Written Report

in

(Basic Legal Ethics)

Prepared by:
Raymond Vera Cruz Villarin

Submitted to:
Fiscal Ethel Eleccion-Vidal
Code of Professional Responsibility
Chapter 1:
Lawyer and Society
CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the
constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and for legal
processes
 Duties of Attorneys:
1. to maintain allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines and to support the
Constitution and obey the laws of the
Philippines;
2. to observe and maintain the respect
due to the courts of justice and
judicial officers;
3. to counsel or maintain such actions or
proceedings only as appear to him as
just, and such defenses only as he
believes to be honestly debatable
under the laws;
4. 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;
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. not to encourage either the
commencement or the continuance of
an action or proceeding, or delay any
man’s cause for any corrupt motive or
interest;
8. never to reject, for any consideration
personal to himself, the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed;
9. in the defense of a person accused of a
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.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
 Conviction for crimes involving moral
turpitude – a number of lawyers have
been suspended or disbarred for
conviction of crimes involving moral
turpitude such as:
1. estafa
2. bribery
3. murder
4. seduction
5. abduction
6. smuggling
7. falsification of public documents
 Morality as understood in law –
This is a human standard based on
natural moral law which is embodied
in man’s conscience and which guides
him to do good and avoid evil.
 Moral Turpitude: anything that is
done contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty or good morals.
 Immoral Conduct: that conduct
which is willful, flagrant, or
shameless and which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of the good
and respectable members of the
community (Arciga vs. Maniwag, 106
SCRA 591).
 Grossly Immoral Conduct: One that
is so corrupt and false as to constitute
a criminal act or so unprincipled or
disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a
high degree; it is a WILLFUL,
FLAGRANT or SHAMELESS ACT
which shows a MORAL
INDIFFERENCE to the opinion of
respectable members of the
community. (Narag vs. Narag, 1998)
Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or
abet activities aimed at defiance of the
law or at lessening confidence in the legal
system.
Rule 1.03 – A lawyer shall not, for any
corrupt motive or interest, encourage any
suit or proceeding or delay any man’s
cause.
Rule 1.04 – A lawyer shall encourage his
clients to avoid, end or settle the
controversy if it will admit of a fair
settlement.
 If a lawyer finds that his client’s cause
is defenseless, it is his burden/duty to
advise the latter to acquiesce and
submit, rather than traverse the
incontrovertible.
 It is unprofessional for a lawyer to
volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit,
except in rare cases where the blood,
relationship or trust makes it his duty
to do so.
 Temper client’s propensity to litigate.
 Should not be an instigator of
controversy but a mediator for
concord and conciliator for
compromise.
 The law violated need not be a penal
law. “Moral Turpitude” – everything
which is done contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty or good morals.
 Give advice tending to impress upon
the client and his undertaking exact
compliance with the strictest
principles of moral law.
 Until a statute shall have been
construed and interpreted by
competent adjudication, he is free and
is entitled to advise as to its validity
and as to what he conscientiously
believes to be its just meaning and
extent.
 A lawyer has the obligation not to
encourage suits. This is so as to
prevent barratry and ambulance
chasing.
 Barratry – offense of frequently
exciting and stirring up quarrels and
suits, either at law or otherwise;
Lawyer’s act of fomenting suits
among individuals and offering his
legal services to one of them.
 Ambulance Chasing – Act of chasing
victims of accidents for the purpose of
talking to the said victims (or
relatives) and offering his legal
services for the filing of a case against
the person(s) who caused the
accident(s).
Relative cases:
Yu vs. Atty. Dela Cruz
A.C. No. 10912, January 9, 2016
(PAULINA T. YU, Complainant vs.
ATTY. BERLIN R. DELA CRUZ)
FACTS: It appears from the records that
respondent lawyer agreed to represent
Paulina T. Yu (complainant) in several cases
after having received various amounts as
acceptance fees. While the lawyer-client
relationship was subsisting, respondent
lawyer borrowed pieces of jewelry from
complainant and pledged the same with the
City state Savings Bank, Inc. for the amount
of P29,945.50, as shown in the Promissory
Note with Deed of Pledge. Respondent
lawyer appropriated the proceeds of the
pledge to his personal use. In order to
facilitate the redemption of the said jewelry,
respondent lawyer issued to complainant,
City state Savings Bank Check. Upon
presentment, however, complainant was
shocked to learn that the check was
dishonored for the reason, “Account
Closed.” Complainant immediately notified
respondent lawyer of the dishonor of the
check.
Complainant demanded for the refund of the
acceptance fees received by respondent
lawyer prior to the “abandonment” of the
cases and the payment of the value of the
jewelry, but to no avail.
For his failure to heed the repeated demands,
a criminal case for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 was filed with the Office
of the City Prosecutor against him.
A verified complaint was filed with the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD),
where complainant prayed for the
disbarment of respondent lawyer on account
of grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming
of a lawyer and commission of acts in
violation of the lawyer’s oath. The IBP-
CBD required respondent lawyer to submit
his answer to the complaint. Despite having
been duly served with a copy of the
complaint and the order to file his answer, as
shown in a certification issued by the Post
Master of the Las Piñas Central Post Office,
respondent still failed to file an answer.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated
CPR?
HELD: The complaint stemmed from the
use by respondent lawyer of his client’s
property. He had, indeed, come into
possession of valuable pieces of jewelry
which he presented as security in a contract
of pledge. Complainant voluntarily and
willingly delivered her jewelry worth
P135,000.00 to respondent lawyer who
meant to borrow it and pawn it thereafter.
This act alone shows respondent lawyer’s
blatant disregard of Rule 16.04.
Complainant’s acquiescence to the
“pawning” of her jewelry becomes
immaterial considering that the CPR is clear
in that lawyers are proscribed from
borrowing money or property from clients,
unless the latter’s interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. Here, respondent
lawyer’s act of borrowing does not
constitute an exception. Respondent lawyer
used his client’s jewelry in order to obtain,
and then appropriate for himself, the
proceeds from the pledge. In so doing, he
had abused the trust and confidence reposed
upon him by his client. That he might have
intended to subsequently pay his client the
value of the jewelry is inconsequential.
What deserves detestation was the very act
of his exercising influence and persuasion
over his client in order to gain undue
benefits from the latter’s property. 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.
Suffice it to say, the borrowing of money or
property from a client outside the limits laid
down in the CPR is an unethical act that
warrants sanction.
The Court does not harbor any doubt in
favor of respondent lawyer. Obviously, his
unfulfilled promise to facilitate the
redemption of the jewelry and his act of
issuing a worthless check constitute grave
violations of the CPR and the lawyer’s oath.
These shortcomings on his part have
seriously breached the highly fiduciary
relationship between lawyers and clients.
Specifically, his act of issuing worthless
checks patently violated Rule 1.01 of Canon
1 of the CPR which requires that “[a] lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.” This
indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust
and confidence reposed on him, shows such
lack of personal honesty and good moral
character as to render him unworthy of
public confidence, and constitutes a ground
for disciplinary action, and thus seriously
and irreparably tarnishes the image of the
profession. Such conduct, while already off-
putting when attributed to an ordinary
person, is much more abhorrent when
exhibited by a member of the Bar. In this
case, respondent lawyer turned his back
from the promise that he once made upon
admission to the Bar. As “vanguards of the
law and the legal system, lawyers must at all
times conduct themselves, especially in their
dealings with their clients and the public at
large, with honesty and integrity in a manner
beyond reproach.”
Adegoke R. Plumptre v. Atty. Socrates R.
Rivera
(A lawyer who was the subject of a
complaint by his client for failing to deliver
any results despite getting P28,000 in fees
was spared from the IBP's recommended
penalty of disbarment.)
FACTS:
This resolves a disbarment case against
respondent Atty. Socrates R. Rivera for
absconding with money entrusted to him
and soliciting money to bribe a judge.
Complainant alleges that he called
respondent and asked for help in his
application for a work permit from the
Bureau of Immigration. They met a few
days later, and complainant paid
respondent P10,000.00 as professional
fee. They met again, and complainant
gave respondent another P10,000.00,
together with his passport. This was
allegedly for the processing of his work
permit. T h e y m e t f o r a t h i r d t i m e
since respondent asked
complainant to submit ID photos.
Respondent asked complainant for another
P10,000.00, but complainant refused as
they only agreed on the amount of
P20,000.00. Respondent also asked
complainant for P8,000.00, for
complainant & apos; other case, which
respondent was also working on. He
explained that P5,000.00 would be
given to a Las Piñas judge to reverse
the motion for reconsideration against
complainant, while P3,000.00 would be
used to process the motion for
recons i der at i on. C om pl ai nant gave
hi m t he P 8,000.00. C om pl ai nant
cl ai m s t hat a ft er respondent received
the money, he never received any
updates on the status of his work
permit and pending court case. Further,
whenever he called respondent to
follow up on his work permit, respondent
hurled invectives at him and threatened him
and his wife. Complainant would retort by
saying that he would file complaints
against respondent if he did not give back
the money and passport. The respondent
returned passport but still refused to
return the P28,000.00 earlier endorsed to
him.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty Rivera violated
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: Instead, the SC ordered Atty.
Socrates Rivera suspended for three years.
In the matter of Adegoke Plumptre versus
Atty. Socrates R. Rivera, the Court
suspended respondent Rivera from the
practice of law for three years for violation
of Canon 1, Â Canon 7 , Canon 16, Â Rule
16.01, Â Canon 17 Â and Rule 18.04 Â of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. The
suspension is effective upon finality of the
decision, the SC said through Atty.
Theodore Te.
In Macarilay v. Seriña, this Court held that
"[t]he unjustified withholding of funds
belonging to the client warrants the
imposition of disciplinary action against the
lawyer." By absconding with the money
entrusted to him by his client and behaving
in a manner not befitting a member of the
bar, respondent violated the following
Canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility:
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the
constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and for legal
processes.
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.
CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all
moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession.
Rule 16.01. - A lawyer shall account for all
money or property collected or received for
or from the client.
CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the
cause of his client and he shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him.
CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client
with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03. - A lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable.
Rule 18.04. - A lawyer shall keep his client
informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the
clients request for information.
As his client's advocate, a lawyer is duty-
bound to protect his client's interests and the
degree of service expected of him in this
capacity is his "entire devotion to the
interest of the client, warm zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his rights and
the exertion of his utmost learning and
ability." The lawyer also has a fiduciary
duty, with the lawyer-client relationship
imbued with utmost trust and confidence.
Respondent failed to serve his client with
fidelity, competence, and diligence. He not
only neglected the attorney-client
relationship established between them; he
also acted in a reprehensible manner towards
complainant, i.e., cussing and threatening
complainant and his family with bodily
harm, hiding from complainant, and
refusing without reason to return the money
entrusted to him for the processing of the
work permit. Respondent's behavior
demonstrates his lack of integrity and moral
soundness.
Rivera was also ordered to return the
amount of P28,000 to the complainant.
The complainant had alleged that he went to
Rivera for help in his application for a work
permit but despite paying him a total of
P28,000, the lawyer was not able to deliver
any results.
The SC said that of the total amount of
P28,000, P8,000 was sought by respondent
supposedly for another case of complainant
and to facilitate the same through payment
of the judge.
The IBP Committee on Bar Discipline
recommended, after investigation, a
suspension from the practice of law for two
years for Rivera, who did not answer the
complaint.
The IBP Board of Governors recommended
disbarment but the SC said three years'
suspension is consistent with other cases of
similar nature and circumstances.
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.
Rule 2.01 – A lawyer shall not reject,
except for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed.
Rule 2.02 – In such a case, even if a
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 latter’s rights.
Rule 2.03 – a lawyer shall not do or
permit to be done any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business.
 Primary characteristics which
distinguish the legal profession from
business;
1. duty of service, of which the
emolument is a by-product, and in
which one may attain the highest
eminence without making such
money;
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 with their clients.
Rule on Advertisements
 General Rule: No advertisements
allowed. The most worthy and
effective advertisement possible is the
establishment of a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity
and fidelity to trust.
Lawyers may not advertise their services or
expertise nor should not resort to indirect
advertisements for professional employment,
such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper
comments, or procuring his photograph to
be published in connection with causes in
which the lawyer has been engaged or
concerning the manner of their conduct, the
magnitude of the interest involved, the
importance of the lawyer’s position, and all
other self-laudation.
 Exceptions/Permissible
advertisements:
1. Reputable law lists, in a manner
consistent with the standards of
conduct imposed by the canons, of
brief biographical and informative
data, are allowed.
2. Ordinary simple professional Card. It
may contain only a statement of his
name, the name of the law firm which
he is connected with, address,
telephone number and the special
branch of law practiced.
3. 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.
 4. Advertisements or simple
announcement of the existence of a
lawyer or his law firm posted
anywhere it is proper such as his place
of business or residence except
courtrooms and government buildings.
5. Advertisements or announcement in
any legal publication, including
books, journals, and legal magazines.
Rule 2.04 – A lawyer shall not charge
rates lower than those customarily or
prescribed, unless circumstances so
warrant.
 A lawyer cannot delay the approval of
a compromise agreement entered into
between parties, just because his
attorney’s fees were not provided for
in the agreement.
 Rule: A lawyer cannot compromise
the case without client’s consent
(special authority).
Exception: Lawyer has exclusive
management of the procedural aspect
of the litigation (e.g. Submission for
decision on the evidence so far
presented. But in case where lawyer is
confronted with an emergency and
prompt/urgent action is necessary to
protect clients interest and there’s no
opportunity for consultation, the
lawyer may compromise.
 Rule: Refrain from charging rates
lower than the customary rates.
Relative case:
KHAN, JR. v. SIMBILLO
(A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003)
FACTS: Respondent Atty. Rizalino
Simbillo had his legal services published in
the July 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine
Daily Inquirer, which reads ―Annulment of
Marriage Specialist‖. A staff member of the
Public Information Office of the Supreme
Court pretended to be an interested party
and she spoke to Mrs. Simbillo. The latter
claimed that her husband was an expert in
handling annulment cases and can guarantee
a court decree within four to six months. She
also added that her husband charges a fee of
P48, 000 for the said service. Office of the
Court Administrator and the Public
Information Office revealed that similar
advertisements were published in the August
2000 issues of Manila Bulletin and
Philippine Star. Thus, petitioner Atty. Ismael
Khan, Jr., Assistant Court Administrator and
Chief of the Public Information Office, filed
an administrative complaint against Atty.
Simbillo for violation of the following 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,
Sec. 27 of the Rules of Court.
Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by
Supreme Court, grounds therefore.
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. This case
was referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and found the respondent guilty.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Rizalino
Simbillo is guilty of violating Rule 2.03 and
Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility as well as Rule 138, Section
27 of the Rules of Court?
HELD: Respondent was found guilty and
was suspended from the practice of law for a
year. The practice of law is not a business
but a public duty. Money will only be a
secondary consideration in such profession.
Respondent also referred to himself as a
―Annulment of Marriage Specialist which
undermined the sanctity of marriage and
encourage people to go for marriage
dissolutions. This would defeat the purpose
of laws protecting marriage bonds.
Moreover, there were elements provided that
can distinguish the legal profession from
business. These are the following:
1. A duty of public service
2. A relation as an officer of the 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.
CANON 3 – A lawyer in making known
in legal services shall use only true,
honest, fair, dignified and objective
information or statement of facts.
Rule 3.01 – A lawyer shall not use or
permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-
auditory or unfair statement or claim
regarding his qualifications or legal
services.
 Violation of Rule 3.01 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
communication that said partner is
deceased.
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.
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.
 It is unethical to use the name of a
foreign firm.
 Death of a partner does not extinguish
attorney-client relationship with the
law firm.
 Negligence of a member in the law
firm is negligence of the firm.
Relative case:
LINSANGAN v. TOLENTINO
(A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009)
FACTS: A complaint for disbarment is filed
by Pedro Linsangan against Atty.
Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of
clients and encroachment of professional
services. The complainant alleged that
respondent convinced his clients to transfer
legal representation by promising them
financial assistance. The allegations of the
complainant were supported by the sworn
affidavit of
James Gregorio who attested to the
respondent’s acts of trying to lure him to
sever his lawyer
-client relationship with complainant
Linsangan. An attached calling card of the
respondent
further supported the complaint which
advertised the respondent’s law firm with
the term ―w/financial assistance.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent’s acts are
violative of Canon 3 of the Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility.
HELD: Yes, Canon 3 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility states
that ― A lawyer making
known his legal services shall use only true,
honest, fair, dignified and objective
information or
statements of facts. The practice of law is a
profession and not a business. Lawyers
should not advertise their talents as
merchants advertise their wares. The act of
the respondent in including
the phrase ―with financial assistance in his
calling card is a conduct of advertising the
legal
profession with commercialism and with the
purpose of enticing clients to change
counsels through the promise of loans to
finance their legal action. A lawyer need not
to advertise the
legal profession in such a manner similar to
commercial businesses, a lawyer’s best
advertisement is a well-merited reputation
for professional capacity and fidelity to trust
based on his character and conduct and not
through promises of money.
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.
 Examples: Presenting 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.
Relative case:
CORDOVA v. LABAYEN
(A.M. No. RTJ-93-1033, October 10, 1995)
FACTS: On March 5, 1993, the Municipal
Trial Court (branch II) of Batangas City
rendered judgment for petitioners with respe
ct to ordering the ejectment of private respo
ndents and ordering them to pay monthly
rentals of P50,000.00 starting April 7, 1992
until they shall have vacated the lots and
surrendered their possession to petitioners
and the sum of P20,000.00 as attorney's
fees. On March 29, 1993, petitioners moved
for the execution of the decision in their
favor, alleging that although private
respondents had filed a notice of appeal, the
latter had not filed a supersede as bond nor
make a deposit every month of the
reasonable value of the use and occupation
of the properties as required by Rule 70, sec.
8.Private respondents opposed the motion,
claiming that they are co-owners of the lots
from which they were ordered to be ejected
and that to grant immediate execution of the
decision would render their appeal moot and
academic.
ISSUE: Whether there was a late filing of
Supersede as Bond.
HELD: The petition is not meritorious. As a
general rule, a judgment in favor of the
plaintiff in an ejectment suit is immediately
executory, in order to prevent further
damage to him arising from the loss of
possession of the property in question. The
motion for execution was filed eighteen days
from the date the petitioners received a copy
of the MTC's decision, after the appeal had
already been perfected. Because no
supersede as bond had been filed within the
period for appeal, a writ of execution should
have been issued as a matter of right.
Petitioners manifestly failed to adduce a
compelling reason to justify a departure
from the afore cited rule. Lawyers as
officers of the court must assist in the
administration of justice.
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 students and assist in
disseminating information regarding the
law and jurisprudence.
Objectives of integration of the Bar
 To elevate the standards of the legal
profession
 To improve the administration of
justice
 To enable the Bar to discharge its
responsibility more effectively.
The three-fold obligation of a lawyer
 First, he owes it to himself to continue
improving his knowledge of the laws;
 Second, he owes it to his profession to
take an active interest in the
maintenance of high standards of legal
education;
 Third, he owes it to the lay public to
make the law a part of their social
consciousness.
Relative case:
DE ROY v. COURT OF APPEALS
(G.R. No. 80718, January 29, 1988)
FACTS:
The firewall of a burned out building owned
by petitioners collapsed and destroyed the
tailoring shop occupied by the family of the
private respondents resulting in injuries to
private respondents had been warned by
petitioners to vacate their shop in view of its
proximity to the weakened wall but the
former failed to do. In the RTC, petitioners
were found guilty of gross negligence. On
the last day of the 15 days period to file an
appeal, petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration which was again denied.
The Supreme Court finds that Court of
Appeal did not commit a grave abuse of
discretion when it denied petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration. It correctly applied the
rule laid down in Habulaya’s vs. Japzon.
Counsel for petitioner contends
that the said case should not be applied non-
publication in the Official Gazette.
ISSUE: Whether or not Supreme Court
decisions must be published in the Official
Gazette before they can be binding.
HELD: There is no law requiring the
publication of Supreme Court decision in the
Official Gazette before they can be binding
and as a condition to their becoming
effective. It is bound in duty of counsel as
lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast
of decisions of the Supreme Court as
embedded in Canon 5 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly
where issues have been clarified,
consistently reiterated and published in the
advance reports of Supreme Court decisions
and in such publications as the SCRA and
law journals.
CANON 6 – These canons shall apply to
lawyers in government service in the
discharge of their official tasks.
 The law requires the observance of the
following norms of conduct by every
public official in the discharge and
execution of their official duties:
1. commitment to public interest
2. professionalism
3. justness and sincerity
4. political neutrality
5. responsiveness to the public
6. nationalism and patriotism
7. commitment to democracy
8. simple living (Sec. 4, RA 6713)
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 of disciplinary
action.
Rule 6.02 – A lawyer in the government
service shall not use his public position to
promote or advance his private interest,
nor allow the latter to interfere with his
public duties.
Rule 6.03 – A lawyer shall not, after
leaving government service, accept
engagements or employment in
connection with any matter in which he
had intervened while in said service.
 Various ways a government lawyer
leaves government service:
1. retirement
2. resignation
3. expiration of the term of office
4. dismissal
5. abandonment
Relative case:
Re: Resolution Of The Court Dated 1 June
2004 In G.R. No. 72954 Against Atty.
Avecilla
(A.C. No. 6683, July 21, 2011)
FACTS: After the resolution of a petition
questioning the constitutionality of B.P. 883,
Supreme Court through its JRO took
custody of such rollo (where herein
respondent Avecilla was involved). Now, in
order to check on the management of the
Judicial Development Fund, herein
respondent Atty. Avecilla made a claim as
through the abovementioned rollo. When the
Supreme Court asked the JRO to inquire, the
said rollo was missing. Later on, such
whereabouts where found with Atty.
Avecilla, having custody through his legal
work with a retired Supreme Court Justice.
Through the report and recommendation of
the Office of the Chief Attorney (OCAT), it
was found out that such rollo was used for a
personal agenda (and only returned after 12
years),but borrowed through a certain Atty.
Banzon, another then legal researcher with
the same abovementioned Justice. However,
respondent Atty. Avecilla asserted that such
was not through his fault and only found out
that it was with him when he was contacted
to for retrieval. The Office of the Bar
Confidant (OBC), for its report and
recommendation, agreed with the OCAT,
making Atty. Avecilla liable.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Atty.
Avecilla be held administratively liable.

HELD: SUSPENDED. According to Rule

6.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, ―a lawyer in the
government service shall not use his public
position to promote or advance his
private interests. Being a court employee,
they should not to take any court records,
papers or documents outside the court
premises. Also, the act of the respondent in
borrowing a rollo for unofficial business
entailed the employment of deceit not
becoming a member of the bar.
What does Rollo mean do not continue the pagination of the
previous volume, include the volume
on case citations? number after the word “rollo.” Example:
Ad by Atlassian
 Rollo, Vol. 3, p. 21.
4. In consolidated cases, the word rollo
What are the new feature in Jira should be followed by the docket
number enclosed in parentheses.
Software Cloud? Example:

There are awesome features in the new  Rollo (G.R. No. 123456), p. 21.
And that is everything I know about
Jira project experience! Learn and share rollo.
your opinion!

Learn more at community.atlassian.com

Sean Gleeson, studied at Loyola University

Chicago (1990)
Answered Feb 25 2017 · Author
has 117 answers and 115.6k answer vie
I had never heard of ‘Rollo’ in a case
citation. But here’s what I was able to
learn just now.

A ‘rollo’ is a kind of court record in the

Philippines. I know this because I saw it
all over the footnotes in Philippines
court decisions.

I even found a Philippine “Manual of

Judicial Writing” that tells you exactly
how to write your rollo citations. Here is
what it says:

2.2.3. ROLLO & OTHER COURT

RECORDS

A. Rollo

1. Capitalize the word “rollo” only at the

beginning of a citation or a sentence.

2. Cite the rollo in the footnote as

follows: the word “rollo” when referring
to the Supreme Court rollo, or “CA rollo”
for the Court of Appeals rollo ,
“Sandiganbayan rollo” for the
Sandiganbayan rollo, and “CTA rollo”
for the Court of Tax Appeals rollo;
followed by the page number. Examples:

 Rollo, p. 21.
CA rollo, pp. 109-122.
Sandiganbayan rollo, p. 9.
CTA rollo, p. 10.
3. If there are two or more rollo
volumes, and the subsequent volumes