It gives the lawyer the key to the
restoration of his right by giving him time to purge
himself in his own good time of his contempt or
misconduct.
§ The suspension referred to in Sec 27, Rule 138
refers only to the suspension from the practice of
law.
3. Disbarment
§ Disbarment is the act of the Philippine Supreme
Court in withdrawing from an attorney the privilege
to practice law. The name of the lawyer is stricken
out from the Roll of Attorneys and he does not have
the right to put in his name the prefix “Atty.”
§ The goal of disbarment is restorative justice, not
retributive justice.
Main objects of disbarment and suspension
1. To compel the attorney to deal fairly and honestly with
his clients;
2. To remove from the profession a person whose
misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the
duties and responsibilities belonging to an office of an
attorney
3. To punish the lawyer
4. To set an example or a warning for the other members of
the bar
5. To safeguard the administration of justice
6. To protect the public
Characteristics of disbarment proceeding
1. It is neither civil nor a criminal proceeding
2. Double jeopardy cannot be availed of in a disbarment
proceeding
3. It can be initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court or
the IBP
4. It can proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of
the complainants
5. It is imprescriptible
6. It is conducted confidentially
7. It is itself due process of law
8. Whatever has been decided in a disbarment case cannot
be a source of right that may be enforced in another
action
9. In pari delicto rule is not applicable
74 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CIVIL LIABILITY
When civil liability will arise:
1. Client is prejudiced by lawyer’s negligence
and misconduct
§ As a general rule, clients are bound by the
negligence and mistake of their counsel.
An exception is when the negligence is so
gross that the client did not have due
process.
§ Requisites:
a) That the attorney-client relationship
be established;
b) That there is want of reasonable care
and diligence;
c) That the injury was suffered by the
client was the proximate result
thereof.
2. Violation of communication privilege
3. Breach of fiduciary obligation
4. Liability for cost of suit – when lawyer is made
liable for insisting on client’s patently unmeritorious
case or interposing appeal merely to delay litigation
5. Libelous words in pleadings
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
When criminal liability will arise:
1. Prejudicing client through malicious breach of
professional duty (Art. 209 of the Revised Penal
Code)
2. Revealing client secrets – a lawyer who reveals
any of the secrets of his client learned by him in his
professional capacity (Art. 209 of the Revised Penal
Code)
3. Representing adverse interests – a lawyer who,
having undertaken the defense of a client, also
undertakes the defense of the opposing party in the
same case without the consent of the first client
(Art. 209 of the Revised Penal Code)
4. Introducing false evidence - A lawyer who
knowingly offer in evidence a false witness or
testimony in any judicial or official proceeding (Art.
184 of the Revised Penal Code)
5. Misappropriating client’s funds [Estafa under
Art. 315 1(B) of the Revised Penal Code]
6. Libel
FILIPINO LAWYER DISCIPLINED/DISBARRED IN
FOREIGN JURISDICTION
A Filipino lawyer who is allowed to practice law in a foreign country,
and then subsequently disbarred or suspended from the practice of
law by a competent court or disciplinary agency in that foreign
country, and the ground relied upon includes any of the acts
enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court,
such disbarment or suspension is a ground for his disbarment or
suspension in the Philippines.
The judgment or order in the foreign court or agency shall be prima
facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension (SC
Resolution dated Feb 21, 1992 amending Sec. 27, Rule 138).
See In Re: Suspension from Practice of Law in the Territory of Guam
of Atty. Leon G. Maquera, 435 SCRA 417.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
EFFECT OF PARDON
IN RE: DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
ATTY. DIOSDADO Q. GUTIERREZ
Diosdado Gutierres is a member of the Philippine Bar, admitted on
October 1945. On 1956, The latter was convicted of murder of the
then former municipal mayor of Calapan Filemon Samaco, and
together with his co-conspirators was sentenced to the penalty of
death, however upon review by the Court the penalty was changed
to reclusion perpetua.
After serving a portion of the sentence, respondent was granted a
conditional pardon by the President on 1958. The unexecuted portion
of the prison term was remitted “on condition that he shall not again
violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines.” The unexecuted
portion of the prison term was remitted “on condition that he shall
not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines.”
Subsequently, the widow of Samaco filed a disbarment case against
Gutierrez by reason of the latter’s conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude pursuant of Rule 127, Section 5. Respindent admitted
the facts alleged by the complainant and invoked pardon as his
defense.
ISSUE:
Whether Gutierrez may be disbarred considering the fact that he was
granted conditional pardon.
RULING:
No. The pardon granted to respondent here is not absolute but
conditional, and merely remitted the unexecuted portion of his term.
It does not reach the offense itself, unlike in Ex parte Garland case,
which was “a full pardon and amnesty for all offenses by him
committed in connection with the rebellion against the government.
Respondent must have relied on the case of In re Lontok, 43 Phil.
293. The respondent therein was convicted of bigamy and thereafter
pardoned by the Governor-General. In a subsequent proceeding for
his disbarment on the ground of such conviction, this Court decided
in his favor and held: “When proceedings to strike an attorney’s name
from the rolls the fact of a conviction for a felony ground for
disbarment, it has been held that a pardon operates to wipe out the
conviction and is a bar to any proceeding for the disbarment of the
attorney after the pardon has been granted”. Again, this case is
inapplicable because the pardon granted was merely conditional.
A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offense
and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases
the punishment and blots out the existence of guilt, so that in the
eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never
committed the offense.
Respondent Gutierrez must be adjudged upon the fact of his
conviction for murder without regard to the pardon he invokes in
defense. The crime was qualified by treachery and aggravated by its
having been committed in band, by taking advantage of his official
position. The degree of moral turpitude involved is such as to justify
hos being purged from profession.
The practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those who measure
up to certain rigid standards of mental and moral fitness. For the
admission of a candidate to the bar the Rules of Court not only
prescribe a test of academic preparation but require continuing
satisfactory testimonials of good moral character.
75 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
BASIC PRINCIPLES IN
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
Motion or complaint
• Proceedings for the removal or suspension of attorneys may
be:
(1) Taken by the Supreme Court on its own motion; or
(2) Upon the complaint under oath of another in writing.
• The complaint shall set out clearly, and concisely the facts
complained of, supported by affidavits, if any, of persons
having personal knowledge of the facts alleged and shall be
accompanied with copies of such documents as may
substantiate said facts. (Section 1, Rule 139, Rules of Court)
Service or dismissal
• If the complaint appears to merit action, a copy shall be
served upon the respondent, requiring him to answer the
same within ten (10) days from the date of service. If the
complaint does not merit action, or if the answer shows to
the satisfaction of the Supreme Court that the complaint is
not meritorious, the same shall be dismissed. (Section 2, Rule
139, Rules of Court)
Investigation by Solicitor General
• The case shall be referred to the Solicitor General for
investigation to determine if there is sufficient ground to
proceed with the prosecution of the respondent.
• In the investigation conducted by the Solicitor General, the
respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend himself,
to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to be heard by
himself and counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice, the
respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed ex
parte. (Section 3, Rule 139, Rules of Court)
Report of the Solicitor General
• Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, if the
Solicitor General finds no sufficient ground to proceed against
the respondent, he shall submit a report to the Supreme
Court containing his findings of fact and conclusion, and the
respondent shall be exonerated unless the court orders
differently. (Section 4, Rule 139, Rules of Court)
Section 5. Complaint of the Solicitor General. Answer of
respondent
• If the Solicitor General finds sufficient ground to proceed
against the respondent, he shall file the corresponding
complaint, accompanied with all the evidence introduced in
his investigation, with the Supreme Court.
• The respondent shall be served by the clerk of the Supreme
Court with a copy of the complaint with direction to answer
the same within fifteen (15) days. (Section 5, Rule 139, Rules
of Court)
Evidence produced before Solicitor General available
• The evidence produced before the Solicitor General in his
investigation may be considered by the Supreme Court in the
final decision of the case, if the respondent had an
opportunity to object and cross-examine.
• If in the respondent's answer no statement is made as to any
intention of introducing additional evidence, the case shall be
set down for hearing, upon the filing of such answer or upon
the expiration of the time to file the same. (Section 6, Rule
139, Rules of Court)
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
Commissioner to investigate and recommend.
• Upon receipt of the respondent's answer, wherein a
statement is made as to his desire to introduce additional
evidence, the case shall be referred to a commissioner who,
in the discretion of the court, may be the clerk of the Supreme
Court, a judge of first instance, or an attorney-at-law for
investigation, report, and recommendation.
• The Solicitor General or his representative shall appear before
the commissioner to conduct the prosecution.
• The respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend
himself, to produce additional evidence in his own behalf, and
to be heard by himself and counsel. If upon reasonable notice
the respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed
ex parte.
• The rules of evidence shall be applicable to proceedings of
this nature. (Section 7, Rule 139, Rules of Court)
Report of commissioner and hearing
• Upon receipt of the report of the commissioner, copies shall
be furnished to the Solicitor General and the respondent, the
case shall be set down for hearing before the court, following
which the case shall be considered submitted to the court for
its final determination. (Section 8, Rule 139, Rules of Court)
Procedure in Court of Appeals or Courts of First Instance
• As far as may be applicable, the procedure shall govern the
filing and investigation of complaints against attorneys in the
Court of Appeals or in Courts of First Instance. In case of
suspension of the respondent, the judge of the court of first
instance or Justice of the Court of Appeals shall transmit to
the Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of suspension
and a full statement of the facts upon which same is based.
(Section 9, Rule 139, Rules of Court)
Confidential
• Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and
confidential, except that the final order of the court shall be
made public as in other cases coming before the court.
(Section 10, Rule 139, Rules of Court)
Attorney; Disbarment; Effect of withdrawal.
• The Supreme Court held that the withdrawal of a disbarment
case against a lawyer does not terminate or abate the
jurisdiction of the IBP and of this Court to continue an
administrative proceeding against a lawyer-respondent as a
member of the Philippine Bar. The complainant in a
disbarment case is not a direct party to the case, but a
witness who brought the matter to the attention of the Court.
(Adelia V. Quiachon v. Atty. Joseph Ador A. Ramos, A.C. No.
9317, June 4, 2014.)
Attorney; Quantum of proof in administrative cases.
• The Supreme Court held that when it comes to administrative
cases against lawyers, two things are to be considered:
quantum of proof, which requires clearly preponderant
evidence; and burden of proof, which is on the complainant.
Bare allegations are not proof. Even if Atty. Molina did provide
his clients legal advice, he still cannot be held administratively
liable without any showing that his act was attended with bad
faith or malice. The default rule is presumption of good
faith. (Atty. Alan F. Paguia v. Atty. Manuel T. Molina, A.C. No.
9881, June 4, 2014.)
Judge; Time within which certain acts must be done;
Exception.
• The Supreme Court held that pursuant to Rule 3.05, Canon 3
of the Code of Judicial Conduct, prompt disposition of cases
is attained basically through the efficiency and dedication to
76 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
duty of judges. If judges do not possess those traits, delay in
the disposition of cases is inevitable to the prejudice of the
litigants. While rules prescribing the time within which
certain acts must be done are indispensable to prevent
needless delays in the orderly and speedy disposition of cases
and, thus, should be regarded as mandatory, the Court has
nevertheless been mindful of the plight of judges and has
been understanding of circumstances that may hinder them
from promptly disposing of their businesses and, as such, has
allowed extensions of time due to justifiable reasons.
However, failing to proffer any acceptable reason in delaying
the disposition of the ejectment case, the judge is held to be
administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a
decision. (Gershon N. Dulang v. Judge Mary Jocylen G.
Regencia, MCTC, Asturias-Balamban, Cebu, A.M. No. MTJ-14-
1841, June 2, 2014.)
PROCEDURE IN DISBARMENT AND OTHER
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Disbarment Proceedings, Judicial in Nature
§ is an investigation conducted by the Supreme Court, by the IBP
or other authorized body to determine the fitness of a lawyer to
remain in the Roll of Attorneys
§ the ultimate authority to decide the matter of disbarment of the
respondent lawyer rests in the Supreme Court alone
§ the IBP investigates through the Commission on Bar Discipline
Respondent lawyer is presumed innocent until otherwise
proven guilty of the charge-
Segovia v Sardana
Held: Well settled is the rule that an attorney enjoys the legal
presumption that he is innocent of the charges preferred against him
until the contrary is proved. It is only when such presumption is
overcome by convincing proof of the lawyer’s misconduct that the
serious consequences of disbarment or suspension should follow.
Clearly Preponderant Evidence is required to justify the
imposition of penalty. When the evidence is insufficient, the required
quantum of proof is not met, in which event, the case must be
dismissed.
Burden of Proof rests upon the complainant
In re: De Guzman
55 SCRA 139
Held: In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant. The record must disclose as free from doubt case which
compels the exercise by this Court of its disciplinary powers.
Authority to Suspend or Disbar Must Be Exercised With
Great Caution
Alcala v De Vera
56 SCRA 30
Held: The disbarment of an attorney is not intended as a punishment,
but is rather intended to protect the administration of justice by
requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be
competent, honorable, and reliable; men in whom courts and clients
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
may repose confidence. This purpose should be borne in mind in the
exercise of disbarment, and the power should be exercised with that
caution.
Duty of the Supreme Court in Disbarment Cases
The duty of the SC toward members of the bar is not limited to the
administration of discipline to those found culpable of misconduct
but also to the protection of the reputation of those
frivolously or maliciously charged.
The Court will not thus shirk from its responsibility to mete out proper
disciplinary punishment to lawyers who are shown to have failed to
live up to their sworn duties; but neither will it hesitate to extend its
protective arm to those the accusation against whom is not
indubitably proven.
How is disbarment proceeding instituted?
A: Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys
may be taken by the:
1. Supreme Court motu proprio; or
2. Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified
complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly
and concisely the facts complained of and shall be
supported by affidavits of persons having personal
knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such
documents as may substantiate said facts
Disbarment Proceedings before the IBP
The IBP Board of Governors may:
3. Motu proprio; or
4. Upon referral by the Supreme Court; or
5. By a Chapter Board of Officers; or
6. At the instance of any person, initiate and prosecute proper
charges against erring attorneys including those in the
government service; Provided, however, that all charges
against Justices of the Court of Tax Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan, and Judges of the Court of Tax Appeals
and lower courts, even if lawyers are jointly charged with
them, shall be filed with the Supreme Court; Provided,
further, that charges filed against Justices and Judges
before the IBP, including those filed prior to their
appointment in the Judiciary, shall immediately be
forwarded to the Supreme Court for disposition and
adjudication.
“Six (6) copies of the verified complaint shall be filed with the
Secretary of the IBP or the Secretary of any of its chapters who shall
forthwith transmit the same to the IBP Board of Governors for
assignment to an investigator.” (Sec. 1, third par., Rule 139-B, RRC)
Resolution of the Court En Banc dated June 17, 2008 B.M.
No 1755 (Re: Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar
Discipline)
Is a motion for reconsideration allowed? It depends.
1. A party can no longer file a motion for reconsideration of any order
or resolution of the Investigating Commissioner, such motion being
a prohibited pleading.
2. Regarding the issue of whether a motion for reconsideration of a
decision or resolution of the Board of Governors (BOG) can be
entertained, an aggrieved party can file said motion with the BOG
within fifteen (15) days from notice of receipt thereof by said party.
3. In case a decision is rendered by the BOG that exonerates the
respondent or imposes a sanction less than suspension or
disbarment, the aggrieved party can file a motion for reconsideration
77 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
within the 15-day period from notice. If the motion is denied, said
party can file a petition for a review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of
the resolution resolving the motion. If no motion for reconsideration
is filed, the decision shall become final and executory and a copy of
said decision shall be furnished the Supreme Court.
4. If the imposable penalty is suspension from the practice of law or
disbarment, the BOG shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings
and recommendations. The aggrieved party can file a motion for
reconsideration of said resolution with the BOG within fifteen (15)
days from notice. The BOG shall first resolve the incident and shall
thereafter elevate the assailed resolution with the entire case records
to the Supreme Court for final action. If the 15-day period lapses
without any motion for reconsideration having been filed, then the
BOG shall likewise transmit to this Court the resolution with the entire
case records for appropriate action.
Note: Lawyers must update their records with the IBP by informing
the IBP National Office or their respective chapters of any change in
office or residential address and other contact details. In case such
change is not duly updated, service of notice on the office or
residential address appearing in the records of the IBP National Office
shall constitute sufficient notice to a lawyer for purposes of
administrative proceedings against him. (Keld Stemmerik v. Atty.
Leonuel Mas, A.C. No. 8010, June 16, 2009)
What is the effect of a lawyer’s death during pendency of
disciplinary action against him?
1. Renders the action moot and academic, but
2. The Court may still resolve the case on its merit in order to clear
publicly the name of the lawyer.
What is the effect of the desistance, withdrawal of complaint
or non-appearance of complainant in disbarment
proceedings?
The desistance or the withdrawal of the complainant of the charges
against a judge/lawyer does not deprive the court of the authority to
proceed to determine the matter. Nor does it necessarily result in the
dismissal of the complaint except when, as a consequence of the
withdrawal or desistance no evidence is adduced to prove the
charges.
Is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself)
applicable in cases of dismissal of judges or disbarment of lawyers?
Yes. This principle or doctrine applies to both judges and lawyers.
Judges had been dismissed from the service without need of a formal
investigation because based on the records, the gross misconduct or
inefficiency of judges clearly appears. (Uy v. Mercado, A.M. No. R-
368-MTJ, Sept. 30, 1987)
The same principle applies to lawyers. Thus, where on the basis of
the lawyer’s comment or answer to show a show-cause order of SC,
it appears that the lawyer has so conducted himself in a manner
which exhibits his blatant disrespect to the court, or his want of good
moral character or his want of good moral character or his violation
of the lawyer’s oath, the lawyer may be suspended or disbarred
without need of trial-type proceeding. What counts is that the lawyer
has been given the opportunity to air his side. (Prudential Bank v.
Castro, A.M. No. 2756, June 5, 1986) (1996, 2003 Bar Question)
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018

5. Bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by

DEFENSES intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the
Note: The extent of disciplinary action depends on the attendance of disciplinary agency;
mitigating or aggravating circumstances. 6. Submission of false evidence, false statements, or other
deceptive practices during the disciplinary process;
What are the mitigating circumstances in disbarment? 7. Refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;
8. Vulnerability of victim;
1. Good faith in the acquisition of a property of the client 9. Substantial experience in the practice of law; and
subject of litigation (In Re: Ruste, A.M. No. 632, June 27, 10. Indifference to making restitution. (IBP Guidelines 9.22)
1940);
2. Inexperience of the lawyer (Munoz v. People, G.R. No. L- What are the instances that are neither aggravating nor
33672, Sept. 28, 1973); mitigating?
3. Age (Santos v. Tan, A.C. No. 2697, Apr. 19, 1991);
4. Apology (Munoz v. People, G.R. No. L- 33672, Sept. 28, 1. Forced or compelled restitution;
1973); 2. Agreeing to the client’s demand for certain improper
5. Lack of Intention to slight or offend the Court (Rheem of behavior or result;
the Philippines, Inc. v. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-22979, Jan. 27, 3. Withdrawal of complaint against the lawyer;
1967); 4. Resignation prior to completion of disciplinary
6. Absence of prior disciplinary record; proceedings;
7. Absence of dishonest or selfish motive; 5. Complainants recommendation as to sanctions; or
8. Personal or emotional problems; 6. Failure of injured client to complain. (IBP Guideline 9.4)
9. Timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify
consequences of misconduct; What are the guidelines to be observed in the matter of the
10. Full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative lifting of an order suspending a lawyer from the practice of
attitude toward the proceedings; law?
11. Character or reputation; 1. Upon the expiration of the period of suspension,
12. Physical or mental disability or impairment; respondent shall file a Sworn Statement with the Court,
13. Delay in disciplinary proceedings; through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein that
14. Interim rehabilitation; he or she has desisted from the practice of law and has
15. Imposition of other penalties or sanctions; not appeared in any court during the period of his or her
16. Remorse; and suspension;
17. Remoteness of prior offenses. (IBP Guidelines 9.32) 2. Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the
Local Chapter of the IBP and to the Executive Judge of the
Note: Disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less courts where respondent has pending cases handled by
severe such as reprimand, suspension or fine would accomplish the him or her, and/or where he or she has appeared as
end desired. (Amaya v. Tecson, A.C. No. 5996, Feb. 7, 2005) counsel; and
3. The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of
What are the aggravating circumstances in disbarment? respondent’s compliance with the order of suspension.
1. Prior disciplinary offenses;
2. Dishonest or selfish motives;
3. A pattern of misconduct;
4. Multiple offenses;

78 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018

PROCEDURE FOR DISBARMENT OR DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEYS BY THE SUPREME COURT MOTU PROPRIO (Rule 139-B,
RRC)

Supreme Court shall refer the case to an Note: Reference of the Court to the IBP of complaints against
investigator, who may either be: lawyers is not mandatory (Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
Nos. 79590- 707; Zaldivar v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80578,
October 7,1988).
1. Solicitor General,
2. Any officer of the SC, or
3. Any judge of a lower court Note: Reference of complaints to the IBP is not an exclusive
procedure under Rule 139-B, RRC. The Court may conduct
disciplinary proceedings without the intervention of the IBP

by referring cases for investigation to the Solicitor General or

to any officer of the Supreme Court or judge of a lower court.
In such case, the report or recommendation of the
investigating official shall be reviewed directly by the
Supreme Court. (Bautista v. Gonzales, A.M. No. 1626,
February 12,1990; Funa, 2009)
Notify Respondent
Note: An Investigating Judge cannot dismiss a
case. The investigating judge’s authority is only to
investigate, make a report and recommendation
on the case to be submitted to the SC for final
RESPONDENT’S VERIFIED ANSWER (Must be filed determination. (Garciano v Sebastian AM MTJ-88-
within 15 days from service) 160, Mar. 30 1994)

INVESTIGATION (Terminate within 3 months)

REPORT TO SUPREME COURT (to be

submitted not later than 30 days from
investigation’s termination)
REPORT MUST CONTAIN THE
INVESTIGATOR’S:

1. Findings of fact SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW
2. Recommendations OR JUDGMENT

79 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018

PROCEDURE FOR DISBARMENT OR DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEYS BY THE IBP (Rule 139-B, RRC)

IBP Motu Proprio (Committee on Bar VERIFIED COMPLAINT TO THE IBP BY

Discipline through National Grievance ANY PERSON
Investigator) Complaint must be:
1. In writing;
2. State facts complained of; and
3. Supported by affidavits / documents

Shall appoint an investigator / panel of 3

investigators and notify respondent

RECOMMEND DISMISSAL IF NOT

MERITORIOUS
IF MERITORIOUS, RESPONDENT’S VERIFIED ANSWER
containing 6 copies
(Must be filed within 15 days from service)
DISMISSAL BY BOARD OF GOVERNORS – (should After receipt of the answer or lapse of the period to
be promulgated within a period not exceeding 30 do so, the Supreme Court, may, motu proprio or at
days from the next meeting of the board the instance of the IBP Board of Governors, upon
following the submittal of the investigator’s recommendation by the investigator, suspend an
report attorney from practice, for any of the causes under
Rule 138, Sec. 27, during the pendency of the
investigation

INVESTIGATION (terminate within 3 months)

1. Investigator may issue subpoenas and
administer oaths,
2. Provide respondent with opportunity to be
heard,
BOARD OF GOVERNORS FOR REVIEW (issues a 3. May proceed with investigation ex parte should
Resolution – Should be promulgated within a respondent fail to appear.
period not exceeding 30 days from the next
meeting of the board following the submittal of
the Investigator’s Report.)

REPORT TO BOARD OF GOVERNORS (Submitted

not later than 30 days from termination of
investigation) containing:
• Findings of facts
ISSUE DECISION IF: • Recommendations
SUPREME COURT FOR
• Exonerated JUDGMENT
• Sanction is
less than
suspension /
disbarment
(admonition, The case shall be deemed terminated unless upon
reprimand, or petition of the complainant or other interested party
fine) filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days
from notice of the Board's resolution, the Supreme
Court orders otherwise.

80 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
READMISSION/ REINSTATEMENT TO THE BAR
APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT
Reinstatement, concept - means the restoration to a disbarred
lawyer, the privilege to practice law.
“Nothing more than readmission to membership in the Bar.”
Who has the authority to reinstate?
The Supreme Court alone has the power to reinstate the privilege to
practice law to a disbarred lawyer.
What is the basis of such authority?
This is anchored on its constitutional prerogative to promulgate rules
on the admission of applicants to the practice of law (Art. VIII, Sec.
5(5), 1987 Constitution).
In re: Edillon-
… matters of admission, suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement
of lawyers and their regulation and supervision have been and are
indisputably recognized as inherent judicial functions and
responsibilities, and the authorities holding such are legion. The
Court’s jurisdiction was greatly reinforced by our 1973 Constitution
when it explicitly granted to the Court the power to “promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice… and the admission to the practice of
law and the integration of the Bar…”
Object of Reinstatement – the sole object is to determine whether
or not the applicant has satisfied and convinced the Court by positive
evidence that the effort he has made toward the rehabilitation of his
character has been successful, and therefore, he is entitled to be re-
admitted to a profession which is intrinsically an office of trust.
Criterion for Reinstatement- rests to a great extent in the sound
discretion of the Court.
In general: Court will determine if the public interest in the orderly
and impartial administration of justice will be conserved by the
applicant’s participation therein in the capacity of an attorney and
counselor at law. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he is a
person of good moral character—a fit and proper person to practice
law, just like a candidate for admission to the Bar.
What is taken into consideration?
1. Applicant’s character and standing prior to the disbarment;
2. The nature and character of the charge for which he was
disbarred;
3. His conduct subsequent to the disbarment; and
4. The time that has elapsed between the disbarment and the
application for reinstatement.
Criteria for Reinstatement:
1. Appreciation of the significance of his dereliction;
2. Assurance to the court that he now possesses the requisite
probity and integrity necessary to guarantee his worthiness
to be restored to the practice of law;
3. Time elapsed between disbarment and application for
reinstatement;
4. Good conduct and honorable dealing subsequent to his
disbarment;
5. Active involvement in civic, educational and religious
organizations;
6. Favorable indorsement of IBP as well as local government
officials and citizens of his community; and
7. Pleas of his mother and wife for the sake and fortune of
his family.
Effect of Reinstatement- wipes out the restrictions and disabilities
resulting from a previous disbarment.
81 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
May there be conditions imposed on the applicant for
reinstatement?
Yes. The Supreme Court, in addition to the required rehabilitation of
the applicant for reinstatement may require special conditions to be
fulfilled.
In Quingwa v. Puno – SC required Puno to
a) Formally acknowledge his child who is the care of the
mother, complainant Quingwa; and
b) To support the said child.
In In re: Rusiana – respondent was required to enroll in and pass the
regular fourth year review classes, the fulfillment of which must be
certified by the individual professors of the review classes.
Lifting of Suspension, Bases – where suspension is indefinite,
bases would be strong proofs of rehabilitation.
Illustrative Cases
BENGCO VS. BERNARDO,
A.C. NO. 6368, JUNE 13, 2012
A complaint for disbarment was filed against Atty. Bernardo on the
ground of deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the
Bar and violation of his duties and oath as a lawyer by Fidela Bengco
and Teresita Bengco. This was premised on Atty. Bernardo’s act of
receiving Php 495,000.00 from the Bengcos in exchange of his
promise to expedite the titling of their property found in Tagaytay.
He further claimed to be the one handling William Gatchalian’s
(prospective buyer of the said lot) business transaction; and that he
has contacts at NAMREA, DENR, CENRO and the Register of Deeds,
which all turned out to be false claims. After receiving the amount,
Atty. Bernardo never acted upon the titling of the lot, and instead
misappropriated, misapplied and converted the said amount to his
personal use and benefit. Subsequently, a criminal case for ESTAFA
was also filed against Atty. Bernardo. In response, Atty. Bernardo
alleged that the disbarment case should have been dismissed
considering it was filed only 2 years after the alleged misconduct.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the action for disbarment already prescribe?
2. Whether the finding of guilt in the criminal case affects the
administrative case against Atty. Bernardo?
3. Whether Atty. Bernardo should be held administratively
liable?
RULING:
As to prescription
No. The respondents defense of prescription is untenable. The Court
has held that administrative cases against lawyers do not
prescribe. The lapse of considerable time from the commission of the
offending act to the institution of the administrative complaint will
not erase the administrative culpability of a lawyer. Otherwise,
members of the bar would only be emboldened to disregard the very
oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as
no private complainant would immediately come forward, they stand
a chance of being completely exonerated from whatever
administrative liability they ought to answer for.
As to the criminal case’ effect
No. It is likewise settled that a disbarment proceeding is separate
and distinct from a criminal action filed against a lawyer despite
having involved the same set of facts. Jurisprudence has it that
a finding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result in a
finding of liability in the administrative case. Conversely, the
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
respondent’s acquittal does not necessarily exculpate him
administratively.
As to administrative liability
Yes, he is suspended from the practice of law for one year for
violating of Rules 2.03 and Rules 3.01. The practice of law is not a
business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money,
is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be
a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that
necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be a
secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the
administration of justice should be the primary consideration of
lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they
owe to themselves.
ZAGUIRRE VS. CASTILLO
A.C. NO. 4921, MARCH 6, 2003
Respondent courted complainant and promised to marry her while
representing himself to be single. Their intimate relationship started
sometime in 1996 and lasted until 1997, during this time respondent
was preparing for the bar examinations which he passed.
Complainant only knew around the 1st week of May 1997 that
respondent was already married when his wife confronted
complainant about her relationship with respondent. On September
1997, respondent executed an affidavit, admitting his relationship
with the complainant and recognizing her unborn child as his.
However, after the child was born, respondent refused to recognized
the child and give her any form of support.
Issues:
1) Was the act of Atty. Alfred Castillo considered gross
immoral conduct?
2) Would the defense of in pari delicto be feasible?
3) Should Atty. Castillo be suspended or disbarred even if the
misconduct pertains to a private activity?
Ruling:
1) Yes.
Immoral conduct is defined as a conduct which is so willful, flagrant,
or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community. Furthermore, it must not
only be immoral but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt
as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous
or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.
The Supreme Court repeatedly 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 so behave
himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that
he is flouting those moral standards
2) No.
In Mortel v Aspiras, the Supreme Court held that in a disbarment
proceeding, it is immaterial that the complainant is in pari
delicto because this is not a proceeding to grant relief to the
complainant, but one to purge the law profession of unworthy
members, to protect the public and the courts. In the case at bar,
the illicit relationship took place while respondent was preparing to
take the bar examinations. The qualification of possessing a good
moral character is not only a condition precedent to be admitted to
the legal profession, but a continuing requirement to the practice of
law.
3) Yes.
82 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
It is already a settled rule that a lawyer may be suspended or
disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private
activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character,
honesty, probity or good demeanor. As consistently held by the
Supreme Court, disbarment shall not be meted out if a lesser
punishment could be given. In the case at bar, the Court deems that
an INDEFINITE SUSPENSION from the practice of law should be
meted out than disbarment.
FORTUN VS. QUINSAYAS
G.R. NO. 194578, FEBRUARY 13, 2013
Petitioner Fortun, defense counsel in the Maguindanao Massacre,
filed a Petition for Contempt against Respondents Atty. Quinsayas
and other media groups and personalities for publicly circulating the
details of the disbarment complaint against him, in violation of the
confidentiality rule in disbarment proceedings. The media groups
claimed that they merely acted on a news lead and that it was Atty.
Quinsayas who was responsible for the distribution of copies of the
disbarment complaint.
Issue:
Whether respondents violated the confidentiality rule in disbarment
proceedings, warranting a finding of guilt for indirect contempt of
court.
Ruling:
Only Atty. Quinsayas violated the confidentiality rule in disbarment
proceedings.
The media groups did not violate the confidentiality rule
As a general rule, disbarment proceedings are confidential in nature
until their final resolution. However, if there exists a legitimate public
interest, the media is not prohibited from making a fair, true, and
accurate news report.
The Maguindanao Massacre is a very high-profile case. Of the 57
victims, 30 were journalists. It is understandable that any matter
related to the massacre is considered a matter of public interest and
that the personalities involved, including petitioner, are considered
as public figure.
In other words, petitioner has become a public figure because he is
representing a matter of public concern, and because the event itself
that led to the filing of the disbarment case is a matter of public
concern, the media has the right to report the filing of the disbarment
case as legitimate news, well within the freedom of the press. It
would have been different if the disbarment case was a private
matter as the media would then be bound to respect the
confidentiality rule in disbarment proceedings under Section 18, Rule
139-B of the Rules of Court.
Further, the media groups merely acted on a news lead they received
when they reported the filing of the disbarment complaint. The filing
of the disbarment case entered the public domain without any act on
the part of the media, as they were given copies of the disbarment
complaint by Atty. Quinsayas.
Atty. Quinsayas violated the confidentiality rule
Atty. Quinsayas is bound by the confidentiality rule both as a
complainant in the disbarment case and as a lawyer. As a lawyer and
an officer of the court, he is familiar with the confidential nature of
disbarment proceedings. However, instead of preserving its
confidentiality, Atty. Quinsayas disseminated copies of the
disbarment complaint to members of the media, which act
constitutes indirect contempt of court. The fine of P20,000 is proper.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
VILLALON, JR. VS. IAC
G.R. NO. 73751, SEPTEMBER 24, 1986
Private respondents Ebuiza filed a civil case against Atty. Villalon, Jr.
for recovery of a parcel of land. The same property was also the
subject of a Disbarment Case (Adm. Case No. 1488) – which is still
pending - previously filed by private respondent EBUIZA, charging
petitioner Villalon with falsification of a deed of absolute sale of that
property in his and his sons' favor, but which petitioner Villalon
claimed to have been his contingent fee for the professional services
he had rendered to EBUIZA's parents for successfully handling their
case.
In the course of the trial of the civil case, Villalon introduced in
evidence the testimonies of some of the private respondents in the
Disbarment Case for the purpose of impeaching their testimonies in
the Civil Case. However, private respondents moved to strike from
the records of the civil case all matters relating to the proceedings in
the Disbarment case to which the trial court granted as this would
violate the rule that "proceedings against attorneys shall be private
and confidential". It maintained that petitioner Villalon "is not at
liberty to waive the privilege of confidentiality" of the proceedings in
the Disbarment Case considering the public interest involved "even if
it would serve his interest," and that Section 10, Rule 139 provides
no exception.
Issue:
Whether the trial court is correct in its order in striking the
testimonies of private respondents given in the Disbarment case from
the records in the civil case
Held:
No. The testimonies should remain in the records. While proceedings
against attorneys should, indeed, be private and confidential except
for the final order which shall be made public, 5 that confidentiality is
a privileged/ right which may be waived by the very lawyer in whom
and for the protection of whose personal and professional reputation
it is vested, pursuant to the general principle that rights may be
waived unless the waiver is contrary to public policy, among
others. 6 In fact, the Court also notes that even private respondents'
counsel touched on some matters testified to by NEVAL in the
disbarment proceedings and which were the subject of cross
examination.
PLAZA VS. AMAMIO
A.M. NO. P-08-2559, MARCH 19, 2010
Ryan Plaza, Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Trial Court of Argao, Cebu, filed
a complaint against Atty. Amamio, Clerk of Court, Vasquez, Legal Researcher,
and Patalinghug, Court Stenographer for intentional violation of Administrative
Circular No. 3-92, when they allowed Sara Lee, a private company selling
beauty and fashion products, to hold a party and raffle draw inside
the Argao Hall of Justice on July 14, 2007.
Later on, the complainant Plaza manifested before the Court his intention to
desist from pursuing the case.
Issues:
1) Whether the administrative complaint can be dismissed by the
complainant’s intention to desist?
2) Whether the respondents are guilty of violation of office rules and
regulations?
Ruling:
1. No. The discretion whether to continue with the proceedings rests
exclusively with the Court, notwithstanding the complainant’s intention to
desist.
83 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
The Court looks with disfavor at affidavits of desistance filed by complainants,
especially if done as an afterthought. Contrary to what the parties might have
believed, withdrawal of the complaint does not have the legal effect of
exonerating respondent from any administrative disciplinary sanction. It does
not operate to divest this Court of jurisdiction to determine the truth behind
the matter stated in the complaint. The Courts disciplinary authority cannot
be dependent on or frustrated by private arrangements between parties.
An administrative complaint against an official or employee of the judiciary
cannot simply be withdrawn by a complainant who suddenly claims a change
of mind. Otherwise, the prompt and fair administration of justice, as well as
the discipline of court personnel, would be undermined.
2. Yes. It is clear that Sara Lee held a raffle draw at the ground floor
lobby of the Argao Hall of Justice. Its Business Manager wrote a letter
addressed to the Executive Judge of the RTC, Branch 26 requesting
permission for the holding of a raffle draw at the Argao Hall of Justice. Instead,
respondent Amamio granted the request of Sara Lee through a letter
addressed to the Executive Judge. Thus, respondent Amamio exceeded her
authority in taking it upon herself to grant the request of Sara Lees
representative, instead of referring the letter to the Executive Judge to whom
it was addressed anyway.
The courts are temples of justice and as such, their dignity and sanctity must,
at all times, be preserved and enhanced. The Court thus exhorted its officials
and employees to strive to inspire public respect for the justice system by,
among others, not using their offices as a residence or for any other purpose
than for court or judicial functions.
The court and its premises shall be used exclusively for court or judicial
functions and not for any other purpose. As temples of justice, their dignity
and sanctity must be preserved at all times. Hence, the respondents are
guilty of violation of office rules and regulations and are reprimanded with
a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with
more severely.
IN RE: MAQUERA
B.M. NO. 793, JULY 30, 2004
The District Court of Guam sent a letter to the the Supreme Court,
informing it of Atty. Maquera’s suspension in the practice of law for
two years in Guam. The reason for the suspension is Maquera’s
acceptance of property as a form of payment and selling such
property which resulted to him earning high legal fees. On the basis
of the Court of Guam’s decision, IBP concluded that although said
court found misconduct in Maquera’s actions, there is no evidence
that he committed a breach of ethics in the Phillipines.
Issue:
Whether the ground of misconduct that suspended Maquera in
foreign jurisdiction is a sufficient ground to suspend him in practicing
law in Philippine jurisdiction.
Ruling:
As to the practice of law
Yes. Maqueras acts in Guam which resulted in his two (2)-year
suspension from the practice of law in that jurisdiction are also valid
grounds for his suspension from the practice of law in the Philippines.
Such acts are violative of a lawyers sworn duty to act with fidelity
toward his clients. They are also violative of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, specifically, Canon 17 which states that [a] lawyer
owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful the trust
and confidence reposed in him; and Rule 1.01 which prohibits
lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. The requirement of good moral character is not only a
condition precedent to admission to the Philippine Bar but is also a
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
continuing requirement to maintain ones goods standing in the legal
profession.
It bears stressing that the Guam Superior Courts judgment ordering
Maquera’s suspension from the practice of law in Guam does not
automatically result in his suspension or disbarment in the
Philippines. The judgment of the Superior Court of Guam only
constitutes prima facie evidence of Maquera’s unethical acts as a
lawyer. More fundamentally, due process demands that he be given
the opportunity to defend himself and to present testimonial and
documentary evidence on the matter in an investigation to be
conducted. The rule mandates that a respondent lawyer must in all
cases be notified of the charges against him. It is only after
reasonable notice and failure on the part of the respondent lawyer to
appear during the scheduled investigation that an investigation may
be conducted ex parte.
In this case, Maquera is given 15 days to show cause why he should
not be suspended.
RULE 139
DISBARMENT OR SUSPENSION OF ATTORNEYS
SECTION 1. Motion or complaint. — Proceedings for the removal or
suspension of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court on its
own motion or upon the complaint under oath of another in writing.
The complaint shall set out distinctly, clearly, and concisely the facts
complained of, supported by affidavits, if any, of persons having
personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and shall be
accompanied with copies of such documents as may substantiate
said facts.
SECTION 2. Service or dismissal. — If the complaint appears to merit
action, a copy thereof shall be served upon the respondent, requiring
him to answer the same within ten (10) days from the date of service.
If the complaint does not merit action, or if the answer shows to the
satisfaction of the Supreme Court that the complaint is not
meritorious, the same shall be dismissed.
SECTION 3. Investigation by Solicitor General. — Upon the issues
raised by the complaint and answer, or upon failure of the respondent
to answer, the case shall be referred to the Solicitor General for
investigation to determine if there is sufficient ground to proceed with
the prosecution of the respondent. In the investigation conducted by
the Solicitor General, the respondent shall be given full opportunity
to defend himself, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to be
heard by himself and counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice,
the respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed ex
parte.
SECTION 4. Report of the Solicitor General. — Based upon the
evidence adduced at the hearing, if the Solicitor General finds no
sufficient ground to proceed against the respondent, he shall submit
a report to the Supreme Court containing his findings of fact and
conclusion, whereupon the respondent shall be exonerated unless
the court orders differently.
SECTION 5. Complaint of the Solicitor General. Answer of
respondent. — If the Solicitor General finds sufficient ground to
proceed against the respondent, he shall file the corresponding
complaint, accompanied with all the evidence introduced in his
investigation, with the Supreme Court, and the respondent shall be
served by the clerk of the Supreme Court with a copy of the complaint
with direction to answer the same within fifteen (15) days.
84 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
SECTION 6. Evidence produced before Solicitor General available. —
The evidence produced before the Solicitor General in his
investigation may be considered by the Supreme Court in the final
decision of the case, if the respondent had an opportunity to object
and cross-examine. If in the respondent's answer no statement is
made as to any intention of introducing additional evidence, the case
shall be set down for hearing, upon the filing of such answer or upon
the expiration of the time to file the same.
SECTION 7. Commissioner to investigate and recommend. Rules of
evidence. — Upon receipt of the respondent's answer, wherein a
statement is made as to his desire to introduce additional evidence,
the case shall be referred to a commissioner who, in the discretion
of the court, may be the clerk of the Supreme Court, a judge of first
instance, or an attorney-at-law for investigation, report, and
recommendation. The Solicitor General or his representative shall
appear before the commissioner to conduct the prosecution. The
respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend himself, to
produce additional evidence in his own behalf, and to be heard by
himself and counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice the
respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed ex parte.
The rules of evidence shall be applicable to proceedings of this
nature.
SECTION 8. Report of commissioner and hearing. — Upon receipt of
the report of the commissioner, copies of which shall be furnished
the Solicitor General and the respondent, the case shall be set down
for hearing before the court, following which the case shall be
considered submitted to the court for its final determination.
SECTION 9. Procedure in Court of Appeals or Courts of First Instance.
— As far as may be applicable, the procedure above outlined shall
likewise govern the filing and investigation of complaints against
attorneys in the Court of Appeals or in Courts of First Instance. In
case of suspension of the respondent, the judge of the court of first
instance or Justice of the Court of Appeals shall forthwith transmit to
the Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of suspension and a
full statement of the facts upon which same is based.
SECTION 10. Confidential. — Proceedings against attorneys shall be
private and confidential, except that the final order of the court shall
be made public as in other cases coming before the court.)
RULE 139 – B
DISBARMENT AND DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEYS
SECTION 1. How Instituted. — Proceedings for the disbarment,
suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme
Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state
clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported
by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts
therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said
facts.
The IBP Board of Governors may, motu proprio or upon referral by
the Supreme Court or by a Chapter Board of Officers, or at the
instance of any person, initiate and prosecute proper charges against
erring attorneys including those in the government service; Provided,
however, that all charges against Justices of the Court of Tax Appeals
and the Sandiganbayan, and Judges of the Court of Tax Appeals and
lower courts, even if lawyers are jointly charged with them, shall be
;led with the Supreme Court; Provided, further, that charges ;led
against Justices and Judges before the IBP, including those ;led prior
to their appointment in the Judiciary, shall immediately be forwarded
to the Supreme Court for disposition and adjudication.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
Six (6) copies of the verified complaint shall be ;led with the Secretary
of the IBP or the Secretary of any of its chapters who shall forthwith
transmit the same to the IBP Board of Governors for assignment to
an investigator. (As amended by Bar Matter No. 1960, effective May
1, 2000)
A. Proceedings in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
SECTION 2. National Grievance Investigators. — The Board of
Governors shall appoint from among the IBP members an
Investigator or, when special circumstances so warrant, a panel of
three (3) investigators to investigate the complaint. All investigators
shall take an oath of office in the form prescribed by the Board of
Governors. A copy of the Investigator's appointment and oath shall
be transmitted to the Supreme Court.
An Investigator may be disqualified by reason of relationship with the
fourth degree of on sanguinity or affinity to any of the parties or their
counsel, pecuniary interest, personal bias, or his having acted as
counsel for either party, unless the parties sign and enter upon the
record their written consent to his acting as such Investigator. Where
the Investigator does not disqualify himself, a party may appeal to
the IBP Board of Governors, which by majority vote of the members
present, there being a quorum, may order his disqualification.
SECTION 3. Duties of the National Grievance Investigator. — The
National Grievance Investigators shall investigate all complaints
against members of the Integrated Bar referred to them by the IBP
Board of Governors.
SECTION 4. Chapter assistance to complaint. —The proper IBP
Chapter may assist the complainant[s] in the preparation and filing
of his complaints.
SECTION 5. Service or dismissal. — If the complaint appears to be
meritorious, the Investigator shall direct that a copy thereof be
served upon the respondent, requiring him to answer the same within
fifteen (15) days from the date of service. If the complaint does not
merit action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of the
Investigator that the complaint is not meritorious, the same may be
dismissed by the Board of Governors upon his recommendation. A
copy of the resolution of dismissal shall be furnished the complainant
and the Supreme Court which may review the case motu propio or
upon timely appeal of the complainant filed within 15 days from
notice of the dismissal of the complaint.
No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the
distance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the
charges, or failure of the complaint to prosecute the same.
SECTION 6. Verification and service of answer. — The answer shall
be verified. The original and five (5) legible copies of the answer shall
be filed with the Investigator, with proof of service of a copy thereof
on the complaint or his counsel.
SECTION 7. Administrative counsel. — The IBP Board of Governors
shall appoint a suitable member of the Integrated Bar as counsel to
assist the complainant or the respondent during the investigation in
case of need for such assistance.
SECTION 8. Investigation. — Upon joinder of issues or upon failure
of the respondent to answer, the Investigator shall, with deliberate
speed, proceed with the investigation of the case. He shall have the
power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths. The respondent
shall be given full opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses
on his behalf, and be heard by himself and counsel. However, if upon
reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear, the investigation
shall proceed ex parte.
85 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
The Investigator shall terminate the investigation within three (3)
months from the date of its commencement, unless extended for
good cause by the Board of Governors upon prior application.
Willful failure or refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful order
issued by the Investigator shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt
of court. The corresponding charge shall be filed by the Investigator
before the IBP Board of Governors which shall require the alleged
contemnor to show cause within ten (10) days from notice. The IBP
Board of Governors may thereafter conduct hearings, if necessary, in
accordance with the procedure set forth in the Rule for hearings
before the Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as practicable be
terminated within fifteen (15) days from its commencement.
Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors shall within a like period of
fifteen (15) days issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendation, which shall forthwith be transmitted to the
Supreme Court for final action and if warranted, the imposition of
penalty.
SECTION 9. the Investigators.
Depositions. — Depositions may be taken in accordance with Rules
of Court with leave of
With the Philippines, depositions may be taken before any member
of the Board of Governors, the President of any Chapter, or any
officer authorized by law to administer oaths.
Depositions may be taken outside the Philippines before a diplomatic
or consular representative of the Philippine Government or before
any person agreed upon by the parties or designated by the Board
of Governors.
Any suitable member of the Integrated Bar in the place where a
deposition shall be taken may be designated by the Investigator to
assist the complainant or the respondent in taking a deposition.
SECTION 10. Report of Investigator. —Not later than thirty (30) days
from the termination of the investigation, the Investigator shall
submit a report containing his findings of fact and recommendations
to the IBP Board of Governors, together with the stenographic notes
and the transcript thereof, and all the evidence presented during the
investigation. The submission of the report need not await the
transcription of the stenographic notes, it being sufficient that the
report reproduces substantially from the Investigator's personal
notes any relevant and pertinent testimonies.
SECTION 11. Defects. — No defect in a complaint, notice, answer, or
in the proceeding or the Investigator's Report shall be considered as
substantial unless the Board of Governors, upon considering the
whole record, finds that such defect has resulted or may result in a
miscarriage of justice, in which event the Board shall take remedial
action as the circumstances may warrant, including invalidation of
the entire proceedings.
SECTION 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors. —
(a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP
Board of Governors upon the record and evidence transmitted to it
by the Investigator with his report. The decision of the Board upon
such review shall be in writing and shall clearly and distinctly state
the facts and the reasons on which it is based. It shall be promulgated
within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting
of the Board following the submittal of the Investigator's report.
(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership,
determines that the respondent should be suspended from the
practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its
findings and recommendations which, together with the whole record
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for
final action.
(c) If the respondent is exonerated by the Board of the disciplinary
sanction imposed by it is less than suspension or disbarment (such
as admonition, reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a decision
exonerating respondent or imposing such sanction. The case shall be
deemed terminated unless upon petition of the complainant or other
interested party foled with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days
from notice of the Board's resolution, the Supreme Court orders
otherwise.
(d) Notice of the resolution or decision of the Board shall be given to
all parties through their counsel. A copy of the same shall be
transmitted to the Supreme Court.
B. Proceedings in the Supreme Court
SECTION 13. Investigation by Solicitor General. — In proceedings
initiated motu propio by the Supreme Court or in other proceedings
when the interest of justice so requires, the Supreme Court may refer
the case for investigation to the Solicitor General or to any officer of
the Supreme Court or judge of a lower court, in which case the
investigation shall proceed in the same manner provided in Sections
6 to 11 hereof, save that the review of the report of investigation
shall be conducted directly by the Supreme Court.
SECTION 14. Report of the Solicitor General or other Court
Designated Investigator. — Based upon the evidence adduced at the
investigation, the Solicitor General or other Investigator designated
by the Supreme Court shall submit to the Supreme Court a report
containing his findings of fact and recommendations together with
the record and all the evidence presented in the investigation for the
final action of the Supreme Court.
C. Common Provisions
SECTION 15. Suspension of attorney by Supreme Court. — After
receipt of respondent's answer or lapse of the period therefor, the
Supreme Court, motu propio, or at the instance of the IBP Board of
Governors upon the recommendation of the Investigators, may
suspend an attorney from the practice of his profession for any of
the cause specified in Rule 138, Section 27, during the pendency of
the investigation until such suspension is lifted by the Supreme Court.
SECTION 16. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a
Regional Trial Court. — The Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court
may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named
in Rule 138, Section 27, until further action of the Supreme Court in
the case.
SECTION 17. Upon suspension by Court of Appeals or Regional Trial
Court, further proceedings in Supreme Court. — Upon such
suspension, the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court 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 receipt of such certified copy and statement, the
Supreme Court shall make a full investigation of the case and may
revoke, shorten or extend the suspension, or disbar the attorney as
the facts may warrant.
SECTION 18. Confidentiality. — Proceedings against attorneys shall
be private and confidential. However, the final order of the Supreme
Court shall be published like its decisions in other cases.
SECTION 19. Expenses. — All reasonable and necessary expenses
incurred in relation to disciplinary and disbarment proceedings are
lawful charges for which the parties may be taxed as costs.
86 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
SECTION 20. Effectivity and Transitory Provision. — This Rule shall
take effect on June 1, 1988. All cases pending investigation by the
Office of the Solicitor General shall be transferred to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors for investigation and
disposition as provided in this Rule except those cases where the
investigation has been substantially completed.
Recent Cases (2014-2017)
1. The court has the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice
of law. When this court orders a lawyer suspended from the practice of
law, the lawyer must desist from performing all functions requiring the
application of legal knowledge within the period of suspension. This
includes desisting from holding a position in government requiring the
authority to practice law. (VICTOR C. LINGAN vs. ATTYS. CALUBAQUIB
BALIGA, ROMEO and JIMMY P. BALIGA, A.C. No. 5377, June 30, 2014)
2. The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly
executed by complainant does not, in any way, exonerate the respondent.
A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or
lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis
of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly
immoral conduct has been duly proven. The complainant or the person
who called the attention of the court to the attorney’s alleged misconduct
is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except
as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.
Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be
suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or his
withdrawal of the charges. (DANTE LA JIMENEZ & LAURO G. VIZCONDE
vs. ATTY. FELISBERTO L. VERANO, JR., A.C. No. 8108, July 15, 2014)
3. A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct,
whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be
wanting in good moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor
as to render him unworthy to continue as an officer of the Court. In
disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar, only clear
preponderance of evidence is required to establish liability. (PO1 JOSE B.
CASPE vs. ATTY. AQUILINO A. MEJICA, A.C. No. 10679, March 10, 2015)
4. In a petition for reinstatement to the practice of law, the Court
will take into consideration his or her character and standing prior to the
disbarment, the nature and character of the charge/s for which he or she
was disbarred, his or her conduct subsequent to the disbarment, and the
time that has elapsed in between the disbarment and the application for
reinstatement.
Although the Court believes that the respondent is not inherently lacking
in moral fiber as shown by his conduct prior to his disbarment, the
passage of more than four (4) years is insufficient to enable the
respondent to reflect and to realize his professional transgressions
especially when it is the second time that the respondent was accused
and was found guilty of gross misconduct. It is the duty of the Court to
determine whether he has established moral reformation and
rehabilitation, disregarding its feeling of sympathy or pity. (CONRADO N.
QUE vs. ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., A.C. No. 7054, November
11, 2014)
5. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of
the bar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally
accepted moral standards of the community, conduct for instance, which
makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage. Atty.
Catindig’s subsequent marriage during the subsistence of his previous one
definitely manifests a deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and
the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.
He exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him
as a member of the bar, which thus warrant the penalty of disbarment.
(DR. ELMAR O. PEREZ vs. ATTY. TRISTAN A. CATINDIG AND ATTY.
KAREN E. BAYDO, A.C. No. 5816, March 10, 2015)
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
NOTARIAL PRACTICE
2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE
Purposes. — These Rules shall be applied and construed to advance
the following purposes:
(a) to promote, serve, and protect public interest;
(b) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the rules governing
notaries public; and
(c) to foster ethical conduct among notaries public.
See A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, July 6, 2004.
POWER OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT JUDGES AND
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT JUDGES TO ACT AS
NOTARIES PUBLIC EX OFFICIO
MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public ex officio in the
notarization of documents connected only with the exercise of their
official functions and duties [Borre v. Mayo, Adm. Matter No. 1765-
CFI, October 17, 1980, 100 SCRA 314; Penera v. Dalocanog, Adm.
Matter No. 2113-MJ, April 22, 1981, 104 SCRA 193.] They may not,
as notaries public ex officio, undertake the preparation and
acknowledgment of private documents, contracts and other acts of
conveyances which bear no direct relation to the performance of their
functions as judges. The 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct not only
enjoins judges to regulate their extra-judicial activities in order to
minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties, but also
prohibits them from engaging in the private practice of law (Canon 5
and Rule 5.07).
However, the Court, taking judicial notice of the fact that there are
still municipalities which have neither lawyers nor notaries public,
rules that MTC and MCTC judges assigned to municipalities or circuits
with no lawyers or notaries public may, in the capacity as notaries
public ex officio, perform any act within the competency of a regular
notary public, provided that: (1) all notarial fees charged be for the
account of the Government and turned over to the municipal
treasurer (Lapena, Jr. vs. Marcos, Adm. Matter No. 1969-MJ, June
29, 1982, 114 SCRA 572); and, (2) certification be made in the
notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary
public in such municipality or circuit.
See Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90, February 26, 1990.
AUTHORITY OF CLERK OF COURT TO NOTARIZE
DOCUMENTS
(f) AUTHORIZE the Clerks of Court of the Regional Trial Courts to
notarize not only documents relating to the exercise of their official
functions but also private documents, subject to the following
conditions: (i) all notarial fees charged in accordance with Section
7(o) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, and, with respect to private
documents, in accordance with the notarial fee that the Supreme
Court may prescribe in compliance with Section 1, Rule V of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice, shall be for the account of the Judiciary;
and (ii) they certify in the notarized documents that there are no
notaries public within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Court; …
See OCA Circular No. 156-06, November 16, 2006.
87 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
RULES REQUIRING NOTARIES PUBLIC TO HOLD OFFICE AT
A SPECIFIC AND APPROPRIATE ADDRESS/ADDRESSES
1. A notary public shall render notarial services only in his office. On
certain exceptional occasions or situations, notarial services may be
performed in the following sites:
a) Public offices, convention halls, and other appropriate
public places for the purpose of administering oaths of office;
b) At the request of the parties, public function areas in
hotels and other appropriate places for the signing of
contracts, deeds, and other documents requiring
notarization;
c) Residence of any party to a contract, deed, or other
document requiring notarization;
d) Hospitals and other medical institutions where a party
to a contract is confined for treatment;
e) Any place where for legal reason a party to a contract,
deed, or other document requiring notarization may be
confined; and
f) Such other places as may be dictated because of
emergency.
See A.M. No. 02-8-02-SC, August 13, 2002.
QUALIFICATIONS OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Qualifications. - A notarial commission may be issued by an Executive
Judge to any qualified person who submits a petition in accordance
with these Rules.
To be eligible for commissioning as notary public, the petitioner:
(1) must be a citizen of the Philippines;
(2) must be over twenty-one (21) years of age;
(3) must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one (1)
year and maintains a regular place of work or business in
the city or province where the commission is to be issued;
(4) must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing
with clearances from the Office of the Bar Confidant of the
Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines;
and
(5) must not have been convicted in the first instance of any
crime involving moral turpitude.
TERM OF OFFICE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
As provided under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-
8-13-SC), RULE III, Section 11, a person commissioned as notary
public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years
commencing the first day of January of the year in which the
commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary
public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.
POWERS AND LIMITATIONS
RULE IV
Sec. 1. POWERS
a. Empowered to perform the following notarial
acts:
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
1. Acknowledgements
2. Oaths and Affirmations
3. Jurats
4. Signature witnessing
5. Copy Certifications; and
6. Any other act authorized by these rules.
b. Authorized to certify the affixing of a signature
by thumb or other mark on an instrument or
document presented for notarization if:
a. The thumb or other mark is affixed in the presence of
the notary public and of two (2) disinterested and
unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document;
b. Both witnesses sign their own names in addition to
the thumb or other mark;
c. The notary public writes below the thumb or other
mark: “Thumb or other mark affixed by (name of
signatory by mark) in the presence of (names and
addresses of witnesses) and undersigned notary
public”; and
d. The notary public notarizes the signature by thumb or
other mark through an acknowledgement, jurat, or
signature witnessing
c. Authorized to sign in behalf of a person who is
physically unable to sign or make a mark on an
instrument or document if:
1. The notary public is directed by the person unable to
sign or make a mark to sign on his behalf
2. The signature of the notary public is affixed in the
presence of two disinterested and unaffected
witnesses to the instrument or document
3. Both witnesses sign their own names
4. The notary public writes below his signature:
“Signature affixed by notary in presence of (names
and addresses of person and two (2) witnesses)”
5. The notary public notarizes his signature by
acknowledgment or jurat.
Sec.2. PROHIBITION
a. Notary Public shall not perform a notarial
act outside his regular place of work or
business; provided, however, that on
certain exceptional occasions or
situations, a notarial act may be
performed at the request of the parties in
the following sites located within his
territorial jurisdiction:
a. Public offices, convention halls, and similar
places where oaths of office may be
administered
b. Public function areas in hotels and similar place
for the signing of instruments or documents
requiring notarization
88 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
c. Hospitals and other medical institutions where a
party to an instrument or document is confined
for treatment
d. Any place where a party to an instrument or
document requiring notarization is under
detention
b. A person shall not perform notarial act if
the person involved as signatory to the
instrument or document:
1. Is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time
of the notarization; and
2. Is not personally known to the notary public or
otherwise identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by these
Rules.
Sec.3. DISQUALIFICATION
a. Notary public is disqualified from
performing a notarial act if he:
1. Is a party to the instrument or document that is to be
notarized
2. Will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any
commission, fee, advantage, right, title, interest,
cash, property, or other consideration, except as
provided by these rules and by law
3. Is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor,
descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of
the principal within the fourth civil degree
Sec.4. REFUSAL TO NOTARIZE
a. Notary public shall not perform any
notarial act described in these rules for
any person requesting such an act even if
he tenders the appropriate fee specified
by these rules if:
1. The notary knows or has good reason to believe that
the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or immoral
2. The signatory shows a demeanor which engenders in
the mind of the notary public reasonable doubt as to
the former’s knowledge of the consequences of the
transaction requiring notarial act
3. In the notary’s judgment, the signatory is not acting
of his or her own free will.
Sec.5. FALSE OR INCOMPLETE CERTIFICATE
a. A notary public shall not:
1. Execute a certificate containing information known or
believed by the notary to be false
2. Affix an official signature or seal on a notarial
certificate that is incomplete.
Sec.6. IMPROPER INSTRUMENTS OR DOCUMENTS
a. A notary public shall not notarize:
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018

instrument or document the page/s of his register on which the same

(1) A blank or incomplete instrument or document is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries.
(2) An instrument or document without appropriate
notarial certification. (f) In case of a protest of any draft, bill of exchange or promissory
note, the notary public shall make a full and true record of all
proceedings in relation thereto and shall note therein whether the
NOTARIAL REGISTER demand for the sum of money was made, by whom, when, and
where; whether he presented such draft, bill or note; whether notices
RULE VI
were given, to whom and in what manner; where the same was
made, when and to whom and where directed; and of every other
SECTION 1. Form of Notarial Register. - (a) A notary public shall
fact touching the same.
keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful inspection as provided
in these Rules, a chronological official notarial register of notarial acts
(g) At the end of each week, the notary public shall certify in his
consisting of a permanently bound book with numbered pages.
notarial register the number of instruments or documents executed,
sworn to, acknowledged, or protested before him; or if none, this
The register shall be kept in books to be furnished by the Solicitor
certificate shall show this fact.
General to any notary public upon request and upon payment of the
cost thereof. The register shall be duly paged, and on the first page,
(h) A certified copy of each month's entries and a duplicate original
the Solicitor General shall certify the number of pages of which the
copy of any instrument acknowledged before the notary public shall,
book consists.
within the first ten (10) days of the month following, be forwarded
to the Clerk of Court and shall be under the responsibility of such
For purposes of this provision, a Memorandum of Agreement or
officer. If there is no entry to certify for the month, the notary shall
Understanding may be entered into by the Office of the Solicitor
forward a statement to this effect in lieu of certified copies herein
General and the Office of the Court Administrator.
required.
(b) A notary public shall keep only one active notarial register at any
SEC. 3. Signatures and Thumbmarks. - At the time of
given time.
notarization, the notary's notarial register shall be signed or a thumb
or other mark affixed by each:
SEC. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. - (a) For every notarial
(a) principal;
act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of
(b) credible witness swearing or affirming to the identity of
notarization the following:
a principal; and
(1) the entry number and page number;
(c) witness to a signature by thumb or other mark, or to a
(2) the date and time of day of the notarial act;
signing by the notary public on behalf of a person
(3) the type of notarial act;
physically unable to sign.
(4) the title or description of the instrument, document or
proceeding;
SEC. 4. Inspection, Copying and Disposal. - (a) In the notary's
(5) the name and address of each principal;
presence, any person may inspect an entry in the notarial register,
(6) the competent evidence of identity as defined by these
during regular business hours, provided;
Rules if the signatory is not
(1) the person's identity is personally known to the notary
personally known to the notary;
public or proven through competent evidence of identity
(7) the name and address of each credible witness
as defined in these Rules;
swearing to or affirming the person's identity;
(2) the person affixes a signature and thumb or other mark
(8) the fee charged for the notarial act;
or other recognized identifier, in the notarial register in a
(9) the address where the notarization was performed if
separate, dated entry;
not in the notary's regular place of work or business; and
(3) the person specifies the month, year, type of
(10) any other circumstance the notary public may deem
instrument or document, and name of the principal in the
of significance or relevance.
notarial act or acts sought; and
(4) the person is shown only the entry or entries specified
(b) A notary public shall record in the notarial register the reasons
by him.
and circumstances for not completing a notarial act.
(b) The notarial register may be examined by a law enforcement
(c) A notary public shall record in the notarial register the
officer in the course of an official investigation or by virtue of a court
circumstances of any request to inspect or copy an entry in the
order.
notarial register, including the requester's name, address, signature,
thumbmark or other recognized identifier, and evidence of identity.
(c) If the notary public has a reasonable ground to believe that a
The reasons for refusal to allow inspection or copying of a journal
person has a criminal intent or wrongful motive in requesting
entry shall also be recorded.
information from the notarial register, the notary shall deny access
to any entry or entries therein.
(d) When the instrument or document is a contract, the notary public
shall keep an original copy thereof as part of his records and enter in
SEC. 5. Loss, Destruction or Damage of Notarial Register. -
said records a brief description of the substance thereof and shall
(a) In case the notarial register is stolen, lost, destroyed, damaged,
give to each entry a consecutive number, beginning with number one
or otherwise rendered unusable or illegible as a record of notarial
in each calendar year. He shall also retain a duplicate original copy
acts, the notary public shall, within ten (10) days after informing the
for the Clerk of Court.
appropriate law enforcement agency in the case of theft or
vandalism, notify the Executive Judge by any means providing a
(e) The notary public shall give to each instrument or document
proper receipt or acknowledgment, including registered mail and also
executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number
provide a copy or number of any pertinent police report.
corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on the

89 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
(b) Upon revocation or expiration of a notarial commission, or death
of the notary public, the notarial register and notarial records shall
immediately be delivered to the office of the Executive Judge.
xxx
RULE X
CHANGES OF STATUS OF NOTARY PUBLIC
SEC. 2. Resignation. - A notary public may resign his commission
by personally submitting a written, dated and signed formal notice to
the Executive Judge together with his notarial seal, notarial register
and records. Effective from the date indicated in the notice, he shall
immediately cease to perform notarial acts. In the event of his
incapacity to personally appear, the submission of the notice may be
performed by his duly authorized representative.
xxx
RULE XII
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 1. Punishable Acts. - The Executive Judge shall cause
the prosecution of any person who:
(a) knowingly acts or otherwise impersonates a notary
public;
(b) knowingly obtains, conceals, defaces, or destroys the
seal, notarial register, or official records of a notary public;
and
(c) knowingly solicits, coerces, or in any way influences a
notary public to commit official misconduct.
The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of notaries
public. They are required to certify that the party to every document
acknowledged before them has presented the proper residence
certificate (or exemption from the residence tax); and to enter its
number, place of issue and date as part of such certification.
They are also required to maintain and keep a notarial register; to
enter therein all instruments notarized by them; and to “give to each
instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before [them] a
number corresponding to the one in [their] register [and to state
therein] the page or pages of [their] register, on which the same is
recorded.”
Failure to perform these duties would result in the revocation of their
commission as notaries public.
Santuyo v. Atty. Hidalgo
Q: May a lawyer notary public delegate to his secretary the task of
filling up his notarial register?
HELD: Respondent lawyer is negligent in his practice of tolerating the
secretary of their law office to handle the aforementioned notarial
activities. For having wholly entrusted the preparation and other
mechanics of the document for notarization to the secretary there
can be a possibility that even the respondent’s signature which is the
only one left for him to do can even be done by the secretary or
anybody for that matter.
Source: https://www.slideshare.net/FayeRisonar/salient-features-of-
the-notarial-law
90 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
Notary public is prohibited from simultaneously keeping
several active notarial registers in different offices
In the case of “Joy A. Gimeno vs. Atty. Paul Centillas Zaide” (A.C. No.
10303, 22 April 2015), a lawyer/notary public was suspended from
the practice of law, his notarial commission revoked, and disqualified
from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2)
years, for keeping different notarial registers in several offices. The
Supreme Court, in penalizing the erring lawyer/notary public, ruled
that:
“The Notarial Practice Rules strictly requires a notary public to
maintain only one active notarial register and ensure that the entries
in it are chronologically arranged. The ‘one active notarial register’
rule is in place to deter a notary public from assigning several notarial
registers to different offices manned by assistants who perform
notarial services on his behalf. Since a notarial commission is
personal to each lawyer, the notary public shall also personally
administer the notarial acts that the law authorizes him to execute.
This important duty is vested with public interest. Thus, no other
person, other than the notary public, should perform it. On the other
hand, entries in a notarial register, need to be in chronological
sequence in order to address and prevent the rampant practice of
leaving blank spaces in the notarial register to allow the antedating
of notarizations.”
The High Court also emphasized that a flagrant violation of the
Notarial Practice Rules is not merely a simple and excusable
negligence, but a clear violation of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Source: http://www.estrebillo.com/law/2015/07/notary-public-is-
prohibited-from-simultaneously-keeping-several-active-notarial-
registers-in-different-offices/.html
JURISDICTION OF NOTARY PUBLIC AND
PLACE OF NOTARIZATION
Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC),
only persons who are granted a commission or an authority to
perform notarial acts may notarize documents. The commission may
only be issued by an Executive Judge to a person who possesses the
following qualifications:
(1) must be a citizen of the Philippines;
(2) must be over twenty-one (21) years of age;
(3) must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one (1)
year and maintains a regular place of work or business in
the city or province where the commission is to be issued;
(4) must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing
with clearances from the Office of the Bar Confidant of the
Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines;
and
(5) must not have been convicted in the first instance of any
crime involving moral turpitude. (Section 1, Rule III, Ibid.)
Once it is issued, the notary public may perform notarial acts in any
place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for
two (2) years commencing on the first day of January of the year in
which the commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the
notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court
(Section 11, Rule III, Ibid.).
General Rule: Notarization of document must be at the notary
public’s regular place of work.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
Exceptions:
1) In public offices, convention halls and other places where
oaths of office are administered, public function areas in
hotels and similar areas used for the signing of instruments
or documents requiring notarization.
(3) Hospitals and other medical institutions where a part to an
instrument is confined for treatment.
(4) Any place where a party to the instrument requiring
notarization is under detention.
Thus, even if a private lawyer is granted a notarial commission, but
he exercises it outside of the jurisdiction of the commissioning court,
he conclusively acts without authority. Accordingly, he may be
disciplined or even penalized for the same. The Supreme Court, in
many cases, has imposed the penalties of temporary or permanent
bar from being commissioned as a notary public and/or suspension
from the practice of law to erring lawyers.
REVOCATION OF COMMISSION
The Executive Judge has the power to revoke a notarial commission
Grounds for revocation:
1. Any ground on which an application for a commission may
be denied;
2. In addition to administrative sanction, any notary public
who:
a. Fails to keep a notarial register;
b. Fails to make the proper entry or entries in his
notarial register concerning his notarial acts;
c. Fails to send the copy of the entries to the
Executive Judge within 10 days of the month
following;
d. Fails to affix to acknowledgements the date of
expiration of his commission;
e. Fails to submit his notarial register, when filled,
to the Executive Judge;
f. Fails to make a report, within a reasonable time,
to the Executive Judge concerning the
performance of his duties, as may be required
by the judge;
g. Fails to require the presence of a principal at the
time of the notarial act;
h. Fails to identify a principal on the basis of
personal knowledge or competent evidence;
i. Executes a false or incomplete certificate under
Section 5, Rule IV;
j. Knowingly performs or fails to perform any other
act prohibited or mandated by these Rules; and
k. Commits any other dereliction or act which in the
judgment of the Executive Judge constitutes
good cause for revocation;
3. Upon verified complaint by an interested, affected or
aggrieved person and the answer of the notary public is
not satisfactory, the Executive Judge shall conduct a
summary hearing and when the charges are proven, the
executive judge shall impose the proper sanctions.
4. The Executive judge can muto proprio initiate
administrative proceedings
Supervision and Monitoring
The Executive Judge exercises supervision over notaries public
91 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
Publication of Revocations
The Clerk of court, by the order of the Executive Judge, shall post in
a conspicuous place in the offices of the Executive Judge and of the
Clerk of Court the names of notaries public who have been
administratively sanctioned or whose notarial commission have been
revoked.
Death of Notary Public
If a notary public dies, the notarial records within 10 days and the
official seal within 5 days be delivered or surrendered to the
Executive Judge.
COMPETENT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY
Sec. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. — The phrase "competent
evidence of identity" refers to the identification of an individual based
on:
(a) at least one current identification document issued by
an official agency, bearing the photograph and signature
of the individual, such as but not limited to, passport,
driver's license, Professional Regulation Commission ID,
National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police
clearance, postal ID, voter's ID, Barangay certification,
Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS) e-card,
Social Security System (SSS) card, Philhealth card, senior
citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration
(OWWA) ID, OFW ID, seaman's book, alien certificate of
registration/immigrant certificate of registration,
government office ID, certification from the National
Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons (NCWDP),
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)
certification or …
See Additional Guidelines on the Printing and Distribution of Notarial
Registers, OCA Circular No. 35-08, March 25, 2008.
Baylon v. Almo
As a matter of fact, recognizing the established unreliability of a
community tax certificate in proving the identity of a person who
wishes to have his document notarized, we did not include it in the
list of competent evidence of identity that notaries public should use
in ascertaining the identity of persons appearing before them to have
their documents notarized.
SANCTIONS
RULE XI
REVOCATION OF COMMISSION AND
DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS
SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. — (a) The
Executive Judge shall revoke a notarial commission for any ground
on which an application for a commission may be denied.
(b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of,
or impose appropriate administrative sanctions upon, any notary
public who:
(1) fails to keep a notarial register;
(2) fails to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial
register concerning his notarial acts;
(3) fails to send the copy of the entries to the Executive
Judge within the first ten (10) days of the month following;
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018
(4) fails to affix to acknowledgments the date of expiration
of his commission;
(5) fails to submit his notarial register, when filled, to the
Executive Judge;
(6) fails to make his report, within a reasonable time, to
the Executive Judge concerning the performance of his
duties, as may be required by the judge;
(7) fails to require the presence of a principal at the time
of the notarial act;
(8) fails to identify a principal on the basis of personal
knowledge or competent evidence;
(9) executes a false or incomplete certificate under Section
5, Rule IV;
(10) knowingly performs or fails to perform any other act
prohibited or mandated by these Rules; and
(11) commits any other dereliction or act which in the
judgment of the Executive Judge constitutes good cause
for revocation of commission or imposition of
administrative sanction.
(c) Upon verified complaint by an interested, affected or aggrieved
person, the notary public shall be required to file a verified answer to
the complaint.
If the answer of the notary public is not satisfactory, the Executive
Judge shall conduct a summary hearing. If the allegations of the
complaint are not proven, the complaint shall be dismissed. If the
charges are duly established, the Executive Judge shall impose the
appropriate administrative sanctions. In either case, the aggrieved
party may appeal the decision to the Supreme Court for review.
Pending the appeal, an order imposing disciplinary sanctions shall be
immediately executory, unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme
Court.
(d) The Executive Judge may motu proprio initiate administrative
proceedings against a notary public, subject to the procedures
prescribed in paragraph (c) above and impose the appropriate
administrative sanctions on the grounds mentioned in the preceding
paragraphs (a) and (b).
Illustrative Case
BAUTISTA V. BERNABE
A.C. NO. 6963, FEBRUARY 9, 2006
Victorina Bautista filed an complaint in the CBP-IBP against Atty.
Sergio Bernabe, alleging that the latter notarized a 'Magkasanib na
Salaysay' entered into between Bautista's already-deceased-mother,
Basilia de la Cruz, and a certain Donato Salonga. Atty. Bernabe
argues that he had no knowledge of Basilia's death and that a certain
Pronebo signed the document in the former's behalf.
Issue: Whether it is proper for a notary public to notarize a
document without the personal/physical presence of one party?
Ruling:
Not proper; Atty. Bernabe violated Rule 1.01, of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law. His alleged lack of
knowledge of Basilia’s death does not excuse him.
92 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
By affixing his signature and notarial seal on the instrument, Atty.
Bernabe led us to believe that Basilia personally appeared before him
and attested to the truth and veracity of the contents of the affidavit
when in fact it was a certain Pronebo who signed the document. A
member of the bar who performs an act as a notary public should
not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same
are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared
before him. The acts of the affiants cannot be delegated to anyone
for what are stated therein are facts of which they have personal
knowledge.
The notarial commission of Atty. Bernabe is revoked; is disqualified
from reappointment as notary public for two years; and is suspend
from the practice of law for one year.
Recent Cases (2014-2017)
1. Notarizing a Deed of Donation in the absence of one of the
affiants is an act which contravenes Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103,
or the Notarial Law which mandates that affiants must personally
appear to the notary public and corollary, under Section 2(b) of Rule
IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 stating that a
commissioned notary public is enjoined from performing a notarial
act unless the affiant is: (1) in his presence at the time of the
notarization; and(2) personally known to him or otherwise identified
by him through competent evidence of identity as defined by these
Rules. (EMERITA B. MAHILUM vs. ATTY. SAMUEL SM. LEZAMA, A.C.
No. 10450, July 30, 2014)
2. Atty. Renato Bagay was found guilty of negligence due to
the fact that it was he secretary who notarize documents and not
him. The court ruled that Atty. Renato C. Bagay must fully bear the
consequence of his negligence. A person who is commissioned as a
notary public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial
register. He cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by passing
the buck to his secretary. Because of the negligence of Atty. Renato
C. Bagay, the Court also holds him liable for violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. His failure to solemnly perform his duty
as a notary public not only damaged those directly affected by the
notarized documents but also undermined the integrity of a notary
public and degraded the function of notarization. He should, thus, be
held liable for such negligence not only as a notary public but also as
a lawyer. (ATTY. AURELIO C. ANGELES, JR., PROVINCIAL LEGAL
OFFICER, BATAAN CAPITOL, BALANGA CITY, BATAAN vs. ATTY.
RENATO C. BAGAY, A.C. No. 8103, December 03, 2014)
3. Atty. Felipe was administratively charged for violation of
notarial Law. The court ruled that while seemingly appearing to be a
harmless incident, Atty Felipe’s act of notarizing documents in a place
outside of or beyond the authority granted by his notarial
commission, partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. (FELIPE
B. ALMAZAN, SR. vs. ATTY. MARCELO B. SUERTE-FELIPE, A.C. No.
7184, September 17, 2014)
A notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are
impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity. Good faith
cannot be a mitigating circumstance in situations since the duty to
function as a notary public is personal. [The Court notes] that the
error could have been prevented had Atty. Examen diligently
performed his functions: personally checked the correctness of the
documents. To say that it was his secretary’s fault reflects disregard
and unfitness to discharge the functions of a notary public for it is he
who personally acknowledges the document. He was behooved
under Sec. 251, Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative Code to
check if the proper cedulas were presented and inspect if the
documents to be acknowledged by him reflected the correct details.
This Court cannot stress enough that notarization is not a routinary
act. It is imbued with substantive public interest owing to the public
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER | JUDGE AMY ROSE SOLER-RELLIN | EH403 AY 2017-2018

character of his duties. In violating the provisions of the Notarial Law,

Atty. Examen also transgressed his oath as a lawyer, provisions of
the CPR and Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. (HEIRS OF
PEDRO ALILANO REPRESENTED BY DAVID ALILANO vs. ATTY.
ROBERTO E. EXAMEN, A.C. No. 10132, March 24, 2015)

4. The petitioners accused the respondent of notarizing a

document that is forged. The Supreme Court ruled that whoever acts
as Notary Public must ensure that the parties executing the
document be present. Otherwise, their participation with respect to
the document cannot be acknowledged. Notarization of a document
in the absence of the parties is a breach of duty. (JIMMY ANUDON
AND JUANITA ANUDON vs. ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA, A.C. No. 5482,
February 10, 2015)

5. On October 18, 2011, the Investigating Commissioner of

the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline
found that Cruz violated Rule IV, Section 2 (b) of the 2004 Rules of
Notarial Practice:

SECTION 2. Prohibitions. — . . .
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as
signatory to the instrument or document —
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the
notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise
identified by the notary public through competent evidence of
identity as defined by these Rules.

According to the Investigating Commissioner, Cruz failed to prove

that the formalities in ascertaining the identity of an individual based
on competent evidence were followed and satisfied. Cruz merely
stated in his Answer that Grace O. Riña went to his office
accompanied by a man on the day he notarized the Extrajudicial
Agreement.

There was nothing in the record of the case to show that Cruz
required proof of the principals' identities, which is a task duly
designated to the Notary Public. (RIÑA V. CRUZ, A.C. NO. 10629
(NOTICE), [JANUARY 11, 2016)

93 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS