Ethics Up Reviewer

THE LEGAL
PROFESSION
Introduction
STATE
REGULATION
OF
THE
LEGAL
PROFESSION (BY THE SC AND CONGRESS)
In re Cunanan (1954)
RA 972, or the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953, was
declared
partially
unconstitutional
as
it
encroached upon the powers granted by the
Constitution to the SC in determining the
admission of bar examinees to the bar by
usurping such power through a legislative act.
WHAT CONSTITUTES THE PRACTICE OF LAW

NOTES
(Agpalo)
Practice of law: legal advice and

instructions to clients to inform them of their
rights and obligations; preparation for clients
of documents, requiring knowledge of legal
principles not possessed by ordinary layman;
appearance for clients before public tribunals
which possess power and authority to
determine rights of life, liberty and property
according to law in order to assist in the
proper interpretation and enforcement of law
Cayetano v Monsod (Padilla dissent):

practice of laws 4 elements:
1.habituality
2.compensation
3.application of law, legal principles, practice
or procedure
4.attorney-client relationship
The practice of law is a mere privilege.

Conferred only for merit, earned by hard
study, learning and good conduct. But in a
sense a right: not lightly or capriciously
restricted
Not practice of law: writing law books/

legal articles, teaching
Const art. VIII, sec. 5(5).

The SC shall have the following powers:
(5) Promulgate rules concerning practice and
procedure in all courts, the admission into the
practice of law, the Integrated Bar.
Const art. XII, sec. 14.

The practice of all professions in the Phils shall
be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases
prescribed by law.
In the Matter of the IBP (1973)

The power to integrate the Philippine bar is given
to the SC by the Constitution. RA 6397 is a
mere legislative declaration that the integration
of the bar will promote public interest.
The unification of the bar is Constitutional.
(1)
It does not impinge upon freedom of
association because it does not make the lawyer
part of any group of which he is not already a
member and simply provides an official
organization for the well-defined but unorganized
and incohesive group of which every lawyer is
already a member.
(2) The IBPs fees are inherent in the power to
regulate the Bar. They are a proper exercise of
police power.
(3) Freedom of speech is not impaired because
the exaction of fees is a valid exercise of the SCs
regulatory powers.
Integration of the bar was found to be called for
at the time (1973) because of the beneficial
experience foreign jurisdictions upon such
integration and because of the overwhelming
national demand of Filipino lawyers made evident
in by official statistics.
Ulep v Legal Clinic, Inc (1993)

The Legal Clinic was enjoined from issuing
advertisements representing itself as practicing
law as the Clinic was not properly a legal firm.
Practice of law was defined as any activity, in or
out of court, which requires the application of
law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and
experience.
The advertisements regarding secrete marriages,
divorce, annulment, absence, and visa were
[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures]
[Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law]
[Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law]
[Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
understood to be representing the legal clinic as

tendering legal advise to clients.
The Court
could not believe that information was simply
provided and that the clinic did not engage in
advisory or diagnostic services.
Cayetano v. Monsod (1991)

F:
The SC held that Monsod satisfied the
qualification of 10 year practice of law demanded
by the position of COMELEC chairperson to which
he had been nominated because practice of law
means any activity, in or out of the court, which
requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience.
Monsod
had worked as an economist, had been the CEO
of a bank and had been a member of the
ConCom 0f 1986, all activities which constituted
practice of law.
H:
Practice of law means any activity, in or
out of court, which requires the application of
law, legal procedure, knowledge and training and
experience. It 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.
Monsod after passing the bar, worked in his
fathers firm for 1 year, then worked as an
operations officer in the World Bank Group, then
a chief executive officer with the Meralco Group,
then a legal and economic consultant, then a
National Chairman for NAMFREL, member of the
Davide Commission and a member of the
Constitutional Commission.
Interpreted in the light of the various definitions
of the term practice of law, particularly the
modern concept of law practice, and taking into
consideration the liberal construction intended by
the framers of the constitution, Atty. Monsods
past work experience as a lawyer-economist,
lawyer-manager,
lawyer-entrepreneur
of
industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a
lawyer-legislator verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement.
Padilla, Dissenting
Practice
of
law-exercise
or
pursue
an
employment or profession, actively, habitually,
repeatedly or customarily. There must be
continuity or a succession of acts.
Commission on Appointments several factors to
determine practice of law:
(1) Habituality -customarily or frequently holding
ones self out to the public as a lawyer
(2) Compensation- his professional services are
available to the public for compensation, as a
service of his livelihood or in consideration of his

said service.
(3) Application of law, legal principles, practice,
or procedure-calls for legal knowledge, training
and experience.
(4) Attorney-client relationship- hence, teaching
law or writing law books are not considered a
practice of law.
Monsod did not perform any of the tasks which
constitute the practice of law HABITUALLY for at
least 10 years prior to his appointment. Petition
GRANTED
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION

TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW
IN A NUTSHELL
Requirements
1. Citizenship
2. Residence
3. 21 years of age
4. good moral character
5. no charges against him involving moral
turpitude
6. Legal Education
a. Pre-Law
b. Law Proper
7. Bar Examination
8. Lawyers Oath
Rule 138, sec. 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.
LEGAL EDUCATION
1.
PRE-LAW
Rule 138, sec. 6.

Pre-Law.No
applicant for admission to the bar examination
shall be admitted unless he present a certificate
that he has satisfied the Sec. of Education that,
he began the study of law, he had pursued and
satisfactorily complete 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 bachelors 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.
In re Telesforo Diao (1963)

The SC ordered the Clerk to strike Diaos name
from the roll of attorneys as he was not qualified
to take the bar exams due to his false
representations.
He started studying law six
months before obtaining his arts degree.
citizen of the US in 1993. Likewise, his petition to

continue handling cases in his private practice of
law. Only Filipino citizens may practice law in the
Philippine. This requirement is prescribed by the
Constitution, XII 14, and the RoC, 2 Rule 138.
Ratio: Since one of the solemn duties of an
attorney is to maintain allegiance to the RP and
to support the Constitution and obey the laws of
the Phils (20(a) Rule 138 RoC), it follows that a
Filipino citizen admitted to the Phil Bar must
maintain such citizenship to remain qualified for
the practice of law in this country.
BAR EXAMINATION
2. LAW PROPER
Rule 138, sec. 5.

Additional
Requirements
for
other
applicants.All
applicants for admissionshall, before being
admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show
that they have regularly studied law for four
years, and successfully complete all prescribed
courses, in a law school or university, officially
approved and recognized by the Sec. 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 course 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.
CITIZENSHIP
Const. art. XII, sec. 14.

The
practice of all professions in the Philippines shall
be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases
prescribed by law.
In re Arturo Castillo Reyes (1993)

Petitioners name was struck from the roll of
attorneys due to the following facts: graduated
from UP College of Law in 1939; passed the bar
in 1939; inducted to and served in the US Armed
Forces in the Far east during WWII and thus
became eligible for citizenship under the 1990
US Immigration Act; became a naturalized
Rule 138, Sec. 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 15 days before the beginning of the
examination. If not embraced within sections 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.
Rule 138, sec. 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 10 days
before the beginning of the examination.
Rule 138, sec. 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 Pleading and
Conveyancing).
Rule 138, sec. 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 examiners 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.
Rule 138, sec. 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 designated by the chairman of the
committee on bar examiners. The subjects shall
be distributed as follows:
1st day: Political
and
International
Law
(morning) and
Labor
and
Social
Legislation
(afternoon);
2nd day: Civil Law (morning) and
Taxation (afternoon);
3rd day: Mercantile Law (morning) and
Criminal Law (afternoon);
4th day: Remedial Law (morning) and
Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises
(afternoon).
Rule 138, Sec. 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.
Rule 138, Sec. 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 provision, or any other provision of
this rule, shall be barred from the examination,
and the same to count as a failure against him,
and
further
disciplinary
action,
including
permanent disqualification, may be taken in the
discretion of the court.
Rule 138, Sec. 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 % in all subjects, without falling
below 50 % in any subject. In determining the
average, the subjects in the examination shall be
given the following relative weights: Civil Law, 15
%; Labor and Social Legislation, 10 %;
Mercantile Law, 15 %; Criminal Law; 10 %;
Political and International Law, 15 %; Taxation,
10 %; Remedial Law, 20 %; Legal Ethics and
Practical Exercises, 5 %.
Rule 138, sec. 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 reports on the result of
such examination. The examination papers and
notes of the committee shall be fixed with the
clerk and may there be examined by the parties
in interest, after the court has approved the
report.
Rule 138, Sec. 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 to 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.
In re Adriano Hernandez (1993)

The SC allowed Hernandez to take the 1993 Bar
Exams of the Phil despite having graduated from
the Columbia Law School and having passed the
bar exam in the State of New York. He had
taken review classes in the Ateneo de Manila Law
School.
The SC, however, pointed out that beginning
1994, graduates of foreign law school would not
be allowed to take the bar. An applicant should

study law in a local school and follow the

requirements of 5-6 Rule 138, RoC.
In re Amparo (1975)
Amparo was caught reading piece of paper inside
the examination room in the course of the 1974
bar exam in criminal law. He admitted having in
his possession the paper that carried the table of
penalties explaining that the paper fell from his
pocket when he took his handkerchief from his
pocket to wipe his perspiration.
He was found guilty of bringing notes into the
examination room in violation of 10 Rule 138
RoC and of attempted cheating. As he failed the
exam that year he was disqualified from taking
the 1975 bar exam.
ANY CRIMINAL CASE

NOTES
(Agpalo)
an applicant must show that no charges

against him involving moral turpitude, have
been filed or pending in court in the
Philippines
the concealment or withholding from the

court of the fact that an applicant has been
charged with or indicted for an alleged crime
is a ground for disqualification
a lawyers name may not be stricken off

from the roll of attorneys by reason of
alienage, non-completion of the prescribed
course of study or bad moral character in the
absence of clearly preponderant evidence
that he did not, in fact, possess the
necessary qualifications at the time of his
admission.
GOOD MORAL CHARACTER

NOTES
(Agpalo)
Good Moral Character
No definition and criteria in law for good

moral character
Moral character is what a person really is

(corresponds to objective reality) while good
reputation
is
the
opinion
generally
entertained of him, the estimate in which he
is held by the public in the place where he is
known (subjective).
Not enough that conduct merely enables a

person to escape the penalty of criminal law.
Justice Felix Frankfurter: moral character =

qualities of truth-speaking, a high sense of
honor, full candor, intellectual honesty, and
the
strictest
observance
of
fiduciary
responsibility
Good moral character is the absence of a

proven conduct or act which has been
historically and traditionally considered as a
manifestation of moral turpitude. The act or
conduct showing moral turpitude need not
amount to a crime; and even if it does
constitute an offense, a conviction upon a
criminal charge is not necessary to
demonstrate bad moral character although it
may show moral depravity.
DISCLOSURE OF INVOLVEMENT IN
No charges involving moral turpitude are filed

against him/her or pending in court
Question of moral turpitude is for SC to

decide. Which is why applicants are required
to disclose any crime which they have been
charged. Concealment or withholding from
the court information about charges and
indictments is a ground for disqualification of
applicant or for revocation of license. Even if
the crime concealed does not involve moral
turpitude, the act of concealment makes
him/her unfit to be a lawyer.
Applicant assumes burden of proof to

establish qualifications in asking admission.
But after having presente prima facie
evidence, burden to overcome the prima
facie showing shifts to those objecting
his/her admission.
That the bar examination committee has

passed upon the applicants qualification will
not preclude judicial inquiry on the same
question raised in disbarment.
Lawyers name may not be stricken off the

roll of attorneys by reason of
(1) alienage,
(2) non-completion of the prescribed course of
study or
(3) bad moral character in the absence of clearly
preponderant evidence that he did not possess
necessary qualifications at the time of admission.
Burden of proofcomplainant.
In re Al Argosino (1997)

Al Argosino passed the 1993 bar examination.

His oath taking was deferred due to his previous
conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to
Homicide for the death of a neophyte during
fraternity initiation in which he was one of the
initiators. To prove that he was of good moral
character, he presented 15 certifications of such
and also submitted that he and his co-accused
had established in cooperation with the victims
family, a scholarship foundation in honor of the
hazing victim.
The SC granted Argosinos
petition.
LAWYERS OATH
I _____ , do solemnly swear that I will maintain
allegiance to the RP: I will support and defend 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 its
commission; 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
not delay any mans cause 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 will impose upon myself this obligation
voluntarily, without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion. So help me God.
WHO ELSE MAY PRACTICE LAW
General Rule: Only Members of the Bar
Rule 138, Sec 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.
Exception 1: Law Student Practice Rule
Rule 138-AANNEXED
Exception 2: Agent
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Metropolitan/ Municipal Trial Court: one may

be represented by an agent: In such cases,
no attorney-client relationship exists; not

habitual; locality where licensed member of
bar is not available; person/resident of good
repute for probity and ability to aid
defendant; NOT IN ANY OTHER COURT
Supreme Court can validly authorise

layman to represent litigant in court
Question: Can legislature can permit by law

a layman to appear on anothers behalf in
court or administrative tribunals. Yes, in
cadastral courts, NLRC ok; otherwise NO
3 limitations:
1. layman should confine work to nonadversarial contentions
2. not habitually rendered
3. not charge for payment
Exception 3: Litigation by Party
Rule 138, Sec. 34. By whom litigation

conducted.In the court of a justice of the peace
(now, MTC) 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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Necessity of representation by counsel
In a democratic and civilized country where

the rights of a person are determined in
accordance with established rules, the
employment of a person acquainted with
those rules becomes a necessity both to the
litigants and to the Court. A party litigant
needs the assistance of counsel in all
proceedings, administrative, civil or criminal.
When appearance by counsel not obligatory
1. In a Municipal Trial Court, a party may
conduct his litigation in person or with the
aid of a friend appointed by him for that
purpose or with an aid of an attorney.
2.
In the RTC and Appellate Courts, a party in a

civil suit may conduct his litigation either
personally or by attorney unless the party is
a juridical person.
3. And even if he has chosen to appear by

counsel, he may at any time dispense with the

services of his lawyer and prosecute or defend

his case personally.
Waiver to right of counsel in criminal proceedings
The right to counsel of an accused is

absolute or immutable. HOWEVER, his option
to secure the services of counsel de parte is
not absolute. The trial court may restrict his
option to retain a counsel de parte if a) the
accused insists on an attorney he cannot
afford b) chosen counsel is not a lawyer or c)
the attorney declines to represent the
accused for a valid reason, in which case the
trial court can appoint his counsel de oficio
to represent him. Sec 1 (c) of Rule 115
provides that an accused may waive his right
to counsel but if he cannot protect his rights
without the assistance of a counsel, the
Court should advise him to secure a counsel
de parte or appoint a counsel de officio to
represent him.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Canons and 77 Rules, which are divided into

4 chapters namely:
The Law and Society;
The Lawyer and the Legal Profession;
The Lawyer and the Courts; and
The Lawyer and the Clients.
The Code is binding upon all lawyers and
failure to live up to any of its provision is a
ground for disciplinary action.
Nature of Office of Attorney
The title attorney is reserved to those who,

having obtained the necessary degree in the
study of law, and passed the bar
examinations, have been admitted to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain
members thereof of good standing; and it is
they only who are authorized to practice law
in the Philippines.
An attorney is more than a mere agent

because
a) he possesses special powers of trust and
confidence reposed in him by his client
CODE OF
PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
b) he is as independent as the judge

c) his powers are entirely different and far
superior to those of an ordinary agent.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
History of the Development of Ethical
Standards for Lawyers
13th and 14th century: Requirement of the

lawyers oath and the statement of his duties
1917: The Philippine Bar adopted, as its

own, Canons 1 to 32 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics of the American Bar
Association. 1946: It again adopted, as its
own, Canons 33 to 47 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics of the American Bar
Association
1980: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines
adopted a proposed Code of Professional
Responsibility which it later submitted to the
Supreme Court for approval
June 21, 1988: The Supreme Court
promulgated the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
The Code consists of 22
He is a public officer although he is not an

officer in the constitutional or statutory
meaning of the term. He occupies a quasijudicial office because he is in fact an officer
of the court and thus, is subject to the
disciplinary authority of the court and to its
orders and directives with respect to his
relation to the court as well as to his client.
Privileges of attorney
A lawyer has the privilege and right to
practice law during good behavior before any
judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative
tribunal.
-
An attorney enjoys the presumption of

regularity in the discharge of his duty. (i.e.
He is immune, in the performance of his
obligation to his client, from liability to a
third person insofar as he does not
materially depart from his character as a
quasi-judicial officer.)
There are also privileges inherent in his

status as a quasi-judicial officer. (i.e. the law
makes his passing the bar examination

equivalent to a first grade or second grade

civil service eligibility.)
operating as a trusted agent of his

client), and personal obligations (an
attorney operating as a self-employed
businessman).
Duties of Office
Rule 138,
sec.
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.
Note:
The duties of an attorney may be

classified into those, which he owes to
the court, to the public, to the bar and
to his client.
The duties may also be classified into

public (operating as a faithful assistant
of the court in search of a just solution
to disputes), private (an attorney
The rules and ethics of the legal

profession demand that an attorney
subordinate his personal and private
duties to those, which he owes, to the
court and to the public. His obligation to
his client, in turn, takes precedence over
his duties to himself.
Chapter 1
The Lawyer and Society
CANON 1
PROMOTE &
PROCESSES
RESPECT
LAW
&
LEGAL
In General
Canon 1.
A lawyer shall uphold
the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal process.
Rule 1.01.
A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Rule 1.02.
A lawyer shall not counsel or
abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal profession.
Rule 1.03.
A lawyer shall not, for any
corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
delay any mans cause.
Rule 1.04.
A lawyer shall encourage his
clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it
will admit of a fair settlement.
Zaldivar v. Gonzales (1988)

F: The SC indefinitely suspended Tanodbayan
Raul Gonzales form the practice of law upon a
finding that he was guilty of contempt of court
and of gross misconduct as an officer of the
court and member of the Bar. Gonzales filed a
motion for reconsideration which made the
following statements, which were unrelated to
legal issue: that he was twice approached by a
leading member of SC to go slow on the
accused and not to be too hard; that he was
approached
and
asked
to
refrain
from
investigating the COA reports on illegal

disbursements in the SC; that he was called over

the phone several times by a leading member of
SC and was asked to dismiss cases against two
members of SC. The Court held that:
H: The SC has plenary disciplinary authority over
attorneys. This authority stems from the Courts
constitutional mandate to regulate admission to
the practice of law, which includes authority to
regulate the practice of law. It is also an inherent
power incidental to the proper administration of
justice and essential to an orderly discharge of
judicial functions. Moreover, the SC has power to
punish for contempt anyone connected with a
case at bar to protect it from improper
interference with due administration of justice.
This is not dependent upon the complaint of any
of the parties.
The power to punish for contempt and power to
discipline attorneys are two inherent powers of
the Court. With respect to lawyers, the
disciplinary powers of SC is broader in scope
than the power to punish for contempt since it
may cover any misconduct other than contempt.
The power to punish for contempt however may
apply to both lawyers and non-lawyers.
Although the Court, in deciding Gonzales case,
may act as offended party, prosecutor and
arbiter at the same time, it is exercising its
powers. As held in In Re Almacen, disciplinary
proceedings are sui generis (one of its kind). It is
neither purely civil nor purely criminal since it is
an investigation as to whether the attorney is
still fit to be allowed the privilege as such. Public
interest is its primary objective.
On Gonzales principal defense of freedom of
speech: Freedom of expression and of speech is
not absolute and needs an occasion to be
adjusted to and accommodated with the
requirements of equally important public
interestsone of which is the maintenance of the
integrity and orderly functioning of the
administration of justice. There is no antimony
between free expression and the integrity of the
system of administering justice. Both are
indispensable to a free society. However, a
lawyers right of free expression may have to be
more limited than that of a layman. Moreover, as
special prosecutor, he owes duties of fidelity and
respect to RP and SC more than a private lawyer.
Besides, the nature and manner of Gonzales
criticism exceeded the bounds of decency and
propriety.
RULE 1.01
NO UNLAWFUL, DISHONEST, IMMORAL OR
DECEITFUL CONDUCT
Rule 1.01.
engage in unlawful,
deceitful conduct.
A lawyer shall not

dishonest, immoral or
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Unlawful conduct
act or omission which is against the law

Dishonest act
act of lying or cheating

Immoral or deceitful conduct
one that involves moral turpitude.

Gross immorality
A grossly immoral act is 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. (ex.
Adultery)
Mere intimacy between a man and a woman,

either of whom possesses no legal
impediment to marry, voluntarily carried on
and devoid of any deceit on the part of the
lawyer, is neither so corrupt nor unprincipled
as to warrant imposition of disciplinary
sanction, even if the woman gives birth to a
child, so long as he admits paternity.
Disowning child or refusing to support it may
be ground for disciplinary action.
Cohabitation per se is not immoral,

depending on surrounding circumstances.
The question as to whether an act is so

unprincipled or so disgraceful as to be
reprehensible to a high degree presents a
more difficult problem for the answer may,
to some extent, depend upon the prejudice,
caprice and bias of the court and the general
concept of morality prevailing at the time.
It is not necessary that there be prior

conviction for a lawyers act to be grossly
immoral; it is enough that the act charged,
in the language of the law, constitute a
crime.
Even if evidence is not sufficient to hold

lawyer liable for gross immorality, reprimand
may be proper where evidence shows failure
to comply with rigorous standards of conduct
appropriately required from the members of
the Bar and officers of the court. As officers
of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be

of good moral character but must also be

seen to be of good moral character.
Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
Moral turpitude means anything which is

done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty
or good morals, or to any act of vileness,
baseness or depravity in the private and
social duties that a man owes his fellowmen
or to society, contrary to the accepted rule of
right and duty between man and man.
In general, all crimes of which fraud or

deceit is an element or those which are
inherently contrary to rules of right conduct,
honesty or morality in a civilized community
involve moral turpitude.
Fraudulent transactions
Commission of fraud or falsehood show that

the lawyer is unfit to manage the legal
business of others, unworthy of public
confidence and devoid of high sense of
morality and fair dealing expected and
required of a member of the bar. (ex.
misappropriating money, falsifying power of
attorney to collect money, etc...)
(Aguirre)
Immoral Conduct
that which is willful, flagrant or shameless

and which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of the good and respectable
members of the community.
Moral Turpitude
includes any act done contrary to justice,

honesty, modesty or good morals
Conduct
as used in this rule is not limited to conduct

exhibited in connection with the performance
of professional duties.
Barrios v. Martinez (2004)

Violation of BP 22 is a crime involving moral
turpitude. Moral turpitude includes everything
which is done contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty, or good morals. It involves an act of
baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private
duties which a man owed his fellowmen, or to
society in general, contrary to the accepted and
customary rule of right and duty between man
and woman, or conduct contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals. The act of a
lawyer in issuing a check without sufficient funds
to cover the same constitutes such willful
dishonesty and immoral conduct as to undermine

the public confidence in law and lawyers. The
Court also noted that disbarment is not
tantamount to a deprivation of property without
due process of law. The purpose of a proceeding
for disbarment is to protect the administration
of justice by requiring that those who exercise
this important function shall be competent,
honorable and reliable. A proceeding for
disbarment is not in any sense a civil action.
Disciplinary proceedings involve no private
interest and afford no redress for private
grievance. They are prosecuted solely for the
public welfare and for preserving courts of justice
from the official ministrations of persons unfit to
practice them. Furthermore, the Court held took
notice of the fact that it took an inordinate length
of time for the respondent to responding to the
Courts requirement that he submit his Comment
on the original petition to disbar him. He
squandered away 7 years to have his day in
court.
These
acts
constitute
a
willful
disobedience of the lawful orders of the Court,
which under Sec. 27 of Rule 138 is in itself a
cause sufficient for disbarment.
Ui v. Bonifacio (2000)
The SC found that the imprudence of an attorney
who married a man already previously married
(without initially knowing that he was in fact
married but, upon acquiring such knowledge, cut
off all ties with him) did not constitute immoral
conduct sufficient for her disbarment. The Court
emphasized that the practise of law is a privilege
which can be revoked once a lawyer violates his
oath and that the dictates of legal ethics and the
requisite of good moral character in the
admission to the practise of law must be
continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of
the privilege of the practise of law. Furthermore
lawyers, as keepers of public faith, are burdened
with a higher degree of social responsibility and
thus must handle their personal affairs with
grater caution. The respondent was imprudent
in the sense that she should have investigated
the fact that the man with whom she had
relations was married. Nevertheless, the fact
that she distanced herself from him shows that
she displayed no moral indifference. The Ratio
decidendi of the Court is that the requisite of
good moral character in the admission to the
practise of law must be continuous as a
requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of
the practise of law. It is the bounden duty of
lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest
standards of morality.
Sebastian v Calis (1999)

10
Atty. Calis was found guilty of gross misconduct

by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct for deceiving Sebastian that he
could provide her with working travel papers to
the US.
Co v Bernardino (1998)
The SC found Bernardino guilty of violation of
Rule 1.01 of the Code for procuring personal
loans through insinuations of his power as an
influence peddler in the Bureau of Customs, the
issuance of a series of bad checks and the taking
of undue advantage of his position in the
aforementioned government office.
Figueroa v. Barranco (1997)

Atty. Barranco was not disbarred despite the fact
that he had sexual congress with Patricia
Figueroa with whom he begot a child, promised
that he would marry her after he passed the bar
but then married another woman. The Court held
that grossly immoral conduct is 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. Mere intimacy
between a man and a woman, both of whom
possess no impediment to marry, voluntarily
carried on and devoid of any deceit on the part
of the respondent, is neither so corrupt nor so
unprincipled as to warrant the imposition of
disciplinary sanction against him, even if as a
result of such relationship a child is born out of
wedlock. The acts were consensual, as proven by
the years of their amicable and intimate
relations.
Castillo vda Mijares v Villaluz (1997)

SC found Justice Villaluz guilty of deceitful and
grossly immoral conduct for marrying Judge
Castillo despite having previously been married
and then subsequently marrying a third woman.
Fernandez v Grecia (1993)

Atty. Grecia was guilty of violating Canon 1 by
surreptitiously tearing of two pages of medical
records which were evidence in a case he was
handling.
In re Lontok (1992)
Lontok was convicted of bigamy but was issued a
pardon by the Governor General. The SC held
that where disbarrment proceedings depend
solely on a conviction for violation of a statute,
the pardon of the crime for which the attorney
had been convicted bars the

proceeding.
administrative
Lisazo v Amante (1991)

Despite
there
being
not
attorney-client
relationship between Lisazo and Amante, the SC
found Atty. Amante guilty of malpractice and
dishonesty in his profession for failing to return
Lisazos money despite repeated demands.
Bautista v. Gonzales (1990)

The purchase by a lawyer of his clients property
in litigation constitutes a breach of professional
ethics for which a disciplinary action may be
brought against him that he expressly violated
the law prohibiting a lawyer from acquiring his
clients property involved in any litigation in
which he may take part by virtue of his
profession (1491 CC)
By failing to disclose to his client that a land had
already been sold at a public auction prior to the
execution of a land development agreement,
Gonzales failed to live up to the rigorous
standards of ethics of the law profession which
place a premium on honesty and condemn
duplicitous conduct.
By submitting falsified documents wherein 2
signatories were made to appear as having fixed
their signatures, Gonzales acted in willful
disregard of his solemn duty as a lawyer to act at
all times in a manner consistent with the truth.
People v Tuanda (1989)

A conviction for violating a special law, BP 22 for
example, is sufficient ground for finding an
attorney guilty of moral turpitude and thus
subject to administrative proceedings.
Cordova v Cordova (1989)

The reconciliation between the Atty. husband and
his wife who had initiated the administrative
proceedings against him for engaging in an
adulterous and clearly immoral relationship does
not wipe away the misconduct and immoral
behavior.
In re Vailoces (1982)
Plenary pardon does not of itself warrant
reinstatement, evidence of reformation must first
be present. Vailoces was guilty of falsification of
public documents. The President then granted
plenary pardon. The plenary pardon does not
itself warrant reinstatement.
The SC found
however that he had regained the trust of his

11
fellow lawyer and thus was readmitted into the

practice of law.
Arciga v. Maniwang (1981)

The SC found that Atty Maniwang should not be
disbarred despite having engaged in repeated
acts of cohabitation with Arciga which resulted in
the birth of their son and then having married
another woman despite promises that he would
marry Arciga.
In re Gutierrez (1962)
Gonzales was convicted of murder but was then
granted conditional pardon by the President.
When the pardon is conditional and merely
remits the unexecuted portion of the penalty,
administrative
proceedings
cannot
be
automatically barred.
Piatt v Abordo (1933)

Atty. Abordo was duped into buying fake opium.
He sought the help of police authorities to
recover his money (what an idiot!).
As a general rule the SC will not assume
jurisdiction over one of its officers when the
alleged misconduct was performed in his
personal capacity. The exception is the atty. who
will be removed from office for gross misconduct
not connected w/ his professional duties.
RULE 1.02.
NO COUNSELING TO DEFY LAW
Rule 1.02.
A lawyer shall not
counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of
the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
profession.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Rule 1.02 requires that the lawyer should not

promote an organization known to be
violating the law nor assist it in a scheme
which he knows is dishonest. He should not
allow his services to be engaged by an
organization whose member as violating the
law, to defend them when they get caught.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (2003)

The SC indefinitely suspended Atty. Paguia for
making claims that the justices of the Supreme
Court have been participating in partisan political
activity and have prejudged a case that will

assail the legality of an act done by President
Arroyo, that Estrada v Arroyo is a patent
mockery of justice and due process, that 3
justices of Sandiganbayan made their bias
manifest and are impartial against his client.
The Court held that Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility mandates that a
lawyer should observe and maintain the respect
due to the courts and judicial officers, and insist
on similar conduct by others. Paguia, in liberally
imputing sinister and devious motives and
questioning the impartiality, integrity and
authority of the members of the Supreme Court,
succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct and
pervert the dispensation of justice. Rule 13.02
of the Code of Professional Responsibility
prohibits a member of the bar from making
public statements on a case that may tend to
arouse public opinion for or against any party.
With already an earlier admonition, Paguia is
indefinitely suspended for conduct unbecoming
of a lawyer.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court will not
denounce criticism made by anyone against the
Court for, if well founded can truly have
constructive effects in the task of the Court, but
it will not countenance any wrongdoing nor allow
the erosion of our peoples faith in the judicial
system, let alone, by those who have been
privileged by it to practise law in the Philippines.
In re Terell (1903)
Terrel was found guilty of malpractice or gross
misconduct for assisting in the establishment and
acting as counsel for the Centro Bellas Artes
Club, an organization intending to evade the
practice of law.
RULE 1.03
NO TO ENCOURAGING
PROCEEDINGS
LAWSUITS
OR
Rule 1.03.
A lawyer shall not, for
any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any
suit or delay any mans cause.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
To stir up litigation is a crime known as

maintenance at common law.
Among the unprofessional acts that are

prohibited include: volunteering advice to
bring lawsuit (except when ties of blood,
relationship, or trust make it his/her duty to
do so); hunting up defects in titles or other

12
causes of action and informing thereof in

order to be employed to bring suit or collect
judgment, or to breed litigation by seeking
out claims of personal injuries or those
having any other grounds of action in order
to secure them as clients; employing agents
or runners or agents for like purposes;
paying reward (directly or indirectly) to
those who bring or influence in bringing such
cases to his office; rewarding policemen,
court or prison officials, physicians, hospital
attaches or others who may succeed, under
the guise of giving disinterested friendly
advice, in influencing the criminal, the sick
and the injured, the ignorant or others, to
seek
professional
services;
searching
unknown
heirs
and
soliciting
their
employment of him; initiating a meeting of
the members of club and inducing them to
organize and contest legislating under
his/her guidance; purchasing notes to collect
them by litigation at a profit; furnishing
credit reports in expectation of possible
employment; agreeing with a purchase of
future interests to invest therein in
consideration of his services. The purpose of
prohibiting these acts is to prevent
ambulance chasing (solicitation of almost
any kind of legal business by laymen
employed by an attorney for the purpose or
by the attorney himself). Ambulance chasing
is prohibited because it stirs up litigation
with resulting burdens on courts and the
public; supports perjury, the defrauding of
innocent persons by judgments, upon
manufactured causes of actions and the
defrauding of injured persons having proper
causes of action but ignorant of legal rights
and court procedure by means of contracts
which retain exorbitant expenses and by
settlement made for quick returns of fees
against the rights of the injured persons.
Saburnido v. Madrono (2001)

F:
Respondent Madroo was a judge of the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court. Prior to the present
case, Venustiano Saburnido had filed charges of
grave threats and acts unbecoming a member of
the judiciary against Madroo for pointing a
high-powered firearm at him and for allowing
other persons to take confiscated smuggled
goods deposited in his court. Another case was
filed by the assistant provincial prosecutor
against the judge for reducing bail in a criminal
case without notice to the prosecution.
For
these charges, Madroo was dismissed from the
judiciary and his retirement benefits were
forfeited. In retaliation, the former judge filed 4
charges against the spouses namely: serious
irregularity, falsification, evasion thru negligence
and violation of the Omnibus Code. Spouses

Saburnido filed this administrative complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Madroo. They alleged
that respondent has been harassing them by
filing numerous complaints against them as well
as acts of dishonesty.
H:
Atty. Florante Madroo should be not be
disbarred but he does merit a suspension of 1
year. A lawyer may be disciplined for any
conduct, in his professional or private capacity,
that renders him unfit to continue to be an
officer of the court. Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers
to, at all times, uphold the dignity and integrity
of the legal professional. Clearly, Atty. Madroos
act of filing multiple complaints against the
Saburnidos reflects on his unfitness to be a
member of the legal profession. His act evinces
vindictiveness, a decidedly undesirable trait
whether in a lawyer or another individual. The
supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only
in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect
the standing and character of the lawyer as an
officer of the court. Suspension is a sufficient
sanction against respondent. It is not primarily
intended as a punishment but as a means to
protect the public and the legal profession.
RULE 1.04
ENCOURAGE
CLIENT
CONTROVERSY
TO
AVOID
Rule 1.04.
A
lawyer
shall
encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
The function of a lawyer is not only to

conduct litigation but to avoid it where
possible,
by
advising
settlement
or
withholding suit.
He/she must act as
mediator for compromise rather than an
instigator and conflict.
What sometimes
beclouds a lawyers judgment as to what is
best for his client is his/her eye on the
attorneys fees which are often considerably
less when the cause is amicably settled. The
problem of conflict of interests must be
resolved against self-interest.
Castaneda v Ago (1975)

Atty. Luison was found guilty of instigating
controversy and being a predator of conflict for
maneuvering for 14 years to doggedly resist the
execution of the courts decision thru manifold
tactics from one court to another.

13
14
SPECIAL RULES WITH RESPECT TO
NOTARIAL PRACTICE
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice

ANNEXED
Spouses Santuyo v. Hidalgo (2005)

The SC found a notary public negligent in his
duty for allowing office secretaries to perform his
notarial functions, i.e., safekeeping of his notarial
dry seal and notarial register. The Court held that
considering that the responsibility attached to a
notary public is sensitive, respondent should
have been more discreet and cautious in the
execution of his duties as such and should not
have wholly entrusted everything to the
secretaries; otherwise he should not have been
commissioned as notary public.
Sicat v. Ariola (2005)

The SC disbarred Atty. Gregorio Ariola from the
practice of law for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1
by notarizing an SPA purportedly executed by a
certain Benitez at a time when Benitez was
already dead. The Court held that a notary public
should not authenticate documents unless the
persons who signed them are the very same
persons who executed them and personally
appeared before them to attest to the contents
and truth of what are stated therein. (Zaballero
v. Atty. Montalvan) Notarization is not an empty,
meaningless and routinary act. It converts a
private document into a public instrument,
making it admissible in evidence without the
necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity
and due execution.
Nunga v. Viray (1999)

The SC found Victor Nungas acts to sufficiently
constitute grounds for suspension. He acted as a
public notary in a transaction where a house
(owned by a bank to which he was stockholder
and legal counsel) was sold without bidding to
his son and was then mortgaged. The SC found
that he was not licensed as a notary during this
entire time.
Flores v Chua (1999)

The SC found attorney Chua liable for
misconduct (1) for notarizing a document that
had not been signed in his presence then passing
of the document to the signatorys widowed wife
as a legitimate document. (2) Misrepresenting
himself
as
counsel
through
prematurely
publishing a portion of a questionable decision on
appeal.
CANON 2
PROVIDE EFFICIENT
LEGAL SERVICES
AND
CONVENIENT
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
the oppressed.
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 latters rights.
Rule 2.03.
A lawyer shall not do or permit
to be done any act designed to primarily solicit
legal business.
Rule 2.04.
A lawyer shall not charge rates
lower than those customarily prescribed unless
the circumstances so warrant.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
The necessity and the right to legal

representation give rise to the correlative
duty of lawyers to make efficient legal
services conveniently available. A wide gap
between the need for legal services and its
satisfaction exists for two reasons:
(1) poverty and the inability to pay;
(2) ignorance of the need and where to find a
competent and dependable lawyer.
There is also the fear that technicalities of the
law will cause delay and the fear of lawyers who
overcharge
Legal services should be available not only to

those caught up in litigation but those who
need advice to avoid litigation.
RULE 2.01
NOT
TO
REJECT
OR
OPPRESS
DEFENSELESS OR OPPRESSED
THE
Rule 2.01.
A lawyer shall not
reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed.
Sec 1 Art 1 IBP Handbook. Guidelines

Governing the establishment and Operation of

Legal Aid Office. Legal aid is not a matter of

charity. It is a means for the correction of social
imbalance that may and often do lead to
injustice, for which reason it is a public
responsibility of the Bar. The spirit of public
service should, therefore, underlie all legal aid
offices. The same should be administered to
indigent and deserving members of the
community on all cases, matters and situations
in which legal aid may be necessary to forestall
an injustice.
Rule 14.03.
A
lawyer
may
not
refuse to accept representation of an indigent
unless: (a) he is in no position to carry out the
work effectively or competently or (b) he labours
under a conflict of interest between him and the
prospective client or between a present client
and the prospective client
Ledesma v Climaco (1974)

Ledesma, who was appointed Election Registrar
of his municipality was not excused from acting
as counsel in criminal proceedings that had
started that same year. Moreover, to avoid the
frustration of the case, especially such as where
the defendants are indigent, a lawyer may be
required to act as a counsel de oficio. The fact
that his services were rendered without
renumeration should not occasion a diminution of
his zeal.
Most importantly, the Constitution
blessed the accused with the right to be heard by
himself and by counsel.
This manifests the
indispensible role of a lawyer in the defense of
the accused.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
This rule stems from one of the obligations

incident to the status and privileges of a
lawyer which is to represent the poor and
the oppressed in the prosecution of their
claims or the defense of their rights. The
court is empowered to require a lawyer to
render legal service (to designate him/her as
counsel de oficio for an accused if the latter
is unable to employ counsel de parte).
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines through
its Committee on Legal Aid has established
legal aid offices throughout the country. Its
objective is to provide on a nationwide basis
legal services in favor of the poor segment of
society. Their policy is that legal aid is not a
matter of charity. It is a means for the
correction of social imbalance that may and
often do lead to injustice, which makes it a
public responsibility of the Bar.
15
RULE 2
NOT TO REFUSE TO GIVE LEGAL ADVISE
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 latters rights.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
A valid reason to refuse is when the lawyer

is is not in a position to carry out the work
effectively and competently. However he
shall still render legal advice (such as those
pertaining to preliminary steps a person can
take). But he shall refrain from giving legal
advice if the reason for not accepting the
case is that there involves a conflict of
interest (between him and a prospective
client or between a present client and a
prospective client). In the case mentioned
above, rendering legal advice to the
prospective client will establish an attorneyclient relationship between them and this will
constitute a violation of the rule prohibiting a
lawyer
from
representing
conflicting
interests.
RULE 2.03
NO SOLICITATION
Rule 2.03.
A lawyer shall not do or
permit to be done any act designed to primarily
solicit legal business.
Rule 138, sec. 27.

A member of
the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
office as attorney by the SC for any
malpractice. The practice of soliciting cases at
law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
This is a prohibition on professional

flaunting. Examples of such are lawyers who
recommend their employment or the
employment of a partner, associate, or
member of his legal staff to a non-lawyer
who has not sought his legal advice
regarding employment of a lawyer or
lawyers who pay a person or organization to
recommend or secure their employment of a

client; rewards a person or organization for

having made a recommendation that
resulted in his employment by a client.
RULE 2.04
NO RATES OTHER THAN
CUSTOMARILY CHARGED
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Although advertising is not really malum in

se here are some reasons why it is
prohibited: member of honourable profession
primarily for public service; different from
shopkeeper who advertises to have private
gain; commercialises the profession, lowers
public confidence, lessens ability to render
high character of service; involves self-praise
and puffing (conscientious and ethical are at
the mercy of braggarts); assertion of
fraudulent claims, corruption, attacks on
marital stability; may increase lawsuits and
results in needless litigation.
Instead,
lawyers should employ methods compatible
with the traditional dignity and in the
maintenance
of
correct
professional
standards. Best advertising is a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity.
Exceptions to this rule (i.e. advertising

which is either expressly allowed or
necessarily implied by restrictions) are the
following: publication in reputable law list
with brief biographical and other informative
data which may include name, associates,
address, phone numbers, branches of law
practised, birthday, day admitted to the bar,
schools and dates attended, degrees and
distinctions, authorships, teaching positions,
associations, legal fraternities and societies,
references and regularly represented clients
must be published for that purpose; an
ordinary,
simple
professional
card;
publication of simple announcement of
opening of law firm, change of firm;
telephone
directory
(but
not
under
designation of special branch of law); if
acting as an associate (specialising in a
branch of law), may publish a brief and
dignified announcement to lawyers (law list,
law journal); working in a public office
(which can be filled only by a lawyer); full
time position as corporate counsel; if in
media, those acts incidental to his practise
(ie, not his own initiative); write articles for
publication giving information upon the law
(and not individual rights or advising through
column/ TV broadcast, lest such be
considered indirect advertising); if enter into
other businesses (which are not inconsistent
with lawyers duties) then it is advisable that
they be entirely separate and apart such that
a layman could distinguish between the two
functions.
Rule 2.04.
A lawyer shall not
charge rates lower than those customarily
prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
What the rule prohibits is the competition in

the matter of charging professional fees for
the purposed of attracting clients in favor of
the lawyer who offers lower rates. The rule
does not prohibit a lawyer from charging a
reduced fee or none at all to an indigent or
to a person who would have difficulty paying
the fee usually charged for such services.
CANON 3:
INFORMATION ON LEGAL SERVICES THAT
IS TRUE, HONEST, FAIR AND DIGNIFIED
Canon 3.
A lawyer in making
known his 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-laudatory, or unfair
statement or claim regarding his qualifications or
legal services.
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.
Rule 3.03.
Where a
office, he shall withdraw
name shall be dropped
unless the law allows
concurrently.
partner accepts public

from the firm and his
from the firm name
him to practice law
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.
RULE 3.01.

16
NO FALSE OR UNFAIR CLAIM REGARDING

QUALIFICATIONS
Rule 3.01.
A lawyer shall not use
or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
misleading,
deceptive,
undignified,
selflaudatory, or unfair statement or claim regarding
his qualifications or legal services.
Sec 27 Canon of Professional Ethics.

Advertising, Direct of IndirectThe most worthy
and effective advertisement possible, even for a
young lawyer, and especially with his brother
lawyers, is the establishment of a well-meritted
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity
to trust. This cannot be force, but must be the
outcome of character and conduct.
The
publication or circulation of ordinary simple
business cards, being a matter of personal taste
or local custom, and some times of convenience
is not per se improper.
But solicitation of
business by circulars or advertisements, or by
personal relations is unprofessional. It is equally
unprofessional to procure business by indirection
through touters of any kind whether allied real
estate firms or trust companies advertising to
secure the drawing of deeds or wills or offering
retainers in exchange for executorships or
trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer.
Indirect advertisement for business by furnishing
or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the
manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the
interests involved, the importance of the lawyers
position, and all other like self-laudation, defy
the traditions and lower the tone of our high
calling and are intolerable.
Sec 46 Canon of Professional Ethics.

Notice of specialized serviceWhere a lawyer is
engaged in rendering a specialized legal service
directly and only to other lawyers, a brief,
dignified notice of that fact, couched in language
indicating that it is addressed to lawyers,
inserted in legal periodicals and like publications,
when it will afford convenient and beneficial
information to lawyers desiring to obtain such
service, is not improper.
NOTE: The explication of the Canon 3.01 refers
itself back to the rather outdated Canon of
Professional Ethics. (Prof. Jardeleza):
In re Tagorda (1929)
F:
Tagorda was suspended for soliciting
business because before Tagordas election to the
provincial board of Isabela, he used a card
offering services as an attorney and a notary
public free. The card also stated that he was a
candidate for the provincial board. After his

election, he wrote a letter to the barrio
lieutenant informing him that we would continue
his practice as lawyer and asking that the
lieutenant transmit this information to the barrio.
H:
Sec. 27 of the Code of Professional
Ethics states that the most worthy and effective
advertisement possible, is the establishment of a
well-merited reputation for professional capacity
and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but
must be the outcome of character and conduct.
Solicitation
of
business
circulars
or
advertisement, or by personal communication or
interviews not warranted by personal relations is
unprofessional.
Indirect advertisement for business by furnishing
or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the
manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the
interests involved, the importance of the lawyers
position, and all other like self-laudation, defy
the tradition and lowers the tone of the high
calling are intolerable.
Canon
28
further
provides
that
it
is
unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to
bring a lawsuit, except where ties of blood,
relationship or trust makes it his duty to do so.
Stirring up strife and litigation is not only
unprofessional but is indictable at common law,
and one of the penalties for this offence was
disbarment.
The law is a profession and not a business. The
lawyer may not sell or obtain employment
himself or through others for to do so would be
unprofessional. It is destructive of the honour of
a great profession. It lowers the standards of
that profession. It works against the confidence
of the community and it results in needless
litigation.
Ulep v Legal Clinic (1993)

supra at introduction
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.
Lawyers
should
not
resort
to
indirect
advertisements for professional employment.
The standards of the legal profession condemn
the lawyers advertisement of his talent, this rest
on the fundamental postulate that the practice of
law is a profession. The lawyer degrades himself
and his profession who stoops to and adopts the
practices of mercantilism by advertising his
services or offering them to the public.

17
Not all types of advertising or solicitation are

prohibited. The exceptions are of two broad
categories, those, which are expressly allowed,
and those, which are necessarily implied from
the restrictions. The first of such exceptions is
the publication in reputable law lists, in a manner
consistent with the standards of conduct
imposed by the canons, or brief biographical and
informative data
Khan v. Simbillo (2003)

F:
Atty. Simbulo was found guilty for
violating Rule 2.03 and 3.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and sec. 27 Rule 138,
of the Rules of Court for advertising his services
in a Philippine Daily Inquirer ad which read
Annulment of Marriage Specialist 532-433/5212667.
H:
The solicitation of legal business is not
altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation to
be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity
of the legal profession. If it were made in a
modest and decorous manner, it would bring no
injury to the law and to the bar. The use of
simple signs stating the name or names of the
lawyers, the office, and the residence address
and fields of practice, as well as advertisement in
legal periodicals bearing the same brief data and
the use of calling cards are permissible. The
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 likewise allowed. But a lawyer
may not properly publish his brief biographical
and informative data in a daily paper, magazine,
trade journal or society program (Ulep v. Legal
Clinic, Inc.).
Director of religious Affairs v Bayot

(1944)
Bayot was reprimanded for publishing an
announcement in the Sunday Tribune advertising
his services in getting a marriage license and in
arranging
marriages and
his free legal
consultation for the poor.
RULE 3.02
NO FALSE OR MISLEADING FIRM NAME
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.
Dacanay v Baker and McKenzie

(1985)
F:
Because Baker and McKenzie is an alien
law firm not authorized to practice law in the
Philippines, the respondents were enjoined from
using
the
name
as
it
constituted
a
misrepresentation.
H:
The respondents use of the firm name
constitutes
a
representation
that
being
associated with Baker and McKenzie they could
render legal services to the highest quality to
multinational business enterprises and others
engaged in foreign trade and investment. This is
unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not
authorized to practice law here.
In the Matter of the Petition for

Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name
Ozaeta, Romulo, de Leon, etc. and Petition
for Authority to Continue Use of Firm Name
Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, etc. (1979)
F:
Surviving partners cannot continue to
use the names of the deceased partners. The
Court held, amongst others, that
H:
Continued use will run counter to Art.
1815 CC which tacitly provides that names in a
firm name of a partnership must be those of
living partners and, in case of non-partners,
should be living persons who can be subject to
liability. The public relations value of the use of
an old firm name can create undue advantage
and disadvantage in the practice of the
profession.
Canon 33 does not consider the act unethical
when such practice is permissible by local
custom but it warns that care should be taken to
avoid deception. In the Philippines, no local
custom permits or allows the continued use of a
deceased partners name because here, the
practice is to identify the more active and/or
more senior members or partners of the law
firm.
The practice is allowed in the U.S. because it is
sanctioned by custom. Here, there is no local
custom allowing such. In this case, where a
previous SC decision has laid the rule against the
continued use of a deceased partners name, no
custom or practice, even if proven, can prevail.
The practice of law is intimately and peculiarly
related to the administration of justice and
should not be considered like an ordinary
money-making trade. It is the essence of a
profession that it is practiced in a spirit of public
service. A trade aims primarily at personal gain;
a profession at the exercise of powers beneficial
to mankind.

18
The spirit of public service in which the

profession of law is and ought to be exercised is
a prerequisite of sound administration of justice
according to law. The two other elements,
organization and pursuit of a learned art, have
their justification in that they secure and
maintain that spirit.
RULE 3.03
PARTNERS ASSUMING PUBLIC OFFICE
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.
Const, art. VI, sec. 14. [limitation] No

Senator
or
member
of
the
House
of
Representative may personally appear before
any court of justice or before the Electoral
Tribunal,
or
quasi-judicial
and
other
administrative bodies
Const,
art.
VII,
sec.
13.
[prohibition]
The
President,
VicePresident, the members of the cabinet and
assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in
this Constitution, hold any other office or
employment during their tenure. They shall not,
during said tenure, directly or indirectly practice
any profession
court of justice, Electoral Tribunals, quasijudicial, other administrative bodies

prohibited: appearance in court and other
bodies (includes arguing, filing a pleading,
including him in firm name)
Sanggunian: may, except

(1) civil case with LGU/ government is the
adverse party;
(2) criminal case when officer of the LGU is
accused in relation to office;
(3) Not collect any fee for appearance in
administrative proceeding;
(4) not use property of government except when
defending government interest
Civil service officers: with consent from head

of department (written)
*isolated case (even if prohibited): counsel

for relative/ close family friend
totally unauthorized to practice law: includes

disbarred and suspended estafa!
Legal remedies: injunction, declaratory

relief, contempt, disqualification, disbarment,
estafa, administrative case
Const, Art. IX, Sec. 2. [prohibition]

No member of a Constitutional Commission shall,
during his tenure, hold any other office or
employment. Neither shall he engage in the
practice of any profession
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Public office is public trust, expected to

perform with highest degree of responsibility,
integrity, loyalty and efficiency, exclusive
fidelity
Absolutely
prohibited:
judges,
court
employees, Solicitor General, prosecution
officers, President, Vice-President, cabinet,
deputies and assistants (cabinet), members
of Constitutional Commissions, civil service
officers whose jobs require full time devotion
to the government
Legislators: not absolutely prohibited only
prohibited from appearing as counsel before
Local government officials: prohibited
Samonte v. Gatdula (1999)

The SC found it improper that the name of
Rolando Gatdula,
a branch clerk of court,
appears on the calling card of a firm. The Code
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees declares that it is
unlawful for a public official or employee to,
among others: 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 official
functions.
RULE 3.04.
NO USE OF MEDIA TO ATTRACT BUSINESS
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.
En Banc Resolution (1991)

Spurred by Art Borjals letter to CJ Fernan
regarding the live TV and radio coverage of the
hearing of Ppl v Beltran where Pres. Aquino took
the witness stand and Judge Makasiars letter of

19
response denying that he had given such

permission to the Presidential Broadcast Staff,
the SC passed the following resolution:
Considering the prejudice it poses to the
defendants right to due process as well as to the
fair and orderly administration of justice, and
considering further that the freedom of the press
and the right of the people to information may
be served and satisfied by less distracting,
degrading and prejudicial means, live radio and
television coverage of court proceedings shall not
be allowed. Video footages for news purposes
shall be restricted and limited to shots of the
courtroom, the judicial officers, the parties and
their counsel taken prior to the commencement
of official proceedings.
No video shots or
photographs shall be permitted during the trial
proper.
20
CANON 5:
PARTICIPATE IN LEGAL EDUCATION
PROGRAM
Canon 5.
A lawyer shall keep
abreast of legal developments, participate in
continuing legal education programs, support
efforts to achieve highest standards in law
schools as well as in the practical training of law
students and assist in disseminating information
regarding law and jurisprudence.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
CANON 4:
PARTICIPATE IN DEVELOPMENT:
SUPPORT
LEGAL
REFORMS
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
AND
Canon 4.
A
lawyer
shall
participate in development of the legal system by
initiating reform and in the improvement of the
administration of justice.
AGPALO
(notes)
While the lawyers task in contributing to the

improvement of the legal system is not a
matter of strict duty, it is a duty nevertheless
that flows from the lawyers sense of public
responsibility. The improvement of the legal
system cannot, however, be done by
dreaming in a vacuum. The lawyer must
recognize that the law is a part of vast social
network and whether he likes it or not, he
has to interact with the rest of society. There
is thus the need on the part of the lawyer to
transcend the narrow limits of technical law.
Intricately woven is the law with the social
fabric that the legal profession cannot afford
to confine itself to narrowly technical legal
questions. A lawyer must broaden out and
continue to grow in knowledge and
competence in order to be able to make the
law socially responsive. (Agpalo)
Service in the judiciary and being in the

active practice of law require continuing
study and research on the law from
beginning to end.
A lawyer incurs a three-fold obligation after
admission to practice: To himself: to
continue improving his knowledge of the
law: to his profession: to take an active
interest in the maintenance of of high
standards of legal obligation; to the lay
public: to make the law a part of its social
consciousness
Members of the IBP, except those exempt
under Rule 7 of Bar Matter No. 850
(Mandatory Continuing Legal Education), are
required every 3 years to complete at least
36 hours of continuing legal education
activities, with appropriate penalties for
failure to do so. (Agpalo)
Bar
Continuing
ANNEXED
Matter
850Mandatory
Legal
Education
(MCLE)
CANON 6:
CANONS
APPLY
TO
GOVERNMENT SERVICE
LAWYERS
IN
Canon 6. These Canons shall apply to

lawyers in government service in the discharge
of their official duties.
Rule 6.01.
The primary duty of a lawyer 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.

Rule 6.02.
A lawyer in 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.
(e)
Rule 6.03.
A lawyer shall not, after leaving
government service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in
which he had interned.
RA 6713, (Code of Conduct and

Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees.)Sec. 4(A) Norms of Conduct of
Public Officials and Employees.
(A)
Every
public
official and employee shall observe the
following as standards of personal conduct in
the discharge and execution of official
duties:
(a) Commitment to public interest. - Public
officials and employees shall always
uphold the public interest over and
above personal interest. All government
resources and powers of their respective
offices must be employed and used
efficiently, effectively, honestly and
economically,
particularly
to
avoid
wastage in public funds and revenues.
(b) Professionalism. - Public officials and
employees shall perform and discharge
their duties with the highest degree of
excellence, professionalism, intelligence
and skill. They shall enter public service
with utmost devotion and dedication to
duty. They shall endeavor to discourage
wrong perceptions of their roles as
dispensers
or
peddlers
of
undue
patronage.
(c) Justness and sincerity. - Public officials
and employees shall remain true to the
people at all times. They must act with
justness and sincerity and shall not
discriminate against anyone, especially
the poor and the underprivileged. They
shall at all times respect the rights of
others, and shall refrain from doing acts
contrary to law, good morals, good
customs, public policy, public order,
public safety and public interest. They
shall not dispense or extend undue
favors on account of their office to their
relatives whether by consanguinity or
affinity
except
with
respect
to
appointments of such relatives to
positions considered strictly confidential
or as members of their personal staff
whose terms are coterminous with
theirs.
(d) Political neutrality. - Public officials and
employees shall provide service to
(f)
(g)
(h)
everyone without unfair discrimination

and regardless of party affiliation or
preference.
Responsiveness to the public. - Public
officials and employees shall extend
prompt,
courteous,
and
adequate
service to the public. Unless otherwise
provided by law or when required by the
public interest, public officials and
employees shall provide information of
their policies and procedures in clear and
understandable
language,
ensure
openness
of
information,
public
consultations and hearings whenever
appropriate,
encourage
suggestions,
simplify and systematize policy, rules
and procedures, avoid red tape and
develop
an
understanding
and
appreciation of the socio-economic
conditions prevailing in the country,
especially in the depressed rural and
urban areas.
Nationalism and patriotism. - Public
officials and employees shall at all times
be loyal to the Republic and to the
Filipino people, promote the use of
locally produced goods, resources and
technology and encourage appreciation
and pride of country and people. They
shall endeavor to maintain and defend
Philippine sovereignty against foreign
intrusion.
Commitment to democracy. - Public
officials and employees shall commit
themselves to the democratic way of life
and values, maintain the principle of
public accountability, and manifest by
deeds
the
supremacy
of
civilian
authority over the military. They shall at
all times uphold the Constitution and put
loyalty to country above loyalty to
persons or party.
Simple living. - Public officials and
employees and their families shall lead
modest lives appropriate to their
positions and income. They shall not
indulge in extravagant or ostentatious
display of wealth in any form.
Collantes v. Renomeron (1991)

Atty Renomeron was dismissed from office
because, in his capacity as Register of Deeds, he
refused to register deeds for V & G Better Homes
Subdivision unless the latter should either
provide him with weekly round trip tickets from
Tacloban to Manila complete with pocket money
or sell on his behalf a piece of property in QC.
Misconduct as public official constitutes

violation of oath as lawyer. The Code of

21
Professional Responsibility applies to lawyers

in govt service in the discharge of their
official tasks (Canon 6) and forbids a lawyer
from unlawful conduct (1.01). Also note that
a lawyer shall not delay any mans cause for
any corrupt motive or interest (1.03)
RULE 6.01.
PRIMARY DUTY: THAT JUSTICE IS DONE
Rule 6.01.
The primary duty of a
lawyer 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
highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary
action.
use improper methods calculated to produce

a wrongful conviction (to use legitimate
means to bring about just ones);
offer proof of accuseds guilt illegally

acquired; suppress facts nor conceal
witnesses capable of establishing the
innocence of the accused;
consent to any undue delay in the

prosecution; deprive a person of his
statutory or legal rights; assert his personal
knowledge of a crime (he must withdraw as
a prosecutor and take the witness stand to
be cross-examined);
assist in the escape of a prisoner;
institute a criminal action to force settlement

of a case;
agree to refrain form prosecuting a person in

consideration of a reward;
receive money from dismissing a complaint;

induce an accused to plead guilty;
willfully fail to prosecute violations of law or

lose records thereof; have a secret law
partner with whom he divides the fees;
hesitate to recommend to the court the

accuseds acquittal if the evidence in his
possession shows that the accused is
innocent.
However,
a
prosecutor
enjoys
the
presumption that he is learned in the law,
that he has high morality, and that he had
performed his duties with impartiality.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
In General
A public prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer

who represents, not an ordinary party to a
controversy,
but
a
sovereignty.
This
sovereignty has its obligation to govern
impartially. Therefore, the interest in a
criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a
case but that justice shall be done.
The public prosecutor owes the State, the

court, and the accused the duty to lay before
the court the pertinent facts at his disposal
with methodical and meticulous attention.
He should clarify contradictions and fill up
gaps in his evidence so that there would be
no doubt in the courts mind.
Prosecutors
should
avoid
giving
the
impression that their office is being used for
political ends or for other purposes that
contravene the objective of serving justice
impartially regardless of who the litigants
are. The image of impartiality is achieved by
strict
adherence
to
the
established
procedures.
A
prosecutor
should
prosecute
with
earnestness and vigor but must keep in mind
that the primary objective is not to win but
to serve justice: Guilt shall not escape nor
innocence suffer.
The public prosecutor should not
Role of a private prosecutor:
The general rule is that an offended party

has the right to intervene in the prosecution
of a crime except in the following instances
(Section 16 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court
in connection with Section 5):
1. When from the nature of the crime and
the law defining and punishing it no civil
liability arises his favor;
2. When he has waived his right to civil
indemnity or has expressly reserved his
right to institute a civil action or he has
already instituted such action.
The role of the private prosecutor is to

represent the offended party with respect to
the civil action for the recovery of civil
liability arising from the offense.

22
His/her duty does not include demanding

punishment. If the case is dismissed, the
private prosecutor may not file a motion for
reconsideration. Such a duty belongs solely
to the public prosecutor.
The offended party may not withdraw the

civil case already filed so that he/she can
intervene in the criminal case.
The offended partys standing in a criminal

case is only that of a witness once a
separate civil case is filed.
Subject to Control of Public Prosecutor
Intervention by a private lawyer is subject to

prosecutors control.
The public prosecutor is required to be

present the proceedings and must at any
time take over the conduct of the trial from
the private prosecutor.
The prosecutors presence is necessary for

the validity of evidence to be presented as
an evidence of the People of the Philippines.
This applies only to court which are provided

by law with their own prosecutors, and not
to municipal courts which have no trial
prosecutors.
HOWEVER, the Supreme Court has amended

Sec. 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court
(effective May 1, 2002): in case of heavy
work schedule or in the even of lack of public
prosecutors, a private prosecutor may be
authorized
in
writing
by
the
Chief
Prosecution Office or the Regional State
Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to
the approval of the court. The authority may
be revoked or withdrawn. A private
prosecutor, being under the direction and
control of the public prosecutor may not take
a stand different from that of the latter.
When a public prosecutor should take over

handling of case. A public prosecutor should
not allow the trial in the hands of a private
prosecutor to degenerate into a private
prosecution (turns out to be a gratification of
private malice or the accomplishment of a
private gain or advantage)
Suarez v Platon (1940)
F: Lt. Orais arrested and incarcerated Atty.

Suarez for uttering seditious words. The
following day, he moved for the dismissal of the

case against Suarez on the motion of his
superior. Suarez charged Orais with illegal
detention. Judge Platon, however, dismissed the
case on the basis of the public prosecutors
recommendation of such.
The SC upheld
Platons decision.
H: (Laurel J.) We cannot overemphasize the
necessity of close scrutiny and investigation of
prosecuting officers of all cases handled by them,
but whilst this court is averse to any form of
vacillation by such officers in the prosecution of
public offenses, it is unquestionable that they
may in appropriate cases, in order to do justice
and avoid injustice, reinvestigate cases in which
they have already filed the corresponding
informations.
In the language of Justice
Sutherland of the SC of the US, the prosecuting
officer is the representative not of an ordinary
party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty
whose obligation to govern impartially is as
compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and
whose interest, therefore, in a criminal
prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but
that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a
peculiar and very definite sense the servant of
the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt
shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may
prosecute with earnestness and vigorindeed,
he should do so, But, while he may strike hard
blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It
is as much his duty to refrain from improper
methods calculated to produce a wrongful
conviction as it is to use every legitimate means
to bring about a just one.
People v Pineda (1967)

F: Narbasa, Alindo and Borres stood indicted as
principals in 5 separate cases for murder and
frustrated murder. 5 separate informations were
filed by the prosecuting attorney from his
investigation. 2 of the 3 defendants moved for a
consolidation of the 5 cases into 1 criminal case
because the said cases arose out of the same
incident and motivated by one impulse. Judge
Pineda granted the petition and ordered the
other 4 cases to be dropped. The City Fiscal
disagreed with the finding of the judge.
H: The benefit of the doubt belongs to the
prosecuting attorney. The prosecuting attorney
is under no compulsion to file a particular
criminal information where he is not convinced
that he has evidence to prop up the averments
thereof, or that the evidence at hand points to a
different conclusion. But we must have to
recognise that a prosecuting attorney should not
be duly compelled to work against his conviction.
We should give him the benefit of the doubt.

23
The prosecuting attorney, being the one charged

with the prosecution of offences, should
determine the information to be filed and cannot
be controlled by the offended party. The impact
of Judge Pinedas order is that his judgment
substitutes the prosecutors on the matter of
what crime is to be filed in court. Nevertheless,
a judge may, by a relief in equity, stop a
purported enforcement of criminal law
where
(1) it is needed for the orderly administration of
justice,
(2) to prevent the use of the strong arm of the
law in an oppressive and vindictive manner,
(3) to avoid multiplicity of actions,
(4)
to
afford
adequate
protection
to
constitutional rights and
(5) because the statute relied upon is
unconstitutional or was held invalid.
law, and receiving a share in the fees for his

effort.
The present case does not fall under any of these

exceptions, thus the order of the judge must be
set aside.
RULE 6.02
NOT TO USE PUBLIC POSITION FOR
PRIVATE INTEREST
Rule 6.02.
A lawyer in 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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
This rule applies to lawyers in government

service, who are allowed by law to engage in
private law practice and to those who,
though prohibited from engaging in the
practice of law, have friends, former
associates, and relatives who are in the
active practice of law.
The lawyer must not use his public office to

further his law practice.
He should not
accept any private legal business in conflict
with his official duties and if such a case
arises he must terminate his professional
relationship, explaining to his client that his
public duty must prevail.
If he is prohibited from practicing his

profession, he must not do so indirectly by
being a silent partner in a law firm or by
securing legal business for a friend or a
former associate in the active practice of
The following principles complement the

code of conduct (Public officials shall NOT):
own,
control,
manage
or
accept
employment
as
officer,
employee,
consultant, counsel, broker, agent,
trustee or nominee in any private
enterprise regulated, supervised or
licensed by their office unless expressly
allowed by law;
engage in the private practice of their

profession unless authorized by the
constitution or law (will not conflict with
his/her official functions);
recommend any person to any position

in a private enterprise which has a
regular or pending official transaction
with their office; and
use or divulge confidential information

officially known to them by reason of
their office (not available to the public)
to further private interest, to give undue
advantage anyone or to the prejudice of
public interest.
Misamin v San Juan (1976)
F: Atty. San Juan, a captain of the MM Police

force and a member of the bar was charged with
coercing an employee, Misamin, to agree to drop
charges filed against his employer Tan Hua for
violation of the Minimum Wage Law. The Case
was dismissed for lack of evidence.
H: While the charges have to be dismissed, still
it would not be inappropriate for respondent to
avoid all appearances of impropriety. Certainly,
the fact that the suspicion could be entertained
that far from living true to the concept of a
public officer being a public trust, he did make
use not so much of whatever legal knowledge he
possessed, but the influence that laymen could
assume was inherent in the office held not only
to frustrate the beneficent statutory scheme that
labor be justly compensated but also to be at the
beck and call of what the complainant called
alien interest, is a matter that should not pass
unnoticed. Respondent, in his future actuations
as a member of the bar, should refrain from
laying himself open to such doubts and
misgivings as to his fitness not only for the
position occupied by him but also for
membership in the bar. He is not worthy of
membership in an honorable profession who
does not even take care that his honor remains
unsullied.

24

Vitriolo v. Dasig (1973)
H: The SC disbarred Atty. Felina Dasig, the OIC
of the Legal Affairs Service of CHED, for making
unlawful demands to extort money from certain
people who had pending applications in her office
for correction of names; filing 11 baseless,
groundless, and unfounded suits against the
complainants of the case; willfully failing to pay
her debts as evidenced by the dishonest checks
she issued; instigating the commission of a crime
where she allegedly encouraged her son, a jail
warden, to shoot the Cornacions; sending to
Pres. Estrada libelous and unfair reports which
were designed to prevent the reappointment of
the 11 CHED directors and with the end view of
securing one for her. Generally speaking, a
lawyer who holds a government office may not
be disciplined as a member of the Bar for
misconduct in the discharge of his duties as
government official. However, if said misconduct
as a government official also constitutes a
violation of his oath as a lawyer then he may be
disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar.
The Attorneys Oath is the source of obligation
and duties of every lawyer and any violation
thereof is a ground for disbarment, suspension,
or other disciplinary action. Respondents
demands for sums of money to facilitate the
processing of pending applications before her
office violates such duty and runs afoul of the
oath she took when admitted to the Bar. A
member of the Bar who assumes public office
does not shed his professional obligation. The
CPR was not meant to govern the conduct of
private petitioners alone, but of all lawyers
including those in government service. Lawyers
in government are public servants who owe the
utmost fidelity to the public service. Thus they
have to be mores sensitive in the performance of
their professional obligations. Respondents
attempts to extort money from persons with
applications or requests pending before her office
are violative of Rule 1.01 which prohibits lawyers
from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest or
deceitful acts. These acts also constitute a
breach of rule 6.02 which bars lawyers in
government service from promoting their private
interests. A lawyer in public service is a keeper
of public faith and is burdened with a high
degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher
than her brethren in private practice.
RULE 6.03.
NOT TO ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT
GOVERNMENT SERVICE
AFTER
Rule 6.03.
A lawyer shall not, after
leaving government service, accept engagement
or employment in connection with any matter in
which he had interned.
RA 3019, Sec. 3(d) (Anti-Graft and

Corrupt Practices Act). In addition to acts or
omissions of public officers already penalized by
existing law, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of any public officer and are
hereby declared to be unlawful: (d) Accepting or
having any member of his family accept
employment in a private enterprise which has
pending official business with him during the
pendency thereof or within one year after its
termination.
RA 6713, Sec. 7(b). In addition to acts

and omissions of public officials and employees
not 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: (b) Outside employment and other
activities related thereto.Public officials and
employees during their incumbency shall not:
1) Own, control, manage or accept employment
as officer employee, consultant, counsel,
broker, agent, trustee or nominee / in any
private enterprise regulated, supervised or
licensed by their office / unless expressly
allowed by law;
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; or
3) Recommend any person to any position in a
private enterprise which has a regular or
pending official transaction with their office.
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a
period of 1 year after resignation, retirement or
separation from public office, / except in case of
subparagraph (2) above, / but the professional
concerned cannot practice his profession in
connection with any matter before the office he
used to be with, / in which case the one year
prohibition shall likewise apply.
RA 910 Sec. 1 (condition of

pension). No retiring justice or judge of a court
of record or city or municipal judge during the
time that he is receiving said pension shall
appear as counsel in any court in any civil case
where in the govt. or any of its subdivisions or
instrumentalities is an adverse party, in a
criminal case were an officer or employee of the
govt. is accused of an offense related to his

25
26
official function, or collect any fee for his

appearance in any administrative proceedings to
maintain an interest adverse to the govt.
Chapter 2
The Lawyer and the
Legal Profession
NOTES
(Agpalo)
The restriction in Rule 6.02 extends beyond

his/her tenure on certain matters in which
he has intervened as a public official.
Any matter and he had intervened in

Rule 6.03 are very broad terms which
include any conceivable subject in which he
acted in his official capacity.
CANON 7:
UPHOLD THE DIGNITY AND INTEGRITY OF
THE PROFESSION
PNB v Cedo (1995)

Atty. Cedo was found guilty of violating 6.O3 for
handling a case involving transactions he had
handled for his previous employer, PNB. The Rule
on Conflicting Interests applies.
Canon 7.
A lawyer shall at all
times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession and support the activities of the
integrated bar.
Rule 7.01.
A lawyer shall be answerable for
knowingly making a false statement or
suppressing a material fact in connection with his
application for admission to the bar.
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.
Rule 7.03.
A lawyer shall not engage
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public
private life, behave in a scandalous manner
the discredit of the legal profession.
in
to
or
to
NOTES
(Agabin)
Maintenance by the bar of a high standard of

legal proficiency as well as honesty and fair
dealing is a prerequisite to making the bar
an effective instrument in the proper
But the bar can only be as reputable as its

members hence, it is necessary that every
lawyer should strive at all times to uphold
the honor and maintain the dignity of the
legal profession and to improve not only the
law but the administration of justice as well.
More than just paying IBP Membership dues,

a lawyer should help achieve objectives and
purposes of the IBP, i.e.,
assist in the administration of justice;

foster and maintain on the part of its

members high ideals of integrity,
learning,
professional
competence,
public service and conduct;
safeguard the professional interests of
its members;
cultivate among its members a spirit of
cordiality and brotherhood;
provide a forum for the discussion of
law, jurisprudence, law reform, pleading,
practice and procedure and the relations
of the bar thereto; encourage and foster
legal education;
promote a continuing program of legal
research in substantive and adjective
law,
and
make
reports
and
recommendations thereon.
at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence

in the legal system. (Rule 1.02) The unseemly
ardor with which the candidates pursued the
presidency of the association detracted from the
dignity of the legal profession. The spectacle of
lawyers bribing or being bribed to vote did not
uphold the honor of the profession nor elevate it
in the publics esteem.
In re: 1989 Election of the IBP

(1989)
F:
The SC annulled the IBP Elections and
ordered the holding of special elections and
declared the candidates in the June 3, 1989, as
ineligible for any IBP position in the special
elections. The Court based its conclusion upon
the following findings: prohibited campaigning
and solicitation of votes by the candidates; use
of PNP plane in the campaign of Atty. Drilon;
formation of tickets and single slates; giving free
transportation of out-of-town delegates and
alternates; giving free hotel accommodations,
food, drinks, entertainment to delegates;
campaigning by labor officials for Atty. Drilon
(her husband is the Labor Secretary); paying the
dues of other indebtedness of any member (sec.
14(e) IBP By-Laws); distribution of materials
other than bio-data of not more than one-page
of legal size sheet of paper (Sec. 14(a), IBP Bylaws); causing distribution of such statement to
be done by persons other than those authorized
by the officer presiding at the election (Sec. 14
(b), IBP By-Laws); inducing or influencing a
member to withhold his vote, or to vote for or
against a candidate (Sec. 14 (e), IBP By-Laws).
H: In accordance with Sections 9 and 10 of Rule

139-A ROC, Llamas can engage in the practice of
law only by paying his dues, and it does not
matter if his practice is limited. While it is true
that RA 7432 section 4 grants senior citizens
exemption from payment of individual income
taxes: provided, that their annual taxable income
does not exceed the poverty level as determined
by NEDA for that year, the exemption does not
include payment of membership or association
dues.
H:
The basic postulate of the IBP is that it
is non-political in character and that there shall
be no lobbying nor campaigning in the choice of
the IBP Officers. The fundamental assumption is
that the officers would be chosen on the basis of
professional merit and willingness and ability to
serve.
The candidates and many of the
participants in the election process not only
violated the By-Laws of the IBP but also the
ethics of the legal profession which imposes on
all lawyers, as a corollary of their obligation to
obey and uphold the constitution and the laws,
the duty to promote respect for law and legal
processes and to abstain from activities aimed
Santos v. Llamas (2000)

F:
The SC suspended from nonpayment of
IBP dues and for using the same IBP O.R. Nos.
and data for 3 years. Sanots justified his
nonpayment of IBP dues by claiming that he had
a limited practice of law, being a farmer by
occupation, and that since 19992, he is exempt
from payment of taxes as a senior citizen.
Re: 2003 Bar Examinations (2004)

F: After a rumored leakage concerning the
mercantile bar exam of 2003, the SC spread out
the weight of mercantile law among the
remaining 7 subjects. An investigation into the
matter revealed that 75% of the questions on
mercantile law were prepared by bar examiner
Atty. Marcial Balgos. 25% were prepared by
Justice Vitug. Those questions prepared by
Justice Vitug were not among the leaked
questions. Bar examiner Atty. Balgos explained
that he prepared the test questions for that
subject using his personal computer but that he
does not know how to use his PC, except to type
on it. His private secretary turns his PC on and
shuts it down for him. Only two people know the
PCs passwordhis secretary and the office
manager Silvestre Atienza (2 nd year student at
MLQU). Atty. Balgos thought that he alone could
access his PC and was surprised to find that it
was fact interconnected with the other
computers in the law office. Atty. Balgos found
out
that
Atienza
was
responsible
for
interconnecting Atty. Balgos PC without the
latters permission. Atienza is a member of the
Beta Sigma Lambda fraternity in MLQU. He said
that he participated in his fraternitys bar-ops but
only in bringing food to the examinees. Another
member of the fraternity and of the law firm,

27
Atty. Danilo De Guzman, admitted that he

downloaded the test questions from Atty. Balgos
PC and faxed a copy to his fraternity brother.
H: Atty. de Guzmans act of downloading the test
questions from Atty. Balgos PC without the
latters knowledge and permission was a criminal
act of larceny. It was theft of intellectual
property. He transgressed the very first canon of
the Lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides that a lawyer shall obey the laws
of the land. By transmitting and distributing the
stolen questions to his fraternity brothers, he
had given them undue advantage over the other
examiners. He has violated canons 1.01 and 7
of the CPR. He is guilty of grave misconduct
unbecoming a member of the Bar.
He had
impaired public respect for the court and
damaged the integrity of the bar examinations as
the final measure of a law graduates academic
preparedness to embark in the practice of law.
All this could have been avoided had Atty. Balgos
exercised due diligence in safeguarding the
secrecy of the test questions. He relied too much
on his secretary. He should have typed the test
questions using his typewriter in the privacy of
his own home. Atty. Balgos negligence in the
preparation and safe-keeping of his proposed
test questions was not the proximate cause for
the leakage, it was the root cause.
The SC recommended that Atty. de Guzman be
disbarred for being morally unfit to continue as a
member
of
the legal
profession,
grave
dishonesty, lack of integrity and criminal
behavior and found that he should make a
written public apology and pay damages to the
Supreme Court.
Atty Balgos was likewise
reprimanded and required to make a written
apology.
Letter of Atty. Cecilio Arevalo (2005)

F: The SC turned down Atty Arevalos request for
exemption from IBP dues amounting to P12,035
for the period 1977-2005 explaining that after
joining the Philippine Bar in 1961, he became
part of the Civil Service (hence, he could not be
assessed his IBP dues having been prohibited
from practice of law while in government service)
and in 1986, he migrated to the US where he
worked.
H: Organized by or under the direction of the
State, an Integrated Bar is an official national
body of which all lawyers are required to be
membersthey are, therefore subject to all the
rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar,
including the payment of a reasonable annual fee
for the effective discharge of the purposes of the
Bar, and adherence to a code of professional
ethics or professional responsibility.

The
integration of the Phil. Bar means the unification
of the entire lawyer population requiring
membership and financial support of every
attorney as condition sine qua non to the
practice of law and the retention of his name in
the Roll of Attorneys of the SC. Bar integration
does not compel the lawyer to associate.
The only compulsion is the payment of annual
dues which, the SC, in order to foster the States
legitimate interest in elevating the quality of
professional legal services, may require to be
shared by all the subjects and beneficiaries the
lawyers. The fee is a regulatory measure not
barred by the Constitution. The only limitation is
that the regulation should not impose an
unconstitutional burden. The public interest far
outweighs the slight inconvenience to a member.
The compulsory nature of payment of dues
subsists for as long as ones membership in the
IBP remains, regardless of the extent of practice
of a lawyer. There is no exemption. As pointed
out by IBP, Atty. Arevalo could have informed the
Sec. of the Bar of his intention to stay abroad, in
which case his IBP membership could have been
terminated and oblig to pay annual dues
discontinued. Citing In re Atty. Marcial Edillon:
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
lawyers
public
responsibilities. Membership in the bar is a
privilege burdened with conditions, one of which
is the payment of membership dues.
7.01
NO FALSE STATEMENT
Rule 7.01
A
lawyer
shall
be
answerable for knowingly making a false
statement or suppressing a material fact, in
connection with his application for admission to
the bar.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Observance of the duties and responsibilities

of a lawyer begins even as a law student. A
students failure to live up to them may be a
ground for SC to refuse admission to practice
or for disbarment should SC learn later on
about his/her transgressions.

28
RULE 7.02
NOT TO SUPPORT
APPLICANT
UNQUALIFIED
BAR
Rule 7.02. A lawyer shall not support the

attribute.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
A lawyer should not readily execute an

affidavit of good moral character in favor of
an applicant who has not live up to the
standard set by law.
He
should
volunteer
information
or
cooperate in any investigation concerning
alleged anomaly in the bar examination. This
is to help guard the profession from
candidates who are unfit or unqualified.
He should expose without fear or favor

before the SC corrupt or dishonest conduct
in the profession and should not hesitate to
accept professional employment against a
lawyer who has wronged his client.
RULE 7.03
NO CONDUCT ADVERSELY AFFECTING
THE PROFESSION
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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
The best way a lawyer can uphold the

integrity and dignity of the legal profession is
not to engage in any conduct or do any act
that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor to behave, in his public or
private life, in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession. (it can be
likened to a shield in defense of rights and to
ward off wrong)
Zaguirre v. Castillo (2003)

F: Zaguirre and Castillo were officemates at the
NBI. Zaguirre said that Castillo represented
himself to be single, courted her and promised
marriage. Soon they had intimate relations and
Zaguirre became pregnant. During their affair,

Castillo was preparing for the bar exam which he
passed. Only after Castillo was admitted to the
Bar, did Zaguirre learn that he was married. She
presented an affidavit executed by Castillo, who
by now is a lawyer admitting his relationship with
her and recognizing the baby she was carrying
as his. However, when she gave birth, Castillo
refused to recognize the child and to give her
any form of support. Castillo denied all her
allegations and said that what transpired
between them was nothing but mutual lust and
desire. He admitted that he executed the
affidavit but explained that he only did so to save
Zaguirre from embarrassment. He offered the
defense that he was not caught in flagrante
delicto and he sought understanding from the
court by pointing out that men by nature are
polygamous. The SC indefinitely suspended him
from the practice of law for gross immoral
conduct. (He was not disbarred because Court
took notice of the fact that he severed his ties
with Zaguirre and now lives with his wife and
children.)
H: Respondent repeatedly engaged in sexual
congress with a woman not his wife and refuses
to recognize and support a child whom he
previously recognized and promised to support.
Clearly therefore, he violated the standards of
morality required of the legal profession and
should be disciplined accordingly. Atty. Castillos
defenses are not feasible. What is in question in
a case like this is respondents fitness to be a
member of the legal profession. In a disbarment
proceeding, it is immaterial that the complainant
is aware of his marital status or that he was not
caught in pair 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 court.
Possession of good moral character is not only a
condition precedent to admission to the legal
profession, but its continued possession is
essential to maintain ones good standing in the
profession. Complainants admission to practice
merely creates a rebuttable presumption that he
has all the qualifications to become a lawyer.
CANON 8
COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR
TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES
Canon 8.
A lawyer shall conduct
himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor

29
toward his professional colleauges, and shall

avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01.
A
lawyer
shall
not,
in
professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Observance of honorable, candid and

courteous dealings with other lawyers and
fidelity to known and recognized customs
and practices of the bar that make the
practice of law a profession are among the
obligations of a lawyer.
Candor, fairness and truthfulness should

characterize the conduct of a lawyer with
other lawyers.
A lawyers duty is to restrain client from

improprieties and to terminate relation with
him/her should the latter persist.
A lawyer should not avoid performance of an

agreement fairly made because it is not
reduced to writing. He should not take
advantage of the excusable unpreparedness
or absence of counsel during the trial of a
case. Nor should he make use, to his or to
his clients benefit, the secrets of the
adverse party acquired thru design or
inadvertence.
A lawyer who thinks a case is weak may not

criticize the lawyer who accepts it, much less
should he attribute to him/her evil motive for
taking up the clients cause. Such action is
not only immaterial but betrays lack of
understanding of attys duties to client.
Although respect and confidence is due to
every colleague, it is not improper for a
lawyer to honor the just claim of a layman
against another lawyer because such act is a
mere honest effort to serve the interest of
his/her client.
Camacho v. Pangulayan (2000)

F: The counsel [our very own Prof. Manuel
Camacho] of expelled AMA students filed this
complaint against the lawyers comprising the

Pagulayan and Associates Law Office for
procuring without his knowledge compromise
agreements during the civil case involving the
students and the school.
The agreements
required the students to waive all kinds of claims
they might have against AMA and to terminate
all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings
filed against it. The students also wrote letters of
apology. Atty. Pagulayan admits that only he
participated in the formulation and execution of
the
various
Re-Admission
Agreements
complained of. He alleges however that the
agreements had nothing to do with the civil case
but were purely administrative. The SC
suspended Atty. Pangulayan from the practice of
law for 3 months.
H: The IBP found that Atty. Pagulayan was
aware that when the letters of apology and ReAdmission Agreements were formalized, the
complainant was already the counsel for the
students in the civil case but that he still
proceeded to negotiate with the students and
their parents without at the very least
communicating the matter to their lawyer. His
failure is an inexcusable violation of the canons
of professional ethics and an utter disregard of a
duty owing to a colleague. His defense that the
agreements were purely administrative does not
hold because the manifestation stated that the
students shall drop all civil, criminal and
administrative proceedings against AMA.
RULE 8.01
NO ABUSIVE AND IMPROPER LANGUAGE
Rule 8.01.
A lawyer shall not, in
professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
NOTES
Agpalo
Do as adversaries do in law: strive mightily

but eat and drink as friends should
characterize
the
relationship
between
opposing counsel in a case. Whatever illfeelings between clients should not influence
counsel in their conduct and demeanor
toward each other.
The fact that one of the lawyers conducts

him/herself improperly does not relieve the
other from professional obligation in his
relation with him/her.
The highest reward that can come to a

lawyer is the esteem of his/her brethren. It

30
is won in unique conditions and is a tribute

to
exceptional
power
controlled
by
conscience and a sense of public dutyto a
knightly bearing and valor in the hottest of
encounters.
without the consent or knowledge of the

latters counsel. (cf. Canon 9)
A clients proffer of assistance of additional

counsel should not be regarded as evidence
of want of confidence but the matter should
be left to the determination of the client. The
2nd lawyer should communicate with the 1st
before making an appearance. Should the 1 st
lawyer object, he should decline association
but if the 1st lawyer is relieved, he may come
into the case.
When there is conflict of opinions between

two lawyers jointly associated in a case, the
client should decide. The decision should be
accepted unless the nature of the difference
makes it impracticable for the lawyer whose
judgment has been overruled to cooperate
effectively. In this event, it is his/her duty to
ask client to relieve him/her.
RULE 8.01
NOT TO ENCROACH ON
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT
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.
NOTES
Agpalo
A lawyer should not steal the other lawyers

client nor induce the latter to retain him by
promise of better service, good result or
reduced fees for his services. Neither should
he disparage another, make comparisons or
publicize his talent as a means to further his
law practice.
He may accept employment to handle a
matter previously handled by another
lawyer, provided that the other lawyer has
been given notice of termination of service.
Without such notice, he shall only appear
once he has obtained conformity or has, at
the very least, given sufficient notice of
contemplated
substitution.
A
lawyers
appearance in the case without notice to the
first lawyer amounts to an improper
encroachment
upon
the
professional
employment of the original counsel.
The purpose is for the original lawyer to

assert his/her right but the latter cannot
insist
that
the
new
lawyer
refuse
employment in the matter merely because
he claims the termination of his services is a
breach of contract. To do so would be to
deny litigant of the right to be represented
at all times of his counsel of choice.
A lawyer should not, in the absence of the

adverse partys counsel, interview the
adverse party and question him as to the
facts of the case even if the adverse party
was willing to do so. Neither should he
sanction the attempt of his client to settle a
litigated matter with the adverse party
Laput v. Remotigue (1962)

F:
The SC dismissed the charges of Atty.
Laput that the respondents nursed the desire of
his former client to replace him.
H:
The solicitor general found that before
respondents filed their appearance, the client
had already filed with the court a pleading
discharging the complainant.
The fact that
complainant was not able to get a copy was not
the fault of respondents. Also, it was found that
Mrs. Barrera dismissed complainant as lawyer
because she no longer trusted him because she
found out that some checks were sent to the
complainant instead of her and that several
withdrawals were made by complainant in her
account without her permission.
There is no irregularity in the appearance of
respondents
as
counsel.
Complainants
withdrawal and his filing of a motion for the
payment of his attorneys fees estop him from
now complaining that the appearance of
respondent Patlinghug is unprofessional. As for
the respondents, they only entered their
appearance after Mrs. Barrera had dispensed of
the complainants services and after the
petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn.
CANON 9
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW

31

Canon 9.
A lawyer shall not,
directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized
practice of law.
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.
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:
1.
Where
there is a pre-existing agreement with a
partner or associate that, upon the latters
death, money shall be paid over a
reasonable period of time to his estate or to
persons specified in the agreement; or
2.
Where
a
lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished or
legal business of a deceased lawyer; or
3.
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 profitsharing arrangement.
Aguirre v. Rana (2003)

F:
Edwin Rana passed the 2000 Bar
Examinations but was denied admission after it
was found that he appeared as counsel for a
candidate in the May 2001 elections before the
Municipal Board of Election Canvassers of
Mandaon, Masbate where he even filed a
pleading representing himself as counsel for and
in behalf of Vice Mayoralty candidate George
Bunan.
H:
To engage in the practice of law is to
perform acts which are usually performed by
members of the legal profession. Generally, to
practice law is to render any kind of service
which requires theuseof legal knowledge or skill.
Rana was engaged in the practice of law when he
appeared in the proceedings before the MBEC
and filed various pleadings without license to do
so. Respondent has shown moral unfitness to be
a member of the Philippine Bar. Ranas having
passed the bar and taking the oath does not
make him a lawyer. It is the signing in the Roll
of Attorneys that finally makes one of a fullfledged lawyer. The fact that Rana passed the
bar is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only
qualification to become an attorney-at-law.
OCA v. Ladaga (2001)

F:
The SC sternly reprimanded Atty.
Ladaga, Branch Clerk of Court the RTC of Makati,
for practicing law without prior permission when
he appeared as pro bono counsel for his cousin.

Atty. Ladaga had actually requested the Court
Administrator for authority to appear but
nonetheless appeared before authorisation could
be given.
H:
Private practice does not pertain to an
isolated
court
appearance;
rather,
it
contemplates a succession of acts of the same
nature habitually or customarily holding ones
self to the public as a lawyer. It is evident that
the isolated instances when Misael appeared as
pro bono counsel of his cousin do not constitute
the private practice of the law profession
contemplated by law. Nonetheless, though his
appearances do not amount to private practice,
he still failed to obtain a written permission from
the head of the Department as required by the
Revised Civil Service Rules (No officer or
employee shall engage directly in any private
business, vocation or profession).
Sps. Suarez. v. Salazar (1999)

F:
Atty. Filemon Manangan was hired by
the petitioners as their counsel. In 1990, the SC
found him to be in reality Andres Culanag who is
not a member of the Philippine Bar. At the
hearing for this motion, Manangan admitted that
he is not a lawyer entitled to practice law in the
Philippines and that despite the previous decision
of the Court he continued to misrepresent
himself to be an attorney-at-law. The SC
declared him guilty of indirect contempt and
sentenced him to 3 months imprisonment.
H:
[unnecessary]
Alawi v Alauya (1997)

F:
Alauya, a member of the Sharia Bar
used the title of attorney.
H:
The title of attorney is reserved to
those who, having obtained the necessary
degree in the study of law and successfully taken
the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the
IBP and remain members thereof in good
standing, and it is they only who are authorized
to practice law in this jurisdiction.
In re del Rosario (1928)

F:
Del Rosario, who was accepted to the
bar upon a review of the records, was acquitted
of falsifying public documents. His co-principal
however was convicted. The SC disbarred Del
Rosario despite his acquittal.
H:
Acquittal upon a criminal charge is not a
bar to proceedings intended to determine if a
candidate is worthy to be admitted to the bar.
The standards of the legal profession are not

32
satisfied by conduct which merely enable one to

escape the penalties of criminal law.
b.
US v Ney (1907)
F:
Bosque was not permitted to practice
law as he refused to relinquish his status as a
Spanish subject.
A signature in a pleading containing the name of
one, neither a party nor an attorney, does not
comply with the rules even if the name of a
licensed attorney is included. A signature by
agents amounts to a signing by nonqualified
attorneys the office of attorney being originally
one of agency.
H:
A person not admitted to the bar may
not hold himself out to the public as engaged in
the practice of law, either alone or as associated
with a practicing attorney under a firm name.
RULE 9.01
NOT TO DELEGATE WORK
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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Can
employ
secretaries,
investigators,
detectives, researches as long as they are
not involved in the practice of law (e.g., not
writing pleadings, appearing in court, etc.)
NOTES
(Jardeleza)
May a lawyer delegate a case to another

lawyer within the same firm? If a client has
specified the services of one particular
attorney, then the case may not be
delegated. Otherwise, it may be delegated.
RULE 9.02
NOT TO DIVIDE LEGAL FEES
c.
period of time to his estate or to persons

specified in the agreement; or
Where
a
lawyer
undertakes to complete unfinished or legal
business of a deceased lawyer; or
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 profit-sharing
arrangement.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
the first two exceptions to the rule represent

compensation for legal service rendered by
the deceased lawyer during his lifetime,
which is paid to his estate or heirs
the third exception to the rule does not

involve, strictly speaking, a division of legal
fees with non-lawyer employees.
The
retirement benefits in the form of pension
represent additional deferred wages or
compensation for past services of the
employees
Five J Taxi v. NLRC (1994)

H:
Art. 222 of the Labor Code as amended
states that non-lawyers may appear before the
NLRC or any labor arbiter only (1) if they
represent themselves, or (2) if they represent
their organization or the members thereof.
While it may be true that Guillermo H. Pulia was
the
authorized
representative
of
private
respondents, he was a non-lawyer who did not
fall in either of the foregoing categories. Hence,
by clear mandate of the law, he is not entitled to
attorneys fees. Furthermore, the statutory rule
that an attorney shall be entitled to have and
recover
from
his
client
a
reasonable
compensation for his services necessarily imports
the existence of an attorney-client relationship as
a condition for the recovery of attorneys fees,
and such relationship cannot exist unless the
clients representative is a lawyer.
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 preexisting agreement with a partner or
associate that, upon the latters death,
money shall be paid over a reasonable

33
the power to admit persons to said practice
Chapter 3
The Lawyer and the
Court
CANON 10
OBSERVE CANDOR,
FAITH
FAIRNESS
&
GOOD
Canon 10.
A Lawyer owes candor,
fairness and good faith to the Court.
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 an artifice.
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.
Rule 10.03.
A lawyer shall observe the rules
of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat
the ends of justice.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of

the court. He takes part in one of the most
important
functions
of
the
state
administration of justice
As an officer of the court and as part of the

machinery for the administration of justice, a
lawyer is continually accountable to the court
for the manner he discharges his duties and
is always subject to its disciplinary control
The power to exclude persons from the

practice of law is but a necessary incident of
Lawyers duty to court, generally
A lawyer owes to the court, as its officer, the

duty to be candid, faithful and hones;
observe and maintain the respect due it and
judicial officers; assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice; and
refraining from any impropriety tending to
influence the court in the performance of its
judicial function
The first duty of a lawyer is not to his client

but to the administration of justice
A lawyer is not an umpire but an advocate.

He is under no duty to refrain from taking
every proper argument in support of any
legal point because he is not convinced of its
inherent soundness
Ting Dumali v. Torres (2004)

F:
The SC disbarred Atty. Torres for
facilitating the conveyance of the property of his
parents in law by way of an extrajudicial partition
of the properties. The document falsified the
signature of the complainant and asserted that
there were no other compulsory heirs.
H:
The oath to which all lawyers have
subscribed in solemn agreement to dedicate
themselves to the pursuit of justice is not a mere
ceremony or formality for practicing law to be
forgotten afterwards; nor is it mere words, drift
and hollow, but a sacred trust that lawyers must
uphold and keep inviolable at all times. Also,
respondent is the brother in law of the
complainant. Being married to complainants
sister, he knew of his wifes siblings. He was also
consulted with regard to the falsification of
complainants signature in the extrajudicial
settlement. Instead of advising her to secure a
written special power of attorney and against
committing falsification, he presented such
document to the Registry of Deeds to secure a
new title to the lot in favour of his wife and her
sibling.
Cobb Perez v. Lantin (1968)

F:
In a previous decision, the SC was
compelled to observe that the petitioners
resorted to a series of actions and petitions,
abetted by their counsel, for the sole purpose of
thwarting the execution of a simple money
judgment which had long become final and
executory. The petitioners and their counsel, far
from viewing the courts as sanctuaries for those
who seek justice, tried to use them to subvert

34
the very ends of justice. Corollarily, the Court

assessed treble costs against the petitioners, to
be paid by their counsel. The SC denied this
motion for reconsideration by said counsel who
justified their position thus: If there was a
delay, it was because petitioners counsel
happened to be more assertive a quality of
lawyers which is not to be condemned.
just meaning and extent. But above all a lawyer

will find his highest honour in a deserved
reputation for fidelity to private trust and to
public duty, as an honest man and as a patriotic
and loyal citizen.
H:
A counsels assertiveness in espousing
with candour and honesty his clients cause must
be encouraged and is to be commended; what
we do not and cannot countenance is a lawyers
insistence despite the patent futility of his clients
position, as in the case at bar. It is the duty of a
counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman
to the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the
merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that
his clients cause is defenceless, then it is his
bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce
and
submit
rather
than
traverse
the
incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims
and caprices of his client, and temper his clients
propensity to litigate. A lawyers oath to uphold
the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his
client; its primacy is indisputable.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Rule 10.01
Truthfulness Towards the Court
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 an artifice.
Canon 32 Code of Professional

Ethics. The lawyer's duty in its last analysis.
No client corporate or individual, however,
powerful nor any cause, civil or political, however
important, is entitled to receive nor should any
lawyer render any service or advice involving
disloyalty to the laws whose ministers we are, or
disrespect of the judicial office, which we are
bound to uphold, or corruption of any person or
persons exercising a public office or private trust,
or deception or betrayal of the public. When
rendering any such improper service or advice,
the lawyer invites and merits stern and just
condemnation. Correspondingly, he advances the
honour of his profession and the best interests of
his client when he renders service or gives
advice tending to impress upon the client and his
undertaking exact compliance with the strictest
principles of moral law. He must also observe
and advice his client to observe the statute law,
though 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
Candor especially towards the court is

essential to the speedy administration of
justice.
Courts are entitled to expect only complete

honesty from lawyers appearing before
them. Lawyers have the fundamental duty to
satisfy that expectation.
It would be a great detriment to, if not a

failure of, the administration of justice if the
courts could not rely on the submissions and
representations of lawyers in the handling of
their cases.
A lawyer should not conceal the truth from

the court, nor mislead the court in any
manner no matter how demanding his duties
to clients may be.
Rule 10.01 is also found in the lawyers oath.

A lawyer should volunteer to the court any
development of the case which has rendered
the issue raised moot and academic thus
avoiding the time of the court from being
wasted.
Preferring false charges
A lawyer, including a private prosecutor, may

not prefer nor file false charges against
another without being disciplined for his
action
To warrant disciplinary action against a

lawyer, who prosecutes false charges or
complaints, it must be shown that the
charges are false and the lawyer knows
them to be so. (malice or bad faith)
Introducing false evidence
A lawyer who introduces evidence in any

proceeding that he knows is false violates his
duty to do no falsehood nor consent to the
doing of any.
If a lawyer, through negligence in the

performance of his duties as counsel for a
party, failed to discover the falsity of the

35
document which he offered in evidence, he

may still be dealt with administratively
notwithstanding lack of intent on his part to
deceive
Young v. Batuegas (2003)

F:
The Court suspended lawyers who filed a
Manifestation with Motion for Bail on Dec 13,
2000, alleging that the accused voluntarily
surrendered to a person in authority. The truth is
that the accused only surrendered on Dec 14,
2000, as shown by the Certificate of Detention of
NBI. Respondents declared that on Dec 13, upon
learning that a warrant of arrest was issued for
their client, they filed the Manifestation with
motion for bail with the trial court. Then they
immediately fetched the accused in Cavite and
brought him to the NBI to voluntarily surrender.
However, due to heavy traffic, they arrived at the
NBI at 2:00 am the next day; hence, the
certificate of detention indicated the accused
surrendered on Dec. 14
H: A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore
upon his admission to the bar that he will do no
falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in
court and he shall conduct himself as a lawyer
according to the best of his knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity as well to the
courts as to his clients. Respondent lawyers fell
short of the duties and responsibilities expected
from them as members of the bar. Anticipating
that their motion for bail will be denied by the
court if it found that it had no jurisdiction over
the person of the accused, they craftily
concealed the truth by alleging that accused had
voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority
and was under detention.
Afurong v. Aquino (1999)

F:
Afurong filed a complaint for ejectment
against Victorino Flores for non-payment of
rentals. After the court issued a writ of
execution, Flores sought the assistance of the
Citizens Legal Assistance Office (CLAO). His case
was assigned to Aquino, then still an employee of
CLAO. After working on the case, Aquino was
separated from the CLAO on Oct 1, 1975. But
after this date, he still filed an urgent motion for
postponement, signing his name as counsel for
Flores and indicating the address of CLAO as his
office address. Respondent failed to attend the
pre-trial on Dec. 12 because he had to attend
the hearing of a Habeas Corpus Case. This
excuse was proven to be false as there were no
such case. The SC suspended Afurong from the
practice of law for six months.
H:
It is the duty of an attorney 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. Respondent should not have filed a
petition for certiorari considering that there was
no apparent reason for it than to delay the
execution of a valid judgment. Furthermore,
respondent committed falsehood when he stated
that he had to attend another (nonexistent)
hearing. Such act violates the canons of
professional ethics which obliges an attorney to
avoid the concealment of the truth from the
court. Moreover, Aquino purposely allowed the
court to believe that he was still employed with
the CLAO when in fact he had been purged from
the said office.
Cuaresma v. Daquis (1975)

F:
Cuaresmas lawyer filed a petition for
certiorari on stating therein that his client had no
knowledge of a previous civil case instituted by
Daquis against him; that he was not given his
day in court; that he was only given 3 days
notice of the order for the demolition of his
house. In fact, Cuaresma was aware of said civil
case and that he was given notice of 30 days.
He explained that what he meant was that he
had no knowledge of the Civil case from 1968
1970 and that he only had knowledge of the case
after the decision was rendered.
He further
explained that it had been an honest mistake
and that there was no deliberate attempt to
mislead the Court.
H:
Though his explanation appears to be a
mere afterthought there is the assumption of
good faith in favour of respondent. Moreover,
judging from the awkwardly-worded petition and
even his compliance quite indicative of either
carelessness or lack of proficiency in
the
handling of the English language, it isnt
unreasonable to assume that his deficiency in
the mode of expression contributed to the
inaccuracy of his statements. Every member of
the bar should realize that candor in the dealings
with the court is the very essence of honorable
membership in the profession.
RULE 10.02
NOT TO MISQUOTE OR MISREPRESENT
CONTENTS OF PAPER
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

36
amendment, or assert as a fact that which has

not been proved.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
In citing the SC decisions and rulings, it is

the bounden duty of courts, judges and
lawyers to reproduce or copy the same
word-for-word and punctuation-mark-forpunctuation-mark
Insular Life Assurance Employees

Assoc.-NATU v. Insular Life Assurance
(1970)
F:
The SC denied the petition to cite the
presiding judge of the CIR in contempt for
misquoting a decision of the SC.
H:
The Court believes it is more a result of
clerical ineptitude than deliberate attempt to
mislead. The Companies have the prima facie
right to rely on the quotation as it appears on
respondent judges decision. However, the Court
articulates its firm view that in citing this Courts
decision and rulings, it is the bounden duty of
courts, judges and lawyers to reproduce or copy
the same word-for-word and punctuation markfor-punctuation mark. Only from this Tribunals
decisions and rulings do all other courts, as well
as lawyers and litigants, take their bearings.
Ever presenting the danger that if not faithfully
and exactly quoted, the decisions and rulings of
this Court may lose their proper and correct
meaning.
RULE 10.03
OBSERVE RULES OF PROCEDURE
Rule 10.03.
A lawyer shall observe
the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them
to defeat the ends of justice.
Rule 138.20(d)
Duties
of
attorneysIt is the duty of an attorney (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 of law.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
They should not misuse them, as by filing

multiple petitions regarding the same cause
of action of by deliberately misreading the
law to seek a reopening of a case long
decided.
Procedural rules are instruments in the

speedy ad efficient administration of justice.
They should not be used to derail such ends.
CANON 11
RESPECT COURTS AND
JUDICIAL OFFICERS
Canon 11.
and maintain the respect due to the courts and
judicial officers and should insist on similar
conduct by others.
Rule 11.01.
A lawyer shall appear in court
properly attired.
Rule 11.02.
A lawyer shall punctually appear
at court hearings.
Rule 11.03.
A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the courts.
Rule 11.04.
A lawyer shall not attribute to a
Judge motives not supported by the record or
have no materiality to the case.
Rule 11.05.
A lawyer shall submit grievances
against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Respect due to the courts.
A lawyer should conduct himself toward

judges with that courtesy all have a right to
expect and with the propriety which the
dignity of the courts requires.
This is not for the sake of the temporary

incumbent of the judicial office but for the
maintenance of its supreme importance.
Respect of courts helps build high esteem
and regard toward them which is essential to
the proper administration of justice. It also
guarantees the stability of their institution.

37
This duty also devolves upon students who

will choose to enter the legal profession.
They have as much the same duty as a
member of the bar to observe and maintain
the respect due the courts, and their failure
to discharge such duty may prevent them
from being inducted into the office of
attorney
Obeying court orders.
Court orders no matter how erroneous they

may be, must be respected especially by
lawyers who are officers of the court.
This is essential to the maintenance of

government of laws and not of men.
It will be a trying ordeal for lawyers under

certain conditions.
It may happen that
counsel possessed greater knowledge of the
law that the judge who presides. However,
discipline and self-restraint on the part of the
bar under these conditions are necessary of
the orderly administration of justice.
Lawyers are particularly called upon to obey

court orders and processes. Court orders,
however, erroneous they may be, must be
respected especially by lawyers who are
themselves officers of the court
A lawyer who gives a clearly unsatisfactory

explanation as to why he failed to comply
with a lawful order or who simply ignores it
commits an act within the meaning of the
term willful disobedience.
willfulflagrant misconduct such as would

indicate a disposition on the part of a lawyer
so unruly as to affect his qualifications and
standing for the further exercise of his
profession.
Defending judges from unjust criticism.
A lawyer should refrain from subjecting the

judge to wild and groundless accusation, to
discourage other people from so doing and
to come to his defense.
A judge lacks the power, outside of his court,

to defend himself against unfounded
criticism. It is the duty of the lawyer to
come to his defense for no other person than
a lawyer who can better appropriately
support the judiciary and judicial officers
Guerrero v. Villamor (1989)
F:
Consequent to the dismissal of some
criminal cases for qualified theft against one
Gloria Naval by respondent Judge Villamor, the
offended party thru his lawyer and herein copetitioner filed before the RTC an action for
damages against respondent judge for knowingly
rendering an unjust judgment in the aforesaid
criminal cases. Respondent judge issued in
criminal cases an Order of Direct Contempt of
Court against herein petitioners, finding them
guilty and sentencing them to 5 days
imprisonment and a fine of P500.00 for
degrading the respect and dignity of the court
through the use of contemptuous language
before the court. The SC held that the order of
direct contempt was void because
(1) it was issued without charge and hearing,
and
(2) it was irregularly issued as an incident in
already terminated criminal cases.
H:
In this case, the statements are not
contemptuous but merely descriptive of plaintiffs
cause of action.
The Power to punish for
contempt should be used sparingly and should
be exercised only for purposes that are
impersonal, the power being intended as a
safeguard not for the judges as persons but for
the functions they exercise. On the other hand,
Lawyers should bear in mind their basic duty to
observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts of justice and judicial officers and to insist
on similar conduct by others (Canon 11 CPR).
This attitude is best shown through scrupulous
preference for respectful language, is to be
observed not for the sake of the temporary
incumbent of the judicial office, but for the
maintenance of its supreme importance.
In re Vicente Sotto (1949)

F: Atty. Vicente Sotto, then a Senator of the
Republic, wrote his opinion in the Manila Times
regarding the SCs decision, In re Angel Parazo
which was then pending reconsideration. There
the SC cited in contempt a reporter for his
refusal to divulge his source of news published in
the paper. Some parts of Sottos statement
include the following I regret to say that our
High Tribunal has not only erroneously
interpreted [the Press Freedom Law] but that it
is once more putting in evidence the
incompetency or narrow-mindedness of the
majority of its members. In the wake of so many
blunders and injustices deliberately committed
during these last years, I believe that the only
remedy to put an end to so much evil, is to
change the members of the Supreme Court. (He
will introduce a bill in Congress reorganising the
judicary) the SC of today constituted a
constant peril to liberty and democracy. It need

38
to be said loudly, very loudly, so that even the

deaf may hear: the Supreme Court of today is a
far cry from the impregnable bulwark of Justice
of those memorable times of Cayetano Arellano,
Victorino Mapa, Manuel Araullo and other learned
jurists who were the honour and glory of the
Philippine Judiciary. Sotto argues that the SC
has no power to impose penalties on the citizens
absent legislation. He also claims that he is
exercising his freedom of speech and that his
statement was done in utmost good faith. He
claims he has no intention of offending any of
the majority of the honourable members of the
tribunal.
The SC cited Sotto in contempt
required him to show cause why he should not
be disbarred.
intention of offending any member of the SC

may mitigate but not exempt him from liability
for contempt of court. It is also true that the
constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech and
the press must be protected to its fullest extent,
but license or abuse of liberty of the press and of
the citizen should not be confused with liberty in
its true sense. As important as the maintenance
of an unmuzzled press and the free exercise of
the right of the citizen, is the maintenance of the
independence of the judiciary.
H:
Mere criticism or comment on the
correctness
or
wrongness,
soundness
or
unsoundness of the decision of the court in a
pending case made in good faith may be
tolerated; because if well founded it may
enlighten the court and contribute to the
correction of an error if committed; but if it is
not well taken and obviously erroneous, it should
not influence the court in reversing or modifying
its decision. But respondent does not merely
criticize or comment on the decision of the
Parazo case, which was then and still is pending
reconsideration by this court upon petition of
Angel Parazo. He not only intends to intimidate
the members of this Court with the presentation
of a bill in the next Congress reorganizing the SC
and reducing the members of justices from
eleven to seven who are incompetent and
narrow-minded in order to influence the final
decision of said case by this Court, and thus
embarrass or obstruct the administration of
justice. He also attacks the honesty and integrity
of the SC into disrepute and degrading the
His statement
necessarily undermines the confidence of the
people in the honesty and integrity of the
members of this Court, and consequently to
lower or degrade the administration of justice by
the SC.. As a member of the bar and an officer
of the courts, Sotto is duty bound to uphold the
dignity and authority of this court, to which he
owes fidelity according to the oath he has taken
as such attorney, and not to promote distrust in
the administration of justice. Respect to the
courts guarantees the stability of other
institutions, which without such guaranty would
be resting on a very shaky foundation. It is also
well settled that an attorney as an officer of the
court is under special obligation to be respectful
in his conduct and communication to the courts,
he may be removed from office or stricken from
the roll of attorneys as being guilty of flagrant
misconduct.
Respondents assertion that his
statement was made in good faith and without
Rule 11.01.
court properly attired.
RULE 11.01
PROPER ATTIRE
A lawyer shall appear in
NOTES
(Aguirre)
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.
(Agpalo)
Barong Tagalog or a coat and tie

Respect begins with the lawyers outward
physical appearance in court.
Sloppy or
informal attire adversely reflects on the
lawyer and demeans the dignity and
solemnity of court proceedings.
RULE 11.02
PUNCTUALITY
Rule 11.02.
A
lawyer
punctually appear at court hearings.
shall
NOTES
(Agpalo)
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 make him guilty of contemptuous
behavior

39

RULE 11.03
PROPER LANGUAGE AND BEHAVIOUR
Rule 11.03.
A lawyer shall abstain
from
scandalous,
offensive
or
menacing
language or behavior before the courts.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Lawyers Courtesy
It must never be forgotten that a lawyer

pleads; he does not dictate. He should be
courageous, fair, and circumspect, not
petulant, combative, or bellicose in his
dealings with the court
While criticism of judicial conduct is not

forbidden
and
zeal
in
advocacy
is
encouraged, the lawyer must always act
within the limits of propriety and good taste
and with deference for the judges before
whom he pleads his clients cause
A lawyer should not assail, without basis, the

personal integrity of a judge and accuse him
of misfeasance in an attempt to hide his own
inadequacies and omissions to escape
criticism of his client
The discharge of the lawyers duty to his

client does not justify or require the use of
defamatory or threatening words. Neither
does the mistake of a judge in some of his
rulings warrant the use of offensive language
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
Where words are abrasive or insulting,

evidence that the language employed is
justified by the facts is not admissible as a
defense
Judges Courtesy
The duty to observe and maintain respect is

not a one-way duty from a layer to a judge.
A judge should show no shortness of temper
which merely detracts from the equanimity
and judiciousness that should be the
constant marks of a dispenser of justice
A judge may utilize his opportunities to

criticize and correct unprofessional conduct
of attorneys but he may not do so in an
insulting manner
Sangalang v. IAC (1989)

F:
Atty. Cezar Sangco, a former judge and
counsel for petitioners Jose and Lutgarda
Sangalang, was charged for contempt for using
intemperate and accusatory language in his
motion for reconsideration. In that motion, he
claimed that the Courts decision reads more
like a Brief for Ayala and that the Court has not
only put to serious question its own integrity and
competence but also jeopardized its own
campaign
against
graft
and
corruption
undeniably pervading the judiciary... He also
accused the Court of judicial arrogance. The SC
suspended him from the practice of law for three
months.
H: The Court found Atty. Sangcos statements
disparaging, intemperate and uncalled-for. His
suggestions that the Court might have been
guilty of graft and corruption in acting on these
cases are not only unbecoming, but comes, as
well, as an open assault upon the Courts honor
and integrity. He should be aware that because
of his accusations, he has done an enormous
disservice to the integrity of the highest tribunal
and to the stability of the administration of
justice in general. Atty. Sangco is entitled to his
opinion but not to a license to insult the Court
with derogatory statements and recourses to
argumenta ad hominem. In that event, it is the
Courts duty to act to preserve the honor and
dignity...and to safeguard the morals and ethics
of the legal profession. A lawyers "first duty is
not to his client but to the administration of
justice; to that end, his client's success is wholly
subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must
always be scrupulously observant of law and
ethics." And while a lawyer must advocate his
client's cause in utmost earnest and with the
maximum skill he can marshal, he is not at
liberty to resort to arrogance, intimidation, and
innuendo. Certainly, it is the prerogative of an
unsuccessful party to ask for reconsideration, but
as we held in Laureta, litigants should not "'think
that they will win a hearing by the sheer
multiplication of words'". As we indicated the
movants have raised no new arguments to
warrant reconsideration and they can not veil
that fact with inflammatory language.
In re Vicente Raul Almacen (1970)

F:
Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen was a
counsel for defendant in civil case Calero vs.
Yaptingchay. The trial court rendered judgment

40
against his client. Both the CA and the SC

dismissed his appeals. The latter did so via a
minute resolution. Angered, Atty. Almacen filed a
Petition to Surrender Lawyers Certificate of
Title (Sept. 25, 1967) in protest against what he
asserts as a great injustice committed against
his client by this SC. He indicted the Court as a
tribunal peopled by men who are calloused to
our pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons
their own applicable decisions and commit
culpable violations of the Constitution with
impunity. He further said that justice as
administered by present members of the
Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf
and dumb.
He vowed to argue before the
peoples court and disclosed the contents of the
petition to the media. This was published in the
Manila Times and the Manila Chronicles. The SC
decided to withhold action until Almacen actually
surrendered his certificate. But since no word
came from him, the Court reminded him of his
offer. Almacen replied that he has no pending
petition as regards the Calero case.
The SC
then required Almacen to show cause why no
disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Denying the charges, he asked to give his
reasons in an open and public hearing. SC
warned him that if he did not give reasons for his
request within 5 days, oral arguments will be
deemed waived. Almacen explained that since
the Court is the complainant, prosecutor and
Judge, he preferred to be heard and to answer
questions in a public hearing. He also asked for
leave to file a written explanation, to which the
Court consented.
In his written explanation,
Almacen offered no apology. SC called the
answer as undignified and cynical as it is
unchastened. Almacen repeated his jeremiad of
lamentations, this time quoting from the Bible.
He particularly attacked the minute resolution,
assailing the justice system as ...deaf in the
sense that no members of this Court has ever
heard our cries for charity, generosity, fairness,
understanding, sympathy and for justice; dumb
in the sense that inspite of our beggings,
supplications, and pleadings to give us reasons
why our appeal has been DENIED, not one word
was spoken or given...
H:
Every citizen has the right to comment
upon and criticize the actuations of public
officers. The danger of confusing fury to an
attack on ones integrity, competence and
honesty, with imminent danger to the admin of
justice is the reason why the courts have been
unwilling to inflict punishment on those who
assail their actuations. The Court also treats with
forbearance and restraint a lawyer who
vigorously assails their actuations, provided it is
done in respectful terms and through legitimate
channels. For courageous and fearless advocates
are the strands that weave durability into the

tapestry of justice. The reason is that an
attorney does not surrender his right as a citizen
to criticize the decisions of the court in fair and
respectful manner, and the independence of the
Bar, as well as the judiciary, has always been
encouraged by the courts. Criticism has been an
important part of the traditional work of a lawyer.
As a citizen and as officer of the court, a lawyer
is expected not only to exercise his right, but
also to consider it his duty to avail of such right.
But the cardinal condition of all such criticism is
that is shall be bona fide and shall not spill over
the walls of decency and propriety.
Atty. Almacen used his proffered surrender of
his lawyers certificate as a vehicle for his vicious
tirade against this Court. He used vicious
language
and
scurrilous
innuendos
that
transcend the permissible bounds of legitimate
criticism, picturing his client as a sacrificial victim
at the altar of hypocrisy, a victim of silent
injustices and short-cut justice. He caused the
publication of his petition and he expressed no
regret or apology. They could serve no other
purpose but to gratify the spite of an irate
attorney, attract public attention to himself and,
more important of all, bring this Court and its
members into disrepute and destroy public
confidence in them to the detriment of the
orderly administration of justice. Like any other
Government entity in a viable democracy, the
Court is not, and should not be, above criticism.
But a critique of the Court must be intelligent
and discriminating, fitting to its high function as
the court of last resort. Valid and healthy
criticism is by no means synonymous to obloquy,
and requires detachment and disinterestedness.
Any criticism of the Court must possess the
quality of judiciousness and must be informed by
perspective and infused by philosophy. It is an
utter misapprehension, if not a total distortion,
to say that the members of the Court are the
complainants, prosecutors and judges all rolled
up into one.
RULE 11.04
NOT TO ATTRIBUTE TO JUDGE MOTIVES
Rule 11.04.
A lawyer shall not
attribute to a Judge motives not supported by
the record or have no materiality to the case.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
The rule allows such criticism so long as it is

supported by the record or it is material to
the case. A lawyers right to criticize the acts

41
of courts and judges in a proper and

respectful way and through legitimate
channels is well recognized.
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.
Once a litigation is concluded the judge who
decided it is subject to the same criticism as
any other public official because then his
ruling becomes public property and is thrown
open to public scrutiny.
The cardinal condition of all such criticism is
that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill
over the wall of decency and propriety.
RULE 11.05
GRIEVANCES AGAINST JUDGES
Rule 11.05.
A lawyer shall submit
grievances against a Judge to the proper
authorities only.
Const art. VIII, sec. 6. The

Supreme
Court shall have administrative supervision over
all courts and the personnel thereof. [the SC is
the proper authority]
NOTES
(Agpalo)
The duty to respect does not preclude a

lawyer from filing administrative complaints
against erring judges, or from acting as
counsel for clients who have legitimate
grievances against them.
The lawyer shall not file an administrative
case until he has exhausted judicial remedies
which result in a finding that the judge has
gravely erred.
Maceda v. Vasquez (1993)

F:
This prayer for preliminary mandatory
injunction is with regard to whether the office of
the ombudsman could entertain a criminal
complaint for the alleged falsification by Judge
Maceda of his certificate of service submitted to
the SC, and assuming that it can, whether a
referral should be made first to the SC.
H:
A judge who falsifies his certificate of
service is administratively liable to the SC for
serious misconduct and inefficiency (Sec. 1, Rule
140, Rules of Court) and criminally liable to the
State under the Revised Penal Code for his
felonious conduct.
The Ombudsman could
therefore entertain the criminal complaint.
However, where a criminal complaint against a

judge or other court employees arises from their
administrative duties, the Ombudsman must
defer action on said complaint and refer the
same to the SC for determination whether said
judges or court employees acted within the
scope of their administrative duties. Otherwise,
in the absence of any administrative action taken
against
Maceda,
the
investigation
being
conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into
the Courts power of administrative supervision
over all courts and its personnel, in violation of
the doctrine of separation of powers.
CANON 12
ASSIST IN SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Canon 12.
A lawyer shall exert
every effort and consider it his duty to assist in
the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
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 proferrence.
He should also be ready with the original
documents for comparison with the copies.
Rule 12.02.
A lawyer shall not file multiple
actions arising from the same cause.
Rule 12.03.
A lawyer shall not, after
obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse
without submitting to the same or offering an
explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 12.04.
A lawyer shall not unduly delay
a case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse court processes.
Rule 12.05
A lawyer shall refrain from
talking to his witness during the break or recess
in the trial, while the witness is still under
examination.
Rule 12.06
assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to
impersonate another.
Rule 12.07
A lawyer shall not abuse,
browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly
inconvenience him.

42
Rule 12.08
A lawyer shall avoid testifying in
behalf of his client; except:
a.
on
formal
matters,
such
as
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.
CONST. art III, sec 6. All persons shall

have the right to a speedy disposition of their
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies.
Rule 138 Sec 20(g). Duties of

attorneys. It is the duty of an attorney: (g) Not
to encourage either the commencement or the
continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay
any mans cause, from any corrupt motive or
interest.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Duty to assist in the administration of justice
The first duty of a lawyer is not to his client

but the administration of justice. As an
officer of the Court, it is the duty of the
lawyer to advance the Courts objective of
having a speedy, efficient, impartial, correct,
and inexpensive adjudication of case and the
prompt satisfaction of final judgments.
The duty to assist in the administration of

justice may be performed by doing no act
that obstructs, perverts, or impedes the
administration of justice and by faithfully
complying with all his duties to the court and
to his client. Examples of the former would
include the duty to inform the court of any
change of his address or of the death of his
client.
Acts that amount to obstruction of the
administration of justice may take many
forms. They include such acts as instructing
a complaining witness in a criminal case not
to appear at the scheduled hearing so that
the case against his client, the accused,
would be dismissed.
Ordinarily, obstruction of justice constitutes
contempt
of
court,
and
citing
the
misbehaving lawyer for contempt and
punishing him for such misbehavior may be
sufficient to accomplish the end desired.
However, the misbehavior may be of such
character as to effect the offenders

qualifications as a lawyer for the practice of
law. In such case, he may be disciplined as a
lawyer for such misconduct.
RULE 12.01
ADEQUATE PREPARATION
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 proferrence. He should also be ready with
the original documents for comparison with the
copies.
Rule 18.02.
A lawyer shall not
handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Without adequate preparation, the lawyer

may not be able to effectively assist the
court in the efficient administration of
justice. Non-observance of this rule might
result in:
1) The postponement of the pre-trial or
hearing, which would thus entail delay in
the early disposition of the case,
2) The judge may consider the client nonsuited or in default or
3) The judge may consider the case
deemed submitted for decision without
clients evidence, to his prejudice.
RULE 12.02
FORUM SHOPPING
Rule 12.02.
A lawyer shall not file
multiple actions arising from the same cause.
Rule 7, sec. 5. The plaintiff or principal

party shall certify under oath in the complaining
or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for
relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto
and simultaneously filed therewith:
a) that he has not theretofore commenced any
action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no
such other action or claim is pending
therein;
b) if there is such other pending action or
claim, a complete statement of the present
status thereof; and

43
c)
if he should thereafter learn that the same or

similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he shall report that fact within 5
days therefrom to the court wherein his
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has
been filed.
Failure
to
comply
with
the
foregoing
requirements shall not be curable by mere
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory
pleading but shall cause for the dismissal of the
case without prejudice, unless otherwise
provided, upon motion after hearing.
The
submission of false certification or noncompliance with any of the undertaking therein
shall constitute indirect contempt of court,
without
prejudice
to
the
corresponding
administrative and criminal actions. If the acts
of the party or his counsel clearly constitute
willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same
shall be ground for summary dismissal with
prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as
well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
period asked for

RULE 12.04
COURT PROCESS
Rule 12.04. A lawyer shall not unduly

delay a case, impede the execution of a
judgment or misuse court processes.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Tempering clients propensity to litigate
While a client may withhold from his counsel

certain facts or give him false information to
attain his unlawful ends, a lawyer can easily
see through the clients action either before
or at the early stage of the litigation
NOTES
(Agpalo)
It is essential to an effective and efficient

administration of justice that once a
judgment has become final the winning party
be not, through subterfuge, and misuse of
legal process, deprived of that verdict.
Rule 12.02 stresses the affirmative duty of a
lawyer to check against useless litigations.
His signature in every pleading constitutes a
certificate by him that to the best of his
knowledge there is a good ground to support
it and that it is not to interpose for delay.
The willful violation of this rule may subject
him to (1) appropriate disciplinary action or
(2) render him liable for the costs of
litigation.
Lawyer to discourage appellate review
If a lawyer is honestly convinced of the

futility of an appeal in a civil suit he should
not hesitate to temper his clients desire to
seek appellate review of such decision for
unless, he could show sufficient cause for
reversal, he would only succeed in planting
false hope in his clients mind, increasing the
burden on appellate tribunals, prolonging
litigation unnecessarily and exposing his
client to useless expenses.
RULE 12.03
NOT TO DELAY CASE
Rule 12.03. A lawyer shall not, after

obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse
without submitting to the same or offering an
explanation for his failure to do so.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Where a lawyers motion for extension of

time to file a pleading, memorandum or brief
has remained unacted by the court, the least
that is expected of him is to file it within the
If after his appearance a lawyer discovers

that his client has no case, he may not
unceremoniously abandon the action. He
should advise his client to discontinue the
action or to confess judgment, and if the
client is determined to pursue it he should
ask that he be relieved from professional
responsibility
Nonetheless a lawyer should not, solely on

his own judgment, let the decision become
final by letting the period to appeal lapse,
without informing his client of the adverse
decision and of his candid advice in taking
appellate review thereof, well within the
period to appeal, so that the client may
decide whether to pursue appellate review.
Malonso v. Principe (2004)
F:
In expropriation proceedings by the
NAPOCOR against several lot owners in Bulacan,
the president of an organization of the lot owners
entered into a contract for legal services with
Atty. Principe.
The complainant Malonso, a
member of the same organization, appointed on
the other hand a certain Elfa as his attorney-in-

44
fact on the matter of negotiation with NPC.

Eventually, an amicable settlement was had
between NAPOCOR and the lot owners. More
than 2 years after the expropriation cases were
instituted, Atty. Principe filed his motion to
separate legal fees and filed his Notice of Entry
of Appearance claiming that he is the legal
counsel of the lot owners. The other lot owners
including Malonso wrote a letter to NPC
informing the latter that they have never
authorized Sandamas President to hire the
services of Atty. Principes law firm to represent
them. Atty. Principe filed several motions to
ensure his claim to the 40% of the selling price
of the properties being expropriated.
An
investigation
conducted
by
the
IBP
recommended Atty. Principes suspension from
the practice of law for two years on the ground
that Atty. Principe had violated among others
Rule 12.04 which says that a lawyer shall not
unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a
judgment or misuse Court processes. In its
Resolution, the IBP Board ordained his
suspension from the practice of law for 2 years.
The SC however found that formal requisites of
the investigation and resolution had not been
complied with and dismissed the case requiring
the IBP to comply with the procedure outlined in
Rule 139-B in all cases involving disbarment and
discipline of attorneys.
H:
[not pertinent]
Manila Pest Control v. Workmens

Compensation Commission (1968)
F:
Abitria, an employee of MPC suffered
from tuberculosis found to have been contracted
from his work. He was granted disability benefits
by the Court but Manila Pest Control alleged
infringement of due process as it was not served
the decision by the court thru its counsel. It
claimed that a writ of execution should have not
have been ordered since it did not receive a copy
of the decision. The decision was sent to Atty.
Camacho, who was without any connection to
the case, and not to its counsel Atty. Corpuz.
The SC upheld the decision of the WCC which
explained that when it delivered the decision to
Atty. Corpuz, he refused to receive the decision
alleging that he was no longer handling the case.
He instead instructed WCC to deliver said
decision to Atty. Camacho, who according to him
was now handling the case. In view of said
instruction, the employee of WCC handed the
copy of the decision to the receiving clerk in the
Office of Atty. Camacho. The Court imposed
treble costs against petitioner to be paid by Atty.
Corpuz.
H:
It is sad to note that Atty. Corpuz is now
impugning the delivery of the decision to Atty.
Camacho when in fact the delivery of said
decision was made per his instruction to the
employee of WCC. This would not be the first
time where out of excess of zeal and out of
desire to rely on every conceivable defense that
could delay if not defeat the satisfaction
incumbent on ones client, counsel would attempt
to put the most favorable light on a course of
conduct which certainly cannot be given the
stamp of approval. Not that it would clear
counsel of any further responsibility. His conduct
leaves much to be desired. The effort to evade
liability by petitioner by invoking due process
guaranty must not be rewarded with success. An
effort was made to serve petitioner with a copy
of the decision; that such effort failed was
attributable to the conduct of its own counsel.
It is not enough that petitioner be required to
pay the sum due to Abitria. The unseemly
conduct of petitioners counsel calls for words of
reproof. It is one thing to exert to the utmost
ones ability to protect the interest of ones
client. It is quite another thing to take advantage
any unforeseen turn of events, if not to create
one, to delay if not to defeat the recovery of
what is justly due and demandable, especially so
when the obligee is a poverty-stricken man
suffering from a dreaded disease. The ancient
and learned profession of the law stresses the
fairness and honor; that must be ever kept in
mind by everyone who is enrolled in its ranks
and who expects to remain a member of a good
standing.
RULE 12.05 TO 12.07
PROPER BEHAVIOR TOWARDS WITNESSES
Rule 12.05
A lawyer shall refrain
from talking to his witness during the break or
recess in the trial, while the witness is still under
examination.
Rule 12.06
assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to
Rule 12.07
A lawyer shall not abuse,
browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly
inconvenience him.
Rule 132, sec. 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;

45
2)
3)
4)
5)
Not to be detained longer than the interests

of justice require;
Not to be examined except only as to
matters pertinent to the issue;
Not to give an answer which will tend to
subject him to a penalty for an offense
unless otherwise provided by law; or
Not to give an answer which will tend to
degrade his reputation, unless it be to 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 conviction for an offense.
P.D.
No.
1829
Penalizing
the
obstruction
of
apprehension
and
prosecution of criminal offenders (1981)
ANNEXED
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Rule 12.05. The purpose of this rule is to

avoid any suspicion that he is coaching the
witness what to say during the resumption of
the examination.
Rule 12.06. A lawyer may interview

witnesses in advance of trial or attend to
their needs if they are poor but he should
avoid any such action as may be
misinterpreted as an attempt to influence
the witness what to say in court. Court will
not give weight on a testimony of a witness
who admits having been instructed. A lawyer
who presents a witness whom he knows will
give a false testimony or is an impersonator
may be subjected to disciplinary action.
Rule 12.07. The lawyer has a duty to always

treat adverse witnesses and suitors with
fairness and due consideration.
Rule 12.07. The client cannot be made the

keeper of the lawyers conscience in
professional matters. He has no right to
demand that his counsel abuse the opposite
party and the latters witnesses or indulge in
offensive personalities. Improper speech is
not excusable on the ground that it is what
the client would say if speaking in his own
behalf
Rule 12.07. If it is the judge who subjects

the witness to harsh treatment, the lawyer
has the right to protest in a respectful and

dignified manner the action of the judge and
to make the incident of record without being
held liable administratively or for contempt
of court
RULE 12.08
NOT TO TESTIFY IN BEHALF OF A CLIENT
Rule 12.08
A lawyer shall avoid
testifying in behalf of his client; except:
a.
on formal matters, such as mailing,
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
another counsel.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
The underlying reason for the impropriety of

a lawyer acting in such dual capacity lies in
the difference between the function of a
witness and that of an advocate. The
function of a witness is to tell the facts as he
recalls then in answer to questions. The
function of an advocate is that of a partisan.
It is difficult to distinguish between the zeal
of an advocate and the fairness and
impartiality of a disinterested witness
The lawyer will find it hard to disassociate

his relation to the client as a witness and his
relation to the party as a witness. The dual
relationship
would
invite
embarrassing
criticisms which could be harmful to the
reputation of the profession.
PNB v. Uy Teng Piao (1932)

F:
Pursuant to a judgment of the CFI the
mortgaged lands of Uy Teng Piao were sold. PNB
obtained a waiver of the right to redemption. Uy
Teng Piao alleged that the waiver was given with
the agreement that the bank would not collect
from him the balance of judgment. One of the
attorneys for the bank during trial testified that
the defendant renounced his right to redeem the
parcel of land because a friend of the defendant
was interested in buying it.
H:
With respect to the testimony of the
banks attorney, we should like to observe that
although the law does not forbid an attorney to
be a witness and at the same time an attorney in
a cause, the courts prefer that counsel should
not testify as witness unless it is necessary and

46
that they should withdraw from the active

management of the case. Canon 19 of the Code
of Legal Ethics provides that when a lawyer is a
witness for his client, except as to merely formal
matters. Such as the attestation or custody of an
instrument and the like, he should leave the trial
of the case to other counsel. Except when
essential to the ends of justice, a lawyer should
avoid testifying in court in behalf of his client.
CANON 13
REFRAIN FROM ACTS
GIVING APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCE
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.
Rule 13.01.
A lawyer shall not extend
extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek
opportunity for cultivating familiarity with
Judges.
Rule 13.02.
A lawyer shall not make public
statements in media regarding a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
party.
Rule 13.03.
A lawyer shall not
invite interference by another branch
of the government by another branch
of the government in normal course
proceedings.
brook or
or agency
or agency
of judicial
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Improper acts of a lawyer which give the

appearance of influencing the court to decide
a case in a particular way lessen the
confidence of the public in the impartial
administration of justice and should be
avoided.
Courts as impartial administrators of justice

are entitled to disposed of their business in
an orderly manner, free from outside
interference obstrusive of their functions and
tending to embarrass the administration of
justice, just as litigants are entitled to have
their causes tried fairly by an impartial
tribunal, uninfluenced by publication, public

clamor, bias, prejudice or sympathies.
In Re: Published Alleged Threats

Against Members of the Court in the
Plunder Law Case Hurled by Atty. Leonard
de Vera (2003)
F:
Atty. De Vera made some remarks to the
Philippine Daily Inquirer regarding a pending
case involving the constitutionality of the Plunder
Law. In one statement, he asked the SC to
dispel rumors that it would vote in favor of a
petition filed by Estradas lawyers to declare the
plunder law unconstitutional and that his group
was greatly disturbed by the rumors. In another
statement, he said that a decision in favour of
the laws unconstitutionality would trigger mass
actions and the people would not just swallow
any SC decision that is basically wrong. Atty. De
Vera admitted to making the statements but that
these were factually accurate and that these are
within his right to freedom of speech. Also, his
second statement is allegedly historically correct
(Marcos and Erap times) but that both
statements are not to degrade the court, to
destroy public confidence and to bring it into
disrepute. The SC found that de Veras acts
constitute indirect contempt and fined him
P20,000.
H:
Freedom of speech is not absolute, and
must 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. De Vera is in abuse of his 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 or
public respect thereof and confidence.
His
statements are not fair criticisms of any decision
of the Court, but are threats made against it to
force the Court to decide the issue in a particular
manner, or risk earning the ire of the public. It
tends to promote distrust an undermines public
confidence in the judiciary, by creating the
impression that the Court cannot be trusted to
resolve cases impartially, uninfluenced by public
clamor and other extraneous influences.
Nestle Phils v. Sanchez (1987)
F: Two unions with pending cases before the SC

had intermittent pickets in front of the Padre
Faura gate of the SC building, obstructing access
to and egress from the Courts premises. They
also constructed provisional shelters, set up a
kitchen, littered the area causing it to be

47
unhygienic and unsanitised, waved their red

streamers and placards with slogans, and
harangued
the court
with the use of
loudspeakers. Two justices called the leaders of
the unions and their counsel to inform them that
the pickets constitute direct contempt of court,
and that their petitions could not be heard until
the pickets stop. Atty Espinas, the counsel for
the unions, apologised and assured that the acts
would not be repeated. The SC dismissed the
contempt charges against Atty. Espinas.
H: Grievances must be ventilated through proper
channels (appropriate petitions, motions or other
pleadings) in keeping with the respect due to the
Courts as impartial administrators of justice
entitled to proceed to the disposition of its
business in an orderly manner, free from outside
interference obstructive of its functions and
tending to embarrass the administration of
justice. The acts of the respondents are not only
affront to the dignity of this Court, but equally a
violation of the right of the adverse parties and
the citizenry at large. The individuals cited are
not knowledgeable in the intricacies of
substantive and adjective laws, but the duty of
advising them rests primarily on their counsel of
record. For though the rights of free speech and
of assembly are constitutionally protected, an
attempt to pressure or influence courts of justice
is no longer within the ambit of constitutional
protection.
13.01
NO EXTRAORDINARY ATTENTION
because it may be heard by a judge who is

his relative, compadre or former colleague in
office. The responsibility is on the judge not
to sit in a case unless he is both free from
bias and from the appearance thereof
13.02
NO PUBLIC STATEMENT TO MEDIA
Rule 13.02.
A lawyer shall not make
public statements in media regarding a pending
case tending to arouse public opinion for or
against a party.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Purpose: Newspaper publications regarding a

pending or anticipated litigation may
interfere with a fair trial, prejudice the
administration of justice, or subject a
respondent or a accused to a trial by
publicity and create a public inference of
guilt against him
This is the reason why certain proceedings

are considered confidential and their
publication prohibited until their final
resolution by the courts, as in administrative
complaints against judges and lawyers
Public officials charged with duty of

prosecuting or defending actions in court
may issue statements but such statements
should avoid any statement of fact likely to
create an adverse attitude in the public mind
respecting the alleged actions of the
defendants to the pending proceedings.
Picketing is a form of public expression by a

group or organization of sentiments or
opinions on a particular matter. It should not
be held to influence a court to decide a case
in a particular way.
The duty and
responsibility of advising the picketers and
their leaders that what they are doing is
contemptuous rests primarily upon their
lawyers who, as officers of the court, are
duty-bound to apprise them of proper
decorum and attitude towards courts of
justice. (Cf. Nestle Phils. v. Sanchez supra at
Rule 13.01)
Rule 13.01.
A lawyer shall not
extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to,
nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity
with Judges.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
The common practice of some lawyers

making judges and prosecutors godfathers of
their children to enhance their influence and
their law practice should be avoided by
judges and lawyers alike
A lawyer should not see a judge in chamber

and talk to him about a case he is handling
and pending in the judges court
A lawyer should not communicate to the

judge the merits of a pending case
However, it is not incumbent on a lawyer to

refuse professional employment in a case
Criticism of pending and concluded litigation
The court, in a pending litigation, must be

shielded from embarrassment or influence in
its all important duty of deciding the case.
Thus, what a lawyer can ordinarily say

48
against a concluded litigation and the

manner the judge handed down the decision
may not generally be said to a pending
action.
Once a litigation is concluded, the judge who

decided it is subject to the same criticism as
any other public official because then, his
ruling becomes public property and is thrown
open to public consumption.
A newspaper publication tending to impede,

obstruct, embarrass or influence the courts
in administering justice in a pending case
constitutes criminal contempt, but the rule is
otherwise after the litigation is ended.
Limitations on right to criticize
Right of lawyer to comment on or criticize

the decision of a judge or his acts is not
unlimited. Criticism must be bona fide and
must not spill over the walls of decency and
propriety.
A publication in or outside of court tending to

impede, obstruct, embarrass or influence the
courts in the administration of justice in a
pending suit, or to degrade the courts,
destroy public confidence in them or bring
them in any way to disrepute, whether or
not there is a pending litigation, transcends
the limits of fair comment. Such publication
or intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross
violation of the lawyers duty to respect the
courts.
Press may not publicize proceedings declared

confidential by law or by SC resolution until
their final adjudication. No one may publicly
comment thereon during their pendency.
(ex. disciplinary actions against judges and
lawyers)
Maintainance of an unmuzzled press and the

free exercise of the rights of the citizens is
as
important
as
preservation
of
Right and duty of lawyer to criticize courts
Guarantees of a free speech and a free press

include the right to criticize judicial conduct,
hence, this rule is not intended to prevent or
preclude criticism of judicial acts of a judge.
Whether the law is wisely or badly enforced

is a fit subject for comment.
If people cannot criticize a judge the same

as any other public official, public opinion will
be effectively muzzled.
49
Courts are not sacrosanct. They should

expect
critical
evaluation
of
their
performance. For like the executive and the
legislative branches, the judiciary is rooted
in the soil of democratic society and
nourished by the periodic appraisal of
citizens whom it should serve.
In re Request Radio TV Coverage

(2001)
F: The petitioner, in essence, sought to reverse
the 1991 SC resolution denying the live coverage
of a libel case filed by then President Aquino. In
this case, petitioners requested the Court to
allow live media coverage of the anticipated trial
before the Sandiganbayan of criminal charges
against Pres. Estrada. In the 1991 case, the
court totally prohibited live radio and TV
coverage because of the prejudice it poses to the
defendants right to due process and to the fair
and orderly administration of justice. The Court
also held that the right of the people to
information may be served by less distracting,
degrading and prejudicial means. The radio and
TV coverage allowed was limited to shots of the
courtroom, the judicial officers, the parties and
their counsel taken prior to the commencement
of official proceedings. No video shots or
photographs were permitted during the trial
proper. The SC denied the petition.
H:
This resolution of this case involves the
weighing out of the freedom of the press and the
right of the people to information on one hand,
and the fundamental rights of the accused on the
other, along with the constitutional power of the
court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair
and impartial trial. Jurisprudence tells us that
the right of the accused must be preferred.
Television can work profound changes in the
behavior of the people it focuses on. However,
the actual effect of media cannot be quantified.
The effect of television may escape the ordinary
means of proof, but is not far-fetched.
The court also pointed out that a public trial is
not synonymous to a publicized trial. Although
the
court
recognizes
the
constitutionally
protected freedom of the press and the right to
public information, within the courthouse, the
overriding consideration is still the paramount
right of the accused to due process.
In Estes v. Texas, it was held that the likely
prejudices of a live coverage of a trial are: (1)
When the judge allows the trial to be televised,
the case automatically assumes an important
status in the community such that everybody
becomes interested. (2) The quality of the

testimony in criminal trials will often be impaired.

(3) There are additional responsibilities that the
presence of television places upon the judge. (4)
The presence of television may prove to be a
form
of
mentalsometimes
physical
harassment on the part of the defendant. (much
like being in a police line-up)
The court said that it is undeniable that these
criminal cases have twice become focal points in
the conflicting EDSA II and EDSA III. The
magnitude of these events has divided the
nation. The court cannot turn a blind eye on
another possible extraordinary case of mass
action being allowed to creep into the business of
he courts.
Finally, it said that unlike other government
offices, courts do not express the popular will of
the people. It is tasked to adjudicate on
controversies based solely on what is submitted
before them. A trial is not a free trade of ideas.
The competing market of thoughts in not the
known test of truth in a courtroom. The court is
not unmindful of recent technological advances
but to chance with the life or liberty of any
person in a hasty bid to use and apply them,
even in the presence of safety precautions, is a
price too high to pay.
Martelino v. Alejandro (1970)

F:
A shooting occurred between some
Muslim recruits (then undergoing commando
training) and members of the AFP. Major Eduardo
Martelino and the officers under him were
charged for violation of the Articles of War as a
result of this shootout.
The SC denied the
petition to disqualify the president of the general
court martial, who acquired jurisdiction over the
case because of the his admission that he read
newspaper stories of the Corregidor incident,
which some newspapers called the incident the
Corregidor massacre. Petitioners contend that
the case has received such an amount of
publicity and was being exploited for political
purposes
in
connection
with
the
1969
presidential election. They alleged tat the
adverse publicity given in the mass media to the
incident, coupled with the fact that it became an
issue against the administration, was such as
would unduly influence the members of the
court-martial. News items that appeared in the
Daily Mirror stated among other things that:
coffins are being prepared for the Philippine
president. An editorial from Manila Times said
that this issue would be brought up in the
elections and that it is a heavy load for the
administration.
H: The court cited US jurisprudence regarding

the topic of trial by publicity. Irvin vs. Dowd
marks the first time a state conviction was struck
down solely on the ground of prejudicial
publicity. Rideau vs. Louisiana is a case where a
change of venue was granted because the fact
that the people in that place had seen and heard
the accuseds televised confession during
interrogation would work to unjustly prejudice
the accused.
Televising a court trial would amount to a
violation of due process. A carnival atmosphere
would be created.
Jurisprudence also states that there is nothing
that proscribes the press from reporting events
that transpire in the courtroom. But there is a
reasonable likelihood that the prejudicial news
prior to trial will prevent a fair trial. If publicity
during the proceeding threatens the fairness of
the trial, a new trial shall be ordered.
HOWEVER, THE CASE AT BAR IS DIFFERENT. The
publicity in this case did not focus on the guilt of
the petitioners but rather on the responsibility of
the government for what was claimed to be a
massacre of Muslim trainees.If there was a
trial by newspaper it was not of the petitioner
but of the government. There is no showing that
the courts martial failed to protect the accused
from massive publicity.
Protection would
include: controlling the release of information;
change the venue or postpone trial until the
deluge of prejudicial publicity has subsided.
Even granting that there is massive and
prejudicial publicity, the petitioners do not
contend that the respondents have been unduly
influenced but simply that they might be.
In re Vicente Raul Almacen (1970)

supra at Rule 11.03
Cruz v. Salva (1959)

F: The SC publicly reprimanded Pasay City Fiscal
Salva for conducting a reinvestigation of the
Monroy murder not in his office, but in the
Municipal Courts session hall, to accommodate
the big crowd wanting to witness the proceeding.
Members of the press were present, and were
even allowed to ask questions. Salva was willing
to adopt the questions as the committees.
H: Anent the investigation, the court was greatly
disappointed and annoyed by the publicity and
sensationalism. He committed a grievous error
and poor judgment for which the court failed to
find any satisfactory explanation. His actuations
went beyond the bounds of prudence, discretion
and good taste. When such publicity and

50
sensationalism is allowed, the whole thing

becomes inexcusable even abhorrent, and in the
interest of justice, is constrained to put an end to
it.
13.03
NOT TO INVITE OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE
Rule 13.03.
A lawyer shall not brook
or invite interference by another branch or
agency of the government by another branch or
agency of the government in normal course of
judicial proceedings.
Rule 11.05.
A lawyer shall submit
grievances against a Judge to the proper
authorities only.
NOTE
(Aguirre)
The basis for the rules is the principle of

separation of powers
(Agpalo)
The reason for Rule 13.03 is that a lawyer

who invites interference by another branch
or agency of government in the normal
couse of judicial proceedings endangers the
independence of the judiciary
Maglasang v. People (1990)

F: Khalyxto Maglasang was convicted in the court
in San Carlos, Negros Occidental. His counsel,
Atty. Castellano, filed for a petition for certiorari
through registered mail. Due to non-compliance
with the requirements, the court dismissed the
petition and a motion for reconsideration. Atty.
Castellano then sent a complaint to the Office of
the President where he accused the 5 justices of
the 2nd division, with biases and ignorance of the
law or knowingly rendering unjust judgments. He
accused the court of sabotaging the Aquino
administration for being Marcos appointees, and
robbing the Filipino people genuine justice and
democracy. He also said that the SC is doing this
to protect the judge who was impleaded in the
petition and for money reasons. He alleges
further that the court is too expensive to be
reached by ordinary men. The court is also
inconsiderate and overly strict and meticulous.
When asked to show cause why he ought not be
held in contempt, Castellano said that the

complaint was constructive criticism intended to
correct in good faith the erroneous and very
strict practices of the justices concerned. He also
said that the justices have no jurisdiction over
his act and that they should just answer the
complaint. The SC found him guilty of contempt
and improper conduct and ordered to pay
P1,000or imprisonment of 15 days, and to suffer
6 months suspension.
H: The court found his comments scurrilous and
contumacious. He went beyond the bounds of
constructive criticism. What he said are not
relevant to the cause of his client. They cast
aspersion on the Courts integrity as a neutral
and final arbiter of all justiciable controversies
before it.
The explanation of Castellano in his negligence in
the filing of the petition for certiorari did not
render his negligence excusable. It is clear that
the case was lost not by the alleged injustices
Castellano irresponsibly ascribed to the members
of the court, but his inexcusable negligence and
incompetence.
As an officer of the court, he should have known
better than to smear the honor and integrity of
the court just to keep the confidence of his
client.
Also, the complaint he filed, the most basic tenet
of the system of government separation of
power - has been lost. He should know that not
even the President of the Philippines can pass
judgment on any of the courts acts.
Chapter 4
The Lawyer and the Client
NOTES
(Regala v. Sandiganbayan)
The nature of lawyer-client relationship is

premised on the Roman Law concepts of
1.
location conduction operarum (contract
of lease and services) where one person
lends his services and another hires
them without reference to the object of
which the services are to be performed,
wherein lawyers services may be
compensated by honorarium
2.
mandato (contract of agency) wherein a
friend on whom reliance could be placed
makes a contract in his name, but gives

51
up all that he gained by the contract to

the person who requested him.
BUT the lawyer-client relationship is more

than that of the principal-agent and lessorlessee. The modern day perception is that
an attorney is more than a mere agent or
servant because
1.
he possesses special power of trust and
confidence reposed on him by his client
2.
he is as independent as the judge of
the court
3.
he occupies a quasi-judicial office
since he is an officer of the Court and he
exercises his judgment in the courses of
action to be taken favorable to his client
4.
In
the
creation
of
lawyer-client
relationship, there are rules, ethical
conduct and duties that breathe life into
it, among those, the fiduciary duty to his
client which is of a very delicate,
exacting and confidential character,
requiring a very high degree of fidelity
and good faith that is required by reason
of necessity and public interest.
renunciation of every personal advantage

conflicting in any way
The relationship has to be reconciled with

duties to the court and thus requires fidelity
and loyalty in varying degrees within limits
Its preservation and protection encourage

clients to entrust their legal problems to an
attorney, which is paramount importance in
administration of justice
In sum, an attorney must exert his best

efforts and learning: to protect of client; to
promptly account for any fund/ property
entrusted by or received for client; not to
purchase/ acquire any property or interest of
client in litigation; to forever keep inviolate
clients secrets or confidence; not to
represent an adverse party even after
termination.
Sufficiency of Employment
A lawyer has no power to act as counsel or

legal representative for a person without
being retained nor may he appear for a party
in a case without being employed unless by
leave of court
(Agpalo)
Attorney-client relationship
The relationship is strictly personal and

highly confidential and fiduciary (something
in trust for another). Thus, delegation is
prohibited absent the clients consent. It
likewise terminates at death of either the
client or the attorney.
Courts have to recognise its creation on the

faith of the clients word. Likewise,
A client can terminate it any time with or

without the consent of the lawyer. However,
an attorney enjoys no similar right as he is
an officer of the court and he may be
permitted to withdraw only with the consent
of his client or with the approval of the court
There should be a proper sense of vicarious

detachment, less emotional involvement to
adequately serve interest of client. It is
therefore advisable not to appear for oneself
or close relatives.
It
demands
undivided
allegiance,
a
conspicuous and high degree of good faith,
disinterestedness, candour, fairness, loyalty,
fidelity and absolute integrity in dealings and
transactions.
It demands the utter
The essential feature of the relation of

attorney and client is the fact of
employment. While a written agreement for
professional services is the best evidence to
show the relation, formality is not an
essential element of the employment of a
lawyer
It is sufficient, to establish the professional

relation, that the advice and assistance of an
attorney is sought and received in any
matter pertinent to his profession
There is an implied contract of professional

employment where an attorney appears on
behalf of a party without the latter
interposing any objection thereto
In the absence of a written retainer, the

establishment
of
the
attorney-client
relationship depends upon the circumstances
of each case
To employ an attorney one has to have legal

capacity to do so.
Minors/ incompetents
must have a general guardian/ guardian ad
litem has to employ an attorney.
Retainer

52

Retainer, defined:
(1) an act of client by which he engages services
of an attorney to render legal advice, defend or
prosecute his cause in court;
(2) fee which a client pays to an attorney when
latter is retained (retaining fee)
General retainer, defined: secure beforehand

services of attorney for any legal problem
that may afterward arise
Special retainer, defined: particular case or

service
Retaining fee, defined: preliminary fee paid

to insure and secure future services, to
remunerate him for being deprived, by being
retained by one party. It prevents undue
hardship resulting from the rigid observance
of the rule forbidding him from acting as
counsel for other party
Employment of a law firm
The employment of a law firm is equivalent

to the retainer of a member thereof even
though only one of them is consulted
between a present client and the prospective

client.
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.
Rule 2.01.
A lawyer shall not
reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed.
R.A. 6033. An act requiring courts to

give preference to criminal cases where the
party or parties involved are indigents
(1969)ANNEXED
R.A.
6034.
An
act
providing
transportation and other allowances for
indigent litigants. (1969) ANNEXED
RA
6035.
An
act
requiring
stenographers to give free transcript of
notes to indigent and low income litigants
and providing a penalty for the violation
thereof. (1969) ANNEXED
NOTES
(Agpalo)
CANON 14
SERVICE TO THE NEEDY
Canon 14.
A lawyer
refuse his services to the needy.
shall
not
Rule 14.01.
A lawyer shall not decline to
represent a person solely on account of the
latters race, sex, creed or status of life, or
because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of
said person.
A private practitioner, as a general rule, is

not obliged to act as counsel for a person
who may wish to become his client. He has
the right to decline employment.
Canon 14 provide the exceptions to the
general rule and emphasize the lawyers
public responsibility of rendering legal
services to the needy and the oppressed who
are unable to pay attorneys fees. In such
cases, refusal is the exception rather than
the rule.
RULE 14.01
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES
REGARDLESS OF STATUS
Rule 14.02.
A lawyer shall not decline,
except for serious and sufficient cause, an
appointment as counsel de oficio or as amici
curiae, or a request from the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines or any of its chapters for rendition
of free legal aid.
Rule 14.01.
A lawyer shall not
decline to represent a person solely on account
of the latters race, sex, creed or status of life, or
said person.
Rule 14.03.
A lawyer may refuse to accept
representation of an indigent client if:
a.
he is not in a position to carry out the
work effectively or competently;
b.
he labors under a conflict of interests
between him and the prospective client or
Rule 138, sec. 20 (h-i). Duties of

attorneys.It is the duty of an attorney: (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

53
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.
NOTES
(Jardeleza)
Rule 14.01 applies only to criminal cases.
(Agpalo)
Regardless of his personal feelings, a lawyer

should not decline representation because a
client or a cause is unpopular or community
reaction is adverse
Rule 14.01 makes it his duty not to decline

to represent the accused regardless of his
opinion as to his guilt.
In criminal cases: easy to take accused

because of presumption of innocence and
proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In Civil Actions
In a civil action, the rules and ethics of the

legal profession enjoin a lawyer from taking
a bad case, and he certainly knows whether
a civil suit is good, bad, or honestly
debatable under the law.
The attorneys signature in every pleading

constitutes a certification by him that there
is good cause to support it and that it is not
interposed for delay, and a willful violation of
such rule may subject the lawyer to
disciplinary action.
It is the lawyers duty 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
law.
He is not to encourage the
commencement or the continuance of an
action or delay any mans cause, for any
corrupt motive or interest. He must decline
to conduct a civil cause or to make a defense
when convinced that it is intended merely to
harass or injure the opposite party or to
work oppression or wrong. If he were to
take a bad civil case for a plaintiff, it will only
be to advise him not to file the action or to
settle it with the claimant. If he were to
accept the defense of a bad civil case against
a defendant, it will either be to exert his best
effort toward a compromise or, to tell his
client to confess judgment
54
RULE 14.02
PROVIDING COUNSEL DE OFICIO
1.
Counsel de Oficio
Rule 14.02.
A lawyer shall not
decline, except for serious and sufficient cause,
an appointment as counsel de oficio or as amici
curiae, or a request from the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines or any of its chapters for rendition
of free legal aid.
Rule 138 sec. 20 (h), Duties of

attorneys. It is the duty of an attorney: (h)
Never to reject, for any consideration personal to
himself, the cause of the defenseless or
oppressed;
Rule 138, sec. 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.
Rule 116, sec. 6. Duty of court to

inform accused of his right to counsel.Before
arraignment, the court shall inform the accused
of his right to counsel and ask him if he desires
to have one. Unless the accused is allowed to
defend himself in person or has employed
counsel of his choice, the court must assign a
counsel de oficio to defend him.
Rule 116, sec. 7. Appointment of

counsel de oficioThe court shall appoint a
counsel de oficio to defend a client, considering
[1] the gravity of the offense, [2] the difficulty of
the questions that may arise, [3] and the
experience and ability of the appointee. The
counsel must be [1] a member of the bar in good
standing [2] or, in localities without lawyers, any
person of good repute for probity and ability
Rule 116, sec. 7. Time for counsel de

oficio to prepare for arraignment. Whenever a
counsel de oficio is appointed by the court to
defend the accused at the arraignment, he shall
be given a reasonable time to consult with the
accused as to his plea before proceeding with the
arraignment.


Rule 124 (Case on Appeal in the
CA), sec. 2. Appointment of counsel de oficio
for the accused.If it appears from the record of
the case transmitted that [1] the accused is
confined in prison, [2] is without counsel de
parte on appeal, or [3] has signed the notice of
appeal himself,
the clerk of court of the CA shall designate a
counsel de oficio.
An appellant who is not confined in prison may,
upon request, be assigned a counsel de oficio
within the 10 days from receipt of the notice to
file brief and he establishes his right thereto by
affidavit.
NOTES
(Aguirre)
Rule 138, sec. 31 is the general rule for all

indiegent litigants as it speaks of the
attorney for destitute litigants. Rule 116
sec. 6 & 7 and Rule 124, sec. 2 refer to the
accused in a criminal case and counsel de
oficio is used only for the accused in a
criminal proceeding.
(Agpalo)
Counsel de Oficio, defined: 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.
One of the obligations incident to the status
and privilege of a lawyer to practice law is to
represent the poor and the oppressed in the
prosecution of their claims or the defense of
their rights
Assignment as counsel de oficio
If a person who is under the investigation for

the commission of an offense cannot afford
the services of a counsel, he must be
provided with one; but not if the client wants
or expresses the desire to have counsel de
parte..
Every
lawyer
should
welcome
his
appointment as counsel de oficio as an
opportunity to render public service, show
that the practice of law is a profession, and
demonstrate that the discharge of his duties
does not depend upon payment.
A lawyer should not however be frequently

designated counsel de oficio. The burden of
an attorneys regular practice and the
possibility that the compensation for counsel
de oficio will be considered as a regular

source of income.
Assignment from the IBP
The IBP has established legal aid offices

throughout the country
2.
Legal aid is not a matter of charity. It is a

means for the correction of social imbalance
that may and often do lead to injustice, for
which reason it is a public responsibility of
the bar
Amicus Curiae
Rule 138,
Experience and
invited by the
curiae to help
submitted to it.
sec. 36. Amicus curiae.

impartial attorneys may be
Court to appear as amici
in the disposition of issues
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Amicus curiae, defined: A friend of the

court; a bystander (usually a counsellor)
who interposes or volunteers information
upon some matter of law in regard to which
the judge is doubtful or mistaken.
A lawyer should not decline an appointment

by the court as amicus curiae except for a
valid cause
P.D. 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 lawyers.
(1974)ANNEXED
RULE 14.03
VALID GROUND FOR REFUSAL
Rule 14.03.
A lawyer may refuse to
accept representation of an indigent client if:
a.
he is not in a position to carry out the
work effectively or competently;
b.
he labors under a conflict of interests
client.
RULE 14.04

55
56
SAME STANDARD OF CONDUCT FOR

PAYING AND NON-PAYING CLIENTS
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.
CANON 15
OBSERVE
CANDOR,
LOYALTY
CANON 15.
OBSERVE
CANDOR,
LOYALTY
FAIRNESS
AND
Canon 15.
candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings
and transactions with his clients.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
FAIRNESS
AND
Canon 15.
candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings
and transactions with his clients.
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.
Rule 15.02.
A lawyer shall be bound by the
rule on privileged communication in respect of
matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.
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.
Rule 15.04.
A lawyer may, with the written
consent of all concerned, act as mediator,
conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
This canon is based on the character of the

attorney-client relationship which is strictly
personal
and
highly
confidential
and
fiduciary. Only in such a relationship can a
person be encouraged to repose confidence
in an attorney.
The canon therefore is required by necessity

and public interest and is based on the
hypothesis that abstinence from seeking
legal advice in a good cause is an evil which
is fatal to the administration of justice.
RULE 15.01 AND 15.03

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Rule 15.01. A lawyer, in conferring with

a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as
client.
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.
Rule 15.05.
A lawyer when advising his
client shall give a candid and honest opinion on
the merits and probable results of the clients
case, neither overstating nor understanding the
prospects of the case.
Art. 209 Revised Penal Code.

Betrayal of trust by an atorney. or solicitor.
Revelation of Secrets.The same penalty
shall be imposed upon any attorney or
solicitor (procurador judicial) who, having
undertaken the defense of a client or having
received confidential information from said
client in a case, shall undertake the defense
of the opposing party in the same case,
without the consent of his first client. [the
first part of this provision appears at Rule
15.02]
Rule 15.06.
A lawyer shall not state or imply
that he is able to influence any public official,
tribunal or legislative body.
Rule 15.07.
A lawyer shall impress upon his
client compliance with the laws and the principles
of fairness.
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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
It is the duty of a lawyer to disclose and

explain to the prospective client all

circumstances of his relations to the parties

and any interest in or any connection with
the controversy, which in his honest
judgment might influence the client in the
selection of counsel.
The disclosure is more for the protection of

the lawyer than that of the client, so that the
client may not lose confidence in him, which
may even affect his fee. If the lawyer does
not disclose anything, a client may assume
the lawyer has no interest which will
interfere with his devotion to the cause
confided to him or betray his judgment.
Duty to decline employment
It is his duty to decline employment in any

matter which may involve representing
conflicting interests
He should not accept employment from

another on a matter adversely affecting
any interest of his former client with
respect to which confidence has been
reposed.
He should not accept employment as an

advocate in any matter in which he had
intervened while in the government
service.
He should not accept employment the

nature of which might easily be used as
a means of advertising his professional
services or his skill. (ex. advice column)
Although there is no statutory restriction for

a lawyer to be an advocate and a witness for
a client in a case, the canons of the
profession forbid him from acting in that
double capacity as he will find it difficult to
disassociate his relation to the client as a
lawyer and as witness.
A lawyer generally should not refuse services
to the needy. However, he may refuse if he is
not in a position to carry it out effectively or
competently or he labors under a conflict of
interest between him and the prospective
client or between his present client and the
prospective client.
Test of Conflict of Interest
Here are some tests employed to determine

the existence of conflicting interests.
1.
when,
on
behalf of one client, it is the attorneys
duty to contest for that which his duty to
another client requires him to oppose or
when the possibility of such situation will
develop;
2.
whether
the
3.
acceptance of the new relation will

prevent a lawyer from the full discharge
of his duty of undivided fidelity and
loyalty to his client or will invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness in the
performance thereof; and
whether
a
lawyer will be called upon in his new
relation to use against his first client any
knowledge acquired in the previous
employment.
The proscription against representation of

conflicting interests finds application where
the conflicting interests arise with respect to
the same general matter and is applicable
however slight such adverse interest may
be. It applies although the attorneys
intentions and motives were honest and he
acted in good faith.
Rule
against
representing
conflicting
interests applies even if the conflict pertains
to the lawyers private activity or in the
performance in a non-professional capacity,
and his presentation as a lawyer regarding
the same subject matter.
Effect of termination of attorney-client relation
Termination of relation of attorney and client

provides no justification for a lawyer to
represent an interest adverse to or in conflict
with that of the former client. Neither may
he do anything injurious to his former client
nor use against former client any knowledge
or information gained.
Reason: clients confidence, once reposed,

cannot be divested by the expiration of
professional employment.
Acquisition of confidential information immaterial
The relationship prohibits the lawyer from

accepting professional employment from
clients adversary either in the same case or
in a different but related action applies
irrespective of whether or not the lawyer has
acquired confidential information from his
former client.
Reason: if rule is made to depend on

acquisition of confidential info, it will require
investigation into the case and will only lead
to the revelation of matters in advance to
clients prejudice. It will also violate
attorney-client relationship.

57
Foundation of, and reason for, the rule
Founded on principles of public policy and

good taste. It springs from attorneys duty to
represent client with undivided fidelity and to
maintain inviolate the clients confidence.
Reason: the attorney-client relationship is

one of trust and confidence. A lawyer knows
everything about the case, hence, he must
not be given opportunity to take advantage
of that knowledge, otherwise the profession
will suffer.
Rule is designed not only to prevent

dishonest
practitioner
from
fraudulent
conduct but also to preclude the honest
practitioner from putting himself in a position
where he may be required to choose
between conflicting duties, and to protect
him
from
unfounded
suspicion
of
professional misconduct.
An attorney should not only keep inviolate

his clients confidence but should likewise
avoid the appearance of treachery and
double-dealing.
Opposing clients in same or related suits
An attorney who appears for opposing clients

in the same or related actions puts himself in
that awkward position where he will have to
contend on behalf of one client that which he
will have to oppose on behalf of the other
client. He cannot give disinterested advice to
both clients but will instead be called on to
use confidential information against one
client in favor of the other in view of the
identicalness or relatedness of the subject.
Even though the opposing clients, after full

disclosure of the fact, consent to the
attorneys dual representation, the lawyer
should, when his clients cannot see their way
clear to settling the controversy amicably,
retire from the case.
Opposing clients in unrelated actions
A lawyer 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 because it is not good
practice to permit him afterwards to defend
in another case another person against his
former client under the pretext that the case
is distinct from, and independent of, the
former case.
It is improper for a lawyer to appear as

counsel for one party against the adverse
party who is his client in another totally
unrelated action. The attorney in that

situation will not be able to pursue, with
vigor and zeal, the clients 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 of partiality in
favor of the successful client.
New client against former client
A lawyer cannot represent a

new client against a former client only when
the subject matter of the present controvery
is related, directly of indirectly, to the
subject matter of the previous litigation in
which he appeared for the former client. He
may properly act as counsel for a new client,
with full disclosure to the latter, against a
former client in a matter wholly unrelated to
that of the previous employment, there
being no conflict of interests.
Reason: what a lawyer owes to

former client is to maintain inviolate the
clients confidence or to refrain from doing
anything which will injuriously affect him in
any matter which he previously represented
him; in this case, duty does not arise
Where subject matter of present

suit between the lawyers new client and his
former client is in some way connected,
prohibition applies even if no confidential
information was acquired.
Conflicting duties
A lawyer may not, as an employee of a

corporation whose duty is to attend to its
legal affairs, join a labor union of employees
in that corporation because the exercise of
the unions rights is incompatible with his
duty as a lawyer for his corporate client
A lawyer may not, as counsel for a client,

attack the validity of the instrument
prepared by him
Attorneys interest vs. Clients interest
An attorney should not put himself in a

position where self-interest tempts him to do
less than his best for his client. (e.g., it is
improper to have financial stakes in subject
matter of suit brought on behalf of his client)
Rule applicable to law firm
Where a lawyer is disqualified or forbidden

from appearing as counsel in a case because
of conflict of interests, the law firm of which

58
he is a member as well as any member,

associate or assistant is similarly diqualified
or prohibited from so acting.
This rule is a corollary of the rule that the

employment of one member of a law firm is
considered as an employment of the law firm
and that the employment of a law firm is
equivalent to a retainer of the members
thereof.
Limitations to general rule
The
prohibition
against
representing
conflicting interests does not apply:
1. where no conflict of interests exists (e.g.
a lawyer may represent new client
against former client where both actions
are unrelated and where lawyer will not
be called to oppose what he had
espoused on behalf of former client not
use confidential info against former
client.)
2. where the clients knowingly consent to
dual representation in writing
Lawyer may represent

conflicting interests before it reaches
the court but only after full
disclosure of the facts and express
written consent of all parties.
Where
representation
by a lawyer is for both opposing
parties, their written consent may
enable the lawyer to represent them
before
but
not
after
their
controversy has reached the court.
After the controversy has reached
the court, the lawyer cannot, even
with the parties written consent,
represent both of them without
being held administratively liable as
an officer of the court.
Disclosure
should
include thorough explanation of
nature and extent of conflict and
possible adverse effects of dual
representation. This should include
disclosure of the lawyers present
and/or former clients who have
conflicting interests.
Advantage: a mutual
lawyer, impartial and with honest
motivations, may be better situated
to
work
out
an
acceptable
settlement since he has confidence
of both parties
A lawyer may represent
new client against former client only
after full disclosure and written
consent. Former clients written
3.
consent constitutes a release from

obligation to keep inviolate the
clients confidences or to desist from
injuriously affecting him in any
matter
which
he
previously
represented.
Where
circumstances
show parties require independent
counsel, or where lawyer may be
suspected of disloyalty, he should
immediately withdraw from the
case.
General rule that a

lawyer may be allowed to represent
conflicting interests, where parties
consent, applies only where one is a
former client and the other is a new
one, not where both are current
clients.
Lawyer
may
not
represent conflicting interests, even
with consent, where the conflict is
between the attorneys interest and
that of a client (self-interest should
yield to clients interest) or between
a private clients interest and that of
the
govt
or
any
of
its
instrumentalities (public policy and
public
interest
forbid
dual
representation).
where
no
true
attorney-client
relationship is attendant
Absence
of
true
attorney-client relationship either
with the attorney or with the law
firm of which he is a member makes
the prohibition inapplicable.
Exception:
attorneys
secretary, stenographer or clerk
who, in such capacity, has acquired
confidential
information
from
attorneys client, may not accept
employment or, after admission to
the bar, represent an interest
adverse to that of attys client.
Effects of representation of conflicting

interests
Representation
of
conflicting
interests
subjects the lawyer to disciplinary action.
The reason is that the representation of
conflicting interests not only constitutes
malpractice but also a violation of the
confidence which results from the attorneyclient relationship, of the oath of a lawyer (in
that he did not serve his clients interest
well) and of his duty to both the client and
the court.

59
If
representation of conflicting interests is
unknown and works prejudice against new
client, judgment against the latter may be
set aside. Basis: a lawyer disqualified from
appearing on account of inconsistency of
duties is presumed to have improperly and
prejudicially advised and represented the
party from beginning to end of litigation. Two
questions to be asked:
(1) Did the attorney discharge or have
opportunity to discharge conflicting interests?
(2) Did the new client suffer prejudice? If yes to
both, adverse judgment against new client may
be justified.
Attorneys right
to be paid for his services to former client
may be affected by representation of
conflicting interests, only if 2 matters are
related and the former client objected to
such representation. But new client may not
defeat attorneys right to fees in the absence
of concealment and prejudice by reason of
attorneys previous professional relationship
with opposing party.
San Jose Homeowners v. Romanillo

(2005)
F: In 1985 Atty. Romanillos represented San Jose
Homeowners Association, Inc. (SHJAI) before the
Human Settlements Regulation Commission in a
case against Durano and Corp., Inc. (DCI) for
violation of the Subdivision and Condominium
Buyers Protection Act. While still the counsel for
SHJAI, Atty. Romanillos represented the spouses
Montealegre in requesting for SJHAIs conformity
to construct a building on Lot. No. 224 to be
purchased from Durano. When the request was
denied, respondent applied for clearance before
the HLURB in behalf of the Montealegre. SJHAI
terminated Atty. Romanillos services as counsel.
Atty. Romanillos went further and acted as
counsel
for
Lydia
Durano-Rodriguez
who
substituted for DCI in aforementioned civil case.
SHJAI filed a disbarment case against Atty.
Romanillos for representing conflicting interests.
In 1999 the SC recommended the dismissal of
the complaint with admonition that respondent
should observe extra care and diligence in the
practice of his profession. Notwithstanding the
admonition,
Atty.
Romanillos
continued
representing Lydia Durano-Rodriguez before the
CA and SC. Thus, a second disbarment case was
filed against him for violation of the March 1999
Resolution and for his alleged deceitful conduct
in using the title Judge although he was not
honorably discharged from the judiciary being
found guilty of grave and serious misconduct in a

previous case Zarate vs. Judge Romanillos. Atty.
Romanillos had used the title Judge in his office
letterhead, correspondences, and on billboards
which were erected in several areas within the
Subdivision. The SC disbarred him.
H:
It is inconsequential that petitioner
never questioned the propriety of respondents
continued representation of Rodriguez. The lack
of opposition does not mean tacit consent. As
long as the lawyer represents inconsistent
interests of two or more opposing clients, he is
guilty of violating his oath. Rule 15.03 mandates
that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all
concerned parties after a full disclosure. Also,
respondents continued use of the title Judge
violated Rules 1.01 and 3.01 prohibiting lawyer
from engaging in deceitful conduct and from
using any misleading statement or claim
regarding qualifications or legal services. He
resigned from being a judge during the pendency
of a case where he was eventually found guilty of
illegal solicitation and receipt of P10,000 from a
party litigant and would have been dismissed
from the service had he not resigned. The title
Judge should be reserved only to judges,
incumbent and retired, and not to those who
were dishonorably discharged from the service.
This is not respondents first infraction as an
officer of the court and a member of the legal
profession. He was stripped of his retirement
benefits and other privileges in Zarate case and
he got off lightly with just an admonition in the
1999 resolution. He manifested undue disrespect
to our mandate and exhibited propensity to
violate the laws. His disbarment is consequently
warranted.
Hornilla v. Salunat (2003)

F:
Members of the Philippine Public School
Teachers
Association
(PPSTA)
filed
an
intracorporate case against members of the
Board of Directors before the SEC and filed a
complaint before the Ombudsman for unlawful
spending and the undervalued sale of real
property of PPSTA. Atty. Salunat, the retained
counsel of PPSTA, represented the members of
the Board of Directors in these cases.
Complainants contend that Atty. Salunat was
guilty of conflict of interest because he was
engaged by the PPSTA, of which complainants
were members, and was being paid out of its
corporate funds.
The SC admonished Atty.
Salunat.
H:
There is conflict of interest when a
lawyer represents inconsistent interest of two or
more opposing parties. The test is whether or

60
not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty

to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to
oppose it for the other client. Also, if the
acceptance of the new retainer will require the
attorney to perform an act which will injuriously
affect his first client in any matter in which he
represents him and also whether he will be called
upon in his new relation to use against his first
client any knowledge acquired through their
connection. Another test is whether the
acceptance of a new relation will prevent an
attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or doubledealing in the performance thereof. In this case,
the court is convinced that a lawyer engaged as
counsel for a corporation cannot represent
members of the same corporations board of
directors in a derivative suit brought against
them. To do so with be tantamount to
representing conflicting interests.
Though
Salunat claims he only filed a pleading for
dismissal, but in the filing of the pleading, he
necessarily entered his appearance. Again, there
is conflict of interests, considering the complaint
in the Ombudsman, albeit in the name of the
individual members of the PPSTA, was brought in
behalf of and to protect the interests of the
corporation.
Dee v. CA (1989)
F: Donald Dee and his father went to the
residence of Atty. Amelito Mutucto seek Mutucs
advice regarding the alleged indebtedness of
Dees brother Dewey to Ceasars Palace Casino in
Las Vegas. Mutuc
pursued the matter and
eventually freed Dewey from the claim of the
casino.
Mutuc then sent the Dees several
demand letters for the P50k balance for his
attorneys fees and consequently filed a suit for
collection of attorneys fees and refund of
transportation fare.
The Dees denied the
existence of any professional relationship of
attorney and client, claim that the initial visit was
an informal one and that the services were not
specifically contracted. They also claimed that
Mutuc, as the representative of Caesars Palace
in the Philippines, worked for the interest of the
casino.
H: The absence of a written contract will not
preclude the finding that there was a professional
relationship which merits attorneys fees for
professional
fees
rendered.
Documentary
formalism is not an essential element in the
employment of an attorney; the contract may be
express or implied.
As to Mutuc being employed by the casino, the
court said that though an attorney is generally
prohibited from representing parties with

contending positions, at a certain stage of the
controversy, a lawyer may represent conflicting
interests with the consent of the parties. A
common representation may work to the
advantage of the parties since a mutual lawyer
with
honest
motivations
and
impartially
cognizant of the parties disparate positions, may
well be better situated to work out an acceptable
settlement of their differences, being free of
partisan inclinations and acting with the
cooperation and confidence of the parties
Because the petitioner was not unaware of these
contending interests, he actually consented to
them and cannot now decry the dual
representation that he postulates.
RULE 15.02
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
Rule 15.02. A lawyer shall be bound by

the rule on privileged communication in respect
of matters disclosed to him by a prospective
client.

Betrayal of trust by an atorney. or solicitor.
Revelation of Secrets.In addition to the
proper administrative action, shall be
imposed upon an attorney-at-law or solicitor
(procurador judicial) who, by any malicious
breach of professional duty or of inexcusable
negligence or ignorance, shall prejudice his
client, or reveal any of the secrets of the
latter learned by him in his professional
capacity.
NOTES
(Aguirre)
Exceptions to privilege
1. When a lawyer is accused by the client
and he needs to reveal information to
defend himself
2. When the client discloses the intention
to commit a crime or unlawful act.
(Agpalo)
Matters disclosed by a prospective client to a

lawyer are protected by the rule on
privileged communication even if the
prospective client does not thereafter retain
the lawyer or the latter declines the
employment.
Reason: to make prospective client free to

discuss whatever he wishes with the lawyer
without fear that what he tells the lawyer will

61
not be divulged nor used against him, and

for the lawyer to be equally free to obtain
information from the prospective client.
People v. Sandiganbayan (1997)

F: In 1985, the Director of Lands sought
cancellation of a patent and certificate of title
procured by Paredes, Provincial Attorney of
Agusan
del
Sur,
then
Governor
and
Congressman, through free patent. The patent
and certificate were cancelled as the trial court
found it was obtained thru fraudulent means.
The Tanodbayan investigated Paredes for
allegedly using former position as Provincial
Attorney to influence and induce Bureau of Lands
officials to favorably act on his application. A
criminal case was filed before Sandiganbayan.
Sansaet was Paredess counsel. Sansaet filed a
MR on the ground that filing of case would
constitute double jeopardy since a perjury case
had been ordered dismissed by the court upon
recommendation of DOJ. He attached copy of (1)
dismissal order (2) certificate of arraignment and
(3) recommendation of DOJ. (these would later
turn out to have been falsified with the help of
Honrada, clerk of court then acting stenographer
of a MCTC in Agusan del Sur). The case was
dismissed however on the ground of prescription.
In 1990, a taxpayer who filed perjury and graft
charges
against
Paredes,
wrote
to
the
Ombudsman
seeking
investigation
of
respondents for allegedly falsifying notice of
arraignment and transcripts of stenographic
notes which were attached to the MR. As it
turned out, perjury case did not reach
arraigment pending review in the DOJ, hence,
fiscal could not have received notice of
arraignment. The Ombudsman approved filing of
charges against all Paredes, Sansaet and
Honrada. It refused to consider Sansaet as state
witness since he could not have been unwittingly
induced to commit the crime and claimed further
that his testimony would be covered by the
attorney-client privilege. Sandiganbayan sided
with Ombudsman and denied discharge of
Sansaet as sate witness. The SC reversed the
decision of the Sandiganbayan
H: The Attorney-client relationship cannot apply
in this case as the facts and the actuations of
both respondents constitute an exception to the
rule. Undoubtedly, there was a confidential
communication made by Paredes to Sansaet,
regardless of the mode. Acts and words of the
parties during the period when the documents
were being falsified were necessarily confidential
since Paredes would not have invited Sansaet to
his house and allowed him to witness the same
except under conditions of secrecy and
confidence.
For attorney-client privilege to
apply, however, the period to be considered is
the date when the privileged communication was

made by the client to the attorney in relation to
either a crime committed in the past or with
respect to a crime intended to be committed in
the future. (if past, privilege applies; if future,
does not apply) In the present case, testimony
sought to be elicited from Sansaet are
communications made to him by physical acts
and/or accompanying words of Paredes at the
time he and Honrada, either with active or
passive participation of Sansaet, were about to
falsify, or in the process of falsifying, the
documents which were later filed by Sansaet in
the Tanodbayan. Crime of falsification had not
yet been committed, hence, they are not covered
by the privilege. It could also not have been
covered by the privilege because Sansaet was
himself a conspirator in the commission of the
crime of falsification. In order that a
communication between a lawyer and his client
be privileged, it must be for a lawful purpose or
in the furtherance of a lawful end. On the
contrary, Sansaet, as lawyer, may be bound to
disclose the info at once in the interest of justice.
Regala v. Sandiganbayan (1996)

F: In 1987, the Republic through the PCGG
instituted a complaint before the Sandiganbayan
against Eduardo M. Conjuangco, as one of the
principal defendants, for the recovery of alleged
ill-gotten wealth. Among the defendants named
in the case are herein petitioners, who all were
then partners of the ACCRA Law Firm. In 1991,
the PCGG filed a Motion to exclude private
respondent Raul Roco from the complaint as
party-defendant. PCGG based its exclusion of
Roco on his undertaking that he testify that the
partners assisted in the organization and
acquisition of the corporations involved in
sequestration proceedings and that the partners
acted
as
nominees-stockholders
of
said
corporations. The petitioners subsequently filed a
counter-motion that PCGG similarly exclude
them as parties-defendants of the case as
accorded Roco. The PCGG set the following
conditions precedent for the exclusion of
petitioners: (1) disclosure of the identity of its
clients;
(2)
submission
of
documents
substantiating the lawyer-client relationship; (3)
submission of the deeds of assignments
petitioners executed in favor of its clients
covering their respective shareholdings.
The
Sandiganbayan
denied
the
exclusion
of
petitioners for their refusal to comply with the
conditions required by PCGG. The SC reversed
the Sandiganbayan.
H:
In
our
jurisdiction,
this
privilege
(confidentiality in lawyer-client relationship)
takes off from the following authorities

62
(1) Section 383 of the Code of Civil Procedure

enacted by Philippine Commission;
(2) Sec 24 Rules of Court
(3) Sec 138 of the Rules of Court;
(4) Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility; and
(5) Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional
Ethics
The public interests served by the policy that
favors confidentiality are the following:
1.
In the constitutional sphere, the
privilege gives flesh to the right to counsel
and the right against self-incrimination. If no
such privilege is accorded, an accused might
be compelled to either opt to stay away from
the judicial system or to lose the right to
counsel.
2.
Encouraging full disclosure to a lawyer
by one seeking legal services opens the door
to a whole spectrum of legal options which
would otherwise be circumscribed by limited
information
engendered
by
fear
of
disclosure.
Necessarily, in order to attain effective
representation, the lawyer must invoke the
privilege not as a matter of option but as a
matter of duty and professional responsibility.
The general rule is that a lawyer may not invoke
the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or
identity of his client. The reasons for this are
that:
1.
The Court has a right to know that
the client whose privileged information is
sought to be protected is flesh and blood.
2.
The privilege begins to exist only
after the attorney-client relationship has
been established. The privilege does not
attach until there is a client.
3.
The privilege pertains to the subject
matter of the relationship.
4.
Due process considerations require
that the opposing party should know his
adversary. (Metaphor: He cannot be obliged
to grope in the dark against unknown
forces.)
The general rule is however qualified by some
exceptions. Client identity is privileged
1.
Where a strong probability exists that
revealing the clients name would implicate
the client in the very activity for which he
sought the lawyers advice.
2.
Where disclosure would open the client
to civil liability.
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.
Information relating to the identity of the client
may fall within the ambit of the privilege when
the clients name itself has an independent
significance, such that disclosure would then
reveal client confidences.
The instant case falls under the first and third
exceptions. Under the first exception, the
disclosure of the clients name would lead to
establish said clients connection with the very
fact in issue of the case, which is privileged
information, because the privilege protects the
subject matter or the substance (without which
there is no attorney-client relationship). Pets
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
aforementioned corporations. Under the third
exception, the revelation of the clients name
would obviously provide the necessary link for
the prosecution to build its case, where none
otherwise exists. It is the link that would
inevitably form the chain of testimony necessary
to convict the client of a crime.
An important distinction be made between these
two cases: First case: A client takes on the
services of an attorney for illicit purposes
seeking advice about how to go around the law
for the purpose of committing illegal activities.
Second case: A client thinks he might have
previously committed something illegal and
consults his attorney about it. The first case
does not fall within the privilege. Reason: It is
not within the professional character of a lawyer
to give advice on the commission of a crime. The
second falls within the exception because
whether or not the act for which the client
sought advice turns out to be illegal, his name
cannot be used or disclosed if the disclosure
leads to evidence not yet in the hands of the
prosecution, which might lead to possible action
against him. Reason: The policy serves
legitimate public interests.
RULE 15.04
MEDIATOR, CONCILIATOR OR ARBITRATOR
Rule 15.04. A lawyer may, with the

written consent of all concerned, act as mediator,
NOTES
(Agpalo)

63
An attorneys knowledge of the law and his

reputation for fidelity may make it easy for
the disputants to settle their differences
amicably. However, he shall not act as
counsel for any of them.
This rule protects against influence peddling.
Some prospective clients secure the services

of a particular lawyer or law firm precisely
because he can exert a lot of influence on a
judge and some lawyers exact big fees for
such influence
RULE 15.05
CANDID, HONEST ADVICE
Rule 15.05. A lawyer when advising his

client shall give a candid and honest opinion on
the merits and probable results of the clients
case, neither overstating nor understanding the
NOTES
(Agpalo)
A lawyer is bound to give candid and honest

opinion on the merit or lack of merit of
clients case, neither overstating nor
understating the prospect of the case. He
should also give an honest opinion as to the
probable results of the case, with the end in
view of promoting respect for the law and
the legal processes.
As officers of the court, counsel are under

obligation to advice their clients against
making untenable and inconsistent claims.
A lawyer who guarantees the successful

outcome of a litigation is under a heavy
pressure to employ any means to win the
case at all costs or under a cloud of
suspicion of having betrayed a client when
the case is lost. In either case, he puts
himself in a trying situation.
If a lawyer finds that his clients

contemplated civil suit is totally devoid of
merit, or that the pending action against him
is wholly defenseless, which is his function
and duty to find out, he should so inform his
client and dissuade him from filing the case
or advise him to compromise or submit
rather than traverse the incontrovertible
RULE 15.06
NOT TO CLAIM INFLUENCE
RULE 15.07
IMPRESS COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND
THE PRINCIPLE OF FAIRNESS
Rule 15.07. A lawyer shall impress

upon his client compliance with the laws and the
principles of fairness.
Art. 19 Civil Code. Every person must,

in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice,
give everyone his due and observe honesty
and good faith.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
A lawyer is required to represent his client

within the bounds of the law. The CPR
enjoins him to employ only fair and honest
means to attain the lawful objectives of his
client and warns him not to allow his client
to dictate procedure in handling the case. He
may use arguable construction of the law or
rules which are favorable to his client. But he
is not allowed to knowingly advance a claim
or defense that is unwarranted under
existing law.
While a lawyer is not expected to know all

the laws he is expected to take such
reasonable precaution in the discharge of his
duty to his client .
Duty to resist clients improper request
A lawyer appears in court not only as an

advocate of his client but also as an officer of
the court trusted and authorized by the state
to assist the court in determining what is
right between the parties before it.
A lawyer should comply with the clients

lawful requests. But he should resist and
should
never
follow
any
unlawful
instructions. In matters of law, it is the
client who should yield to the lawyer and not
the other way around.
The State is vitally interested in seeking that

justice is done and goes to great expense
Rule 15.06. A lawyer shall not state or

imply that he is able to influence any public
official, tribunal or legislative body.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

64
and provides the machinery for that part of

its governmental function. To permit lawyers
to resort to unscrupulous practices for the
protection of the supposed rights of their
clients is to defeat the administration of
justice, one of the purposes of the state.
A lawyer must also observe and advice his

client to observe the statute law, thought
until a statute shall have been construed and
interpreted by competent jurisdiction, he is
free and is entitled to advice as to its validity
and as to what he conscientiously believes to
be its just meaning and extent.
A lawyer should use his best efforts to
restrain and to prevent his client from doing
those things which he himself ought not to
do, particularly with reference to the conduct
toward the court, judicial officer, witness,
etc.
RULE 15.08
DUAL PROFESSION
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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Exercise of dual profession is not prohibited

but a lawyer must make it clear when he is
acting as a lawyer and when he is otherwise,
especially in occupations related to the
practice of law. Reason: certain ethical
considerations may be operative in one
profession and not in the other.
Nakpil v. Valdes (1998)

F: Atty. Carlos Valdes was the lawyer and
accountant of the Nakpils. In 1965, Jose Nakpil
wanted to buy a summer residence in Baguio
City but because of lack of funds, he agreed that
Valdes would keep the property in trust until the
Nakpils could buy it back. Valdes took out two
loans to purchase the property. In 1973, Jose
Nakpil died.
The ownership of the Baguio
property became an issue in the intestate
proceedings as Valdes excluded it from the
inventory of Joses estate. In 1978, Valdes
transferred his title to the property to his
company.
The estate filed an action for
reconveyance and the adminstratix filed an
administrative case to disbar Valdes for (1)
maliciously appropriating the property in trust to

his family corporation (2) including in the claims
against the estate the amounts of the two loans
which he claimed were Joses loans probably for
the purchase of a house and lot in Moran St.,
Baguio City and (3) for conflict of interest, since
his auditing firm prepared the list of claims of
creditors who were also represented by his law
firm. The SC suspended Valdes from the practice
of law for one year
H: A lawyer is not barred from dealing with his
client but the business transaction must be
characterized with utmost honesty and good
faith. Business transactions between an attorney
and his client are disfavored and discouraged by
policy of law because by virtue of a lawyers
office, he is an easy position to take advantage
of the credulity and ignorance of his client. Thus,
there is no presumption of innocence or
improbability of wrongdoing in favor of lawyers.
Factual findings show that Valdes initially
acknowledged and respected the trust nature of
the Moran property. He violated the trust
agreement when he claimed absolute ownership
over the property and refused to sell the
property to Imelda after Joses death. Even
granting that Imelda failed to pay after the 5year period, it did not mean Valdes automatically
owned the property since the proper action
would be to proceed against the estate of Jose.
Valdes act of excluding the Moran property from
the estate evinces his lack of fidelity to the cause
of the client. If he truly believed property
belonged to him, he should have at least
informed Imelda of his claim. Valdes misuse of
his legal expertise to deprive his client of the
Moran property is clearly unethical.
Valdes could not claim oversight in charging the
two loans against the estate since it was made in
his name. He wanted to have his cake and eat it
too and subordinated the interest of his client to
his own. He violated Canon 17 of CPR (which
provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to his clients
and enjoins him to be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed on him).
Valdes is guilty of representing conflict of
interests. The proscription against representation
of conflicting interests finds application where
the conflicting interests arise with respect to the
same general matter and is applicable however
slight such adverse interest may be. It applies
although the attorneys intentions and motives
were honest and he acted in good faith.
Representation of conflicting interests may be
allowed where the parties give an informed
consent to the representation after full disclosure
of facts. The lawyer must explain to his clients

65
the nature and extent of the conflict and the

possible adverse effects must be thoroughly
understood by his clients. In this case, there is
clearly a conflict between the interest of the
estate which stands as the debtor, and that of
the two claimants who are creditors of the
estate. The fact that Valdes did not personally
file the case and appear in court is beside the
point. Respondent acted as counsel and
accountant of the complainant after the death of
Jose. His claim of resignation from the law firm is
not supported by any documentary proof and
even with his resignation from the accounting
firm in 1972 and 1974, he returned on July 1,
1976.
When Valdes transferred the Moran
property to his corp. on Feb. 13, 1978, the
intestate proceedings was still pending in court.
That Imelda did not object to Valdes law firm
acting as legal counsel of the estate and his
accounting firm as auditor of both the estate and
the claimants cannot be taken against her as
there is no showing that Valdes or his law firm
explained
the
legal
situation
and
its
consequences to the complainant. Her silence
does not amount to acquiescence based on an
informed consent.
The relationship
does not negate
creditor files a
interest is per se
of claimants to the late Nakpil

the conflict of interest. When a
claim against an estate, his
adverse to the estate.
Valdes undoubtedly placed his law firm in a

position where his loyalty to his client could be
doubted. In the estate proceedings, the duty of
his law firm was to contest the claims of these
two creditors but which claims were prepared by
his accounting firm. Even if the claims were valid
and did not prejudice the estate, the set-up is
still undesirable. The test to determine whethere
there is conflict of interest in the representation
is the probability, not the certainty of conflict. It
was his duty to inhibit either of his firms to avoid
probability of conflict.
Valdes claim that he could not be charged as his
misconduct pertains to his accounting practice
is of no merit. Complainant is not charging
respondent with breach of ethics for being the
common accountant of the estate of the two
creditors but for allowing his accounting firm to
represent 2 creditors of the estate and, at the
same time, allowing his law firm to represent the
estate in the proceedings where these claims
were presented. It is a breach of professional
ethics and undesirable because it placed
respondents and his law firms loyalty under a
cloud of doubt. Even if misconduct pertains to
his accounting practice, he may still be
disciplined by the Court because a lawyer may
be suspended or disbarred for ANY misconduct,

even if it pertains to his private activities, as long
as it shows in him to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.
Possession of good moral character is not only a
prerequisite to the admission to the bar but also
a continuing requirement to the practice of law.
Public confidence in law and lawyers may be
eroded by the irrresponsible and improper
conduct of a member of the bar. Members of the
Bar are expected to always live up to the
standards embodied in the CPR as the
relationship bet. the attorney and his client is
highly fiduciary in nature and demands utmost
fidelity and good faith.
CANON 16
HOLD IN TRUST CLIENTS
MONEY AND PROPERTIES
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.
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.
Rule 16.03.
A lawyer shall deliver the funds
and property to 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.
Rule 16.04.
A lawyer shall not borrow
money from his client unless the clients 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.

66

Art. 1491(5) Civil Code. The following
persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at
a public auction, wither in person or through
the mediation of another: (5) Justices,
judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of
superior and inferior courts, and other
officers and employees connected with the
administration of justice, the property and
rights in litigation or levied upon an
execution before the court within whose
jurisdiction or territory they exercise their
respective functions; this prohibition includes
the act of acquiring by assignment and shall
apply to lawyers, with respect to the
property and tights which may be the object
of any litigation in which they may take part
by virtue of their profession.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Effects of fiduciary relations, generally
Position of attorney enables him to put in his

power, and opens him to the temptation to
avail himself, not only of the necessity of his
client but of his good nature, liberality and
credulity to obtain undue advantages,
bargains and gratuities.
Fiduciary and strictly confidential relations

requiring utmost good faith, loyalty, fidelity
and disinterestedness on the part of an
attorney is designed to removed all such
temptation.
Principles of expediency and justice demand
that a lawyer should not take advantage of
his position to the prejudice of his client; on
the contrary, it is the client who should
benefit.
A fiduciary relationship exists as a matter of
law between attorney and client, which
requires all dealings growing out of such
relationship to be subject to the closest
judicial scrutiny.
Dealings with client closely scrutinized
Court will protect client from any undue

disadvantage resulting from any situation in
which he and his attorney may stand
unequal. In fact, law requires that courts be
vigilant
in protecting clients in
all
contractual, property or other relations,
when one of the parties is at a disadvantage
on account of his moral dependence,
ignorance, indigence, mental weakness,
tender age or other handicaps.
Business transactions between lawyers and

clients must be characterized by utmost
honesty and good faith of a much higher
standard than that in ordinary business
dealings. Although a lawyer is not barred, as
a rule, from dealing with his client, this kind
of business transactions are disfavored and
discouraged by policy of lawbecause a
lawyer is in a position to take advantage of
the credulity and ignorance of his client.
Thus, no presumption of innocence or
improbability of wrongdoing is considered in
his favor.
Even when transaction between lawyer and

client is not prohibited by law, burden of
proof rests upon attorney to show fairness of
the transaction.
Purchase of clients property in litigation
Law and canons of the legal profession

prohibit a lawyer from purchasing, even at a
public or judicial auction, either in person or
through the mediation of another, any
property or interest involved in any litigation
in which he may take part by virtue of his
profession.
Purpose: to curtail any undue influence of

the lawyer upon his client on account of his
fiduciary and confidential relation with him.
Prohibition is absolute and permanent, and

rests on considerations of public policy and
interest. No need to show fraud and no
excuse will be heard. Law does not trust
human nature to resist temptation likely to
arise.
Application of Rule
When all the following four elements are

present there is a violation of law and
ethically improper conduct:
1. there
must
be
attorney-client
relationship
2. the property or interest of the client
must be in litigation
3. the attorney takes part as counsel in the
case
4. the attorney himself or through another
purchases such property or interest
during the pendency of the litigation
immaterial that deed of sale is

executed at the instance of the client or at
the behest of the lawyer because the latter
occupies a vantage position to dictate his
terms

67
prohibition covers any scheme

which has the effect of circumventing the law
(ex: deed of sale as attorneys fees,
purchase by firm or wife, etc...)
where the value of the property

in litigation transferred by a client in favor of
his attorney in payment of the latters fees is
worth much more than the his services, the
transfer contravenes the law.
When rule inapplicable
The absence of one element renders

prohibition inapplicable (e.g. an attorney
may bid on behalf of his client at the auction
sale of the clients property in litigation since
it is not for his own benefit)
contingent fee contract: allowed since it

neither gives nor purports to give to the
attorney an absolute right, personal or real,
in the subject matter during the pendency of
the litigation; the measure of compensation
provided is a mere basis for the computation
of fees and the payment made from the
proceeds of the litigation is effected only
after its successful termination. A distinction
must be made between purchasing an
interest in the litigation to enable a lawyer to
litigate on his own account or to abuse the
clients confidence (prohibited) and accepting
compensation contingent upon the result of
the litigation (allowed). Note, however, that
a
contingent
fee
contract
which
is
unreasonable ceases to be a measure of due
compensation for services rendered.
Effects of Prohibited Purchase
A prohibited purchase is null and void ab

initio; public interest and public policy
dictate that its nullity is definite and
permanent and cannot be cured by
ratification. The lawyer will be deemed to
hold the property in trust for the client.
The client is therefore entitled to recover

property and interest from his attorney with
the fruits. The client should, however, return
the purchase price and the legal interests.
Purchase of choses in action
Spirit of the rule against the acquisition of a

clients property in litigation and the
injunction against stirring up of strife should
be applied in determining whether the
purchase of a chose in action by an attorney
is improper.
68
Purpose: prevent lawyer from the temptation

to litigate in his own account as a business
proposition.
It is improper for lawyer to accumulate

distinct causes of action in himself by
assignment
from
hundreds
of
small
claimants and sue in his name for the benefit
of the clients directly interested because (1)
while there is no litigation yet, litigation is its
purpose, and (2) attorney places himself in
the category of a voluntary litigant for a
profit.
It is improper for lawyer in his professional

capacity to buy judgment notes or other
choses in action for much less than their face
value with intent to collect them at a large
profit for himself.
It is improper for a lawyer to enter into an

arrangement with one who purchases future
interests in estates where he becomes part
owner and shares in the profit in
consideration of his work in securing the
interest.
An attorney may, however, properly acquire

choses in action not in his professional
capacity but as a legitimate investment. The
fact that a person happens to be a lawyer
does not deprive him of the privilege to
engage in business activities as enjoyed by
any other person, but his being a lawyer in
the practice of law enjoins him from doing
any such act as may bring dishonor to the
profession or violate any of its ethical rules
concerning advertising or solicitation of
business.
RULE 16.01
ACCOUNT FOR ALL MONEY AND PROPERTY
Rule 16.01.
A lawyer shall account
for all money or property collected or received
for or from the client.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
A lawyer holds money or property, which he

received from or for his client, in trust and
should promptly make an accounting
thereof.
If money or property entrusted was not used

for its purpose, it should be returned
immediately to the client. Failure to return

would
raise
presumption
that
misappropriated the money/property.
he
Money received by a lawyer from a person

who is not his client is also held by him in
trust and he is under obligation to account
for it.
The question is not whether the rights of the

clients have been prejudiced but whether the
lawyer has adhered to the ethical standards
of the bar.
The circumstance that a lawyer has a lien for

his attorneys fees over the clients money in
his possession does not relieve him from the
obligation to make a prompt accounting and
his failure to do so constitutes professional
misconduct
Berbano v. Barcelona (2003)

F: The Berbano family gave Atty. Barcelona up to
P64,000 in cash and checks to secure the release
of Daen, their attorney-in-fact. Atty. Barcelona
made it appear that he had connections with SC
justices. The SC ordered his disbarment.
H:
Respondent
is
guilty
of
culpable
violations of Canons 1, 7, 11, 16 and Rule 16.01.
The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm
respect for law, legal processes and the courts
but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity
and good faith in dealing with their clients and
the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their
fiduciary relationship.
OBITER:
The object of disbarment is not so much to
punish the individual attorney himself, as to
safeguard the administration of justice by
protecting the court and the public from the
misconduct of officers of the court, and to
remove from the profession of law persons
whose disregard for their oath of office have
proved them unfit to continue discharging the
trust reposed in them as members of the bar. In
re Almacen: Disciplinary proceedings against
lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor
purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an
action or a suit, but are rather investigations by
the Court into the conduct of one of its
officers...there is neither a plaintiff nor a
prosecutor therein. [They] may be initiated by
the Court motu propio. Public interest is [their]
primary objective, and the real question for
determination is whether or not the attorney is
still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as
such... In disbarment proceedings, burden of
proof rests on complainant, and for the Court to
exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against

the respondent must be established by clear,
convincing
and
satisfactory
proof
(clear
preponderant evidence).
In determining the penalty imposed, SC
considered
the
penalties
in
different
circumstances in previous cases and concluded
that Atty. Barcelona deserves to be disbarred for
collecting P64,000 for the immediate release of
the detainee through his alleged connection with
a Justice of the SC.
It appears that Atty.
Barcelona had previously been charged and
found guilty of conduct unbecoming a lawyer in
Gil T. Aquino v. Atty. Wenceslao C. Barcelona.
He misrepresented himself to complainant when
he offered to secure restructuring complainants
loan in PNB, claiming he knew someone there.
He was suspended for 6 months and ordered to
return whatever remained of complainants
P60,000.
Respondent has demonstrated a
penchant for misrepresenting to clients that he
has the proper connection to secure relief they
seek, and thereafter, ask for money which will
allegedly be given to such connections. The same
is true in this case. Not only that, he had the
audacity to tell complainant that the Justices of
the Supreme Court do not accept checks. In so
doing, he placed the Court in dishonor and public
contempt.
As an officer of the Court, it is his sworn and
moral duty to help build and not destroy
unnecessarily that high esteem and regard
towards the courts so essential to the proper
Judiciary has been
besieged enough with accusations of corruption
and malpractice. For a member of the legal
profession to further stoke the embers of
mistrust on the judicial system with such
irresponsible representations is reprehensible
and cannot be tolerated. Respondent made a
mockery of the Judiciary and further eroded
public confidence in courts and lawyers when he
ignored the proceedings in the Aquino and in the
present case. Moreso when he misrepresented to
client that he has connections with a Member of
the Court to accommodate his client and that
Justices of the Court accept money. Indubitably,
he does not deserve to remain a member of the
Bar any minute longer. The Supreme Court, as
guardian of the legal profession, has ultimate
disciplinary power over attorneys.
Daroy v. Legaspi (1975)

F: The SC disbarred Atty. Legaspi who, without
his clients knowledge, received from the deputy
provincial sheriff P4,000 as their share in the
intestate
proceeding
of
their
maternal
grandparents. He misled his clients by informing

69
them that they could withdraw the money but

later admitted that he had withdrawn the money
and spent it. The SC disbarred Atty. Legaspi.
H:
A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself
not to delay any man for money or malice and is
bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to
his clients. He is obligated to report promptly the
money of his clients that has come into his
possession (otherwise a violation of Sec. 25,
Rule 138 of ROC). He should not commingle it
without his clients consent. He should maintain a
reputation for honesty and fidelity to private
trust. The fact that a lawyer has a lien for fees
on money in his hands would not relieve him
from the duty of promptly accounting for the
funds received.
A member of the bar who converts the money of
his client to his own benefit through false
pretenses is guilty of deceit, malpractice and
gross misconduct in his office of lawyer (plus
manufactured defenses, lack of candor and
failure to appear in the investigation causing
case to drag for 5 years). The attorney, who
violates his oath, betrays the confidence reposed
in him by a client and practices deceit cannot be
permitted to continue as a law practitioner. Not
alone has he degraded himself but as an
unfaithful lawyer he has besmirched the fair
name of an honorable profession.
RULE 16.02
KEEP CLIENTS FUND SEPARATE
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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
A lawyer should keeps funds of each client

separate and apart from his own. He should
not use clients money for personal purposes
without clients consent. He should report
promptly the money of his client in his
possession.
Hernandez v. Go (2005)
F:
In 1961, Nazaria Hernandezs husband
left her and her son Luciano. Creditors of her
husband went after her so she hired legal
services of Atty. Jose Go, who advised her to
give him titles to 3 lots in Zamboanga City and
execute deeds of sale in his favor without any
monetary or valuable consideration supposedly
so that Atty. Go can sell the lots and pay
Nazarias debts. When mortgages over three
other lots fell due, Atty. Go redeemed the lots
and convinced Nazaria to execute deeds of sale

in his favor. In 1974, Nazaria found out Atty. Go
did not sell the lots but that he become the
owner, depriving her of real properties worth
millions. In 1975, Nazaria filed disbarment lettercomplaint. The SC disbarred Go.
H:
Atty. Gos acts in acquiring the lots
entrusted to him are acts constituting gross
misconduct, a grievous wrong, a forbidden act, a
dereliction in duty, willful in character and implies
a wrongful intent and not mere error in
judgment, thereby violating Canon 16. Such
conduct degrades not only himself but also the
name and honor of the legal profession.
He also violated Canon 17 when he abused the
trust and confidence of Nazaria when he did not
sell the lots as agreed but sold it to himself. He
should have given a detailed report. Complainant
could have earned more if lots were sold to other
buyers. Records show she did not receive any
amount from respondent.
OBITER:
Respondents deceitful, dishonest, unlawful and
grossly immoral acts have made him unfit to
remain in the legal profession. Lawyers are to
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and are to refrain from any act or
omission which might lessen the trust and
confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity,
honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.
Respondent blemished not only his reputation as
member of the Bar but also the legal profession.
Membership in the bar is a privilege. It is the
duty of the Court, which made a lawyer one of
its officers and gave him the privilege of
ministering within its Bar, to withdraw the
privilege if it appears that he is no longer worthy
of trust and confidence of his clients and the
public.
Public interest requires that an attorney should
exert his best efforts and ability to protect the
interests of his clients. A lawyer who performs
that duty with diligence and candor not only
protects his clients cause; he also serves the
ends of justice and does honor to the bar and
helps maintain the respect of the community to
the legal profession.
Good moral character is not only a condition
precedent to the admission to the practice of
law; its continued possession is also essential for
remaining in the legal profession.
Sec. 27(3) , Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court mandates that a lawyer may be disbarred
or suspended by SC for gross misconduct in
office.

70
Penalty recommended by IBP too light

considering the depravity of respondents
offense. A lawyer who takes advantage of his
clients financial plight to acquire the latters
properties for his own benefit is destructive of
the confidence of the public in the fidelity,
honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.
RULE 16.03
DELIVERY OF FUNDS; LAWYERS LIEN
Rule 16.03.
A lawyer shall deliver
the funds and property to 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
Rules of Court.
Rule 138, sec. 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 judgements for the payment of
money, and executions issued in pursuance
of such judgements, 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 record of the court rendering such
judgement, or issuing such execution, and
shall have caused written notice thereof to
be delivered to his client and power over
such judgements and executions as his client
would have to enforce his lien and secure
the payment of his just fees and
disbursements.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Failure of an attorney to return clients

money
upon demand
gives
rise
to
presumption that he has misappropriated it
for his own use.
If client agrees with lawyer as to the amount

of attorneys fees and as to the application of
the clients fund to pay his lawful fees and
disbursement, a lawyer may deduct what is
due him and remit the balance to his client.
If no such agreement or consent or if there
is dispute or disagreement as to the fees, he
should return everything to client without

prejudice to his filing a case to recover his
unsatisfied fees.
This rule grants the lawyer a lien over the

clients funds in his possession as well as on
all judgments and executions he has secured
for his client, to satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements.
Busios v. Ricafort (1997)

F:
Atty. Ricafort, as counsel of Busios in a
case Busios won, received from the Clerk of
Court of RTC Ligao, Albay, P25K and from OAS
Standard High School P5K. Busios waited for
the amounts to deposited in her account. Atty.
Ricafort later informed her that he had spent the
money but he promised to pay her. Only after an
estafa case was filed did Atty. Ricafort pay P60K
as settlement. Busios dropped estafa case but
not the disbarment case. The SC
H:
Atty. Ricafort breached Sec. 25 of Rule
138 of Rules of Court, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and
Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the
CPR.
There is no doubt he is guilty of having
used the money of his clients without their
consent. His use of their money is made more
manifest by his letters to complainant, all
promising the latter to make good his promise to
pay the money he withdrew from the Clerk of
Court and OAS. Money collected by a lawyer in
pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is
held in trust and must be immediately turned
over to them.
OBITER:
Respondents
transgressions
manifested
dishonesty and amounted to grave misconduct
and grossly unethical behavior which caused
dishonor, not merely to respondent, but to the
noble profession to which he belongs. A lawyer
shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity
of the legal profession. The trust and confidence
necessarily reposed by clients require in the
attorney a high standard and appreciation of his
duty to his clients, his profession, the courts and
the public. The bar should maintain a high
standard of legal proficiency as well as of
honesty and fair dealing. Generally speaking, a
lawyer can do honor to the legal profession by
faithfully performing his duties to society, to the
bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end,
nothing should be done by any member of the
legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any
degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity,
honesty and integrity of the profession.
Respondent chose to forget that by swearing the
lawyers oath, he became a guardian of truth and

71
the rule of law, and an insdispensable instrument

in the fair and impartial administration of justice
a vital function of democracy.
Any departure from the path which a lawyer
must follow as demanded by virtues of his
profession shall not be tolerated especially where
respondent deliberately defied lawful orders of
the Court, transgressing Canon 11 which
requires a lawyer to observe and maintain
respect due to the courts.
Quilban v. Robinol (1989)

F:
Pursuant to a court order in their favor,
thirty-two squatter families turned over a total of
P75K to their counsel Atty. Robinol to purchase
the land which they were occupying.
Atty.
Robinol had entered into an agreement with the
families that he would receive a portion of the
land equivalent to that of one of the families. On
the pretense that he wanted his portion
converted to cash, he witheld payment of the
P75K to the owner of the property. The families
changed counsel to Atty. Montemayor and filed
an administrative case against Atty. Robinol to
investigate his refusal to return money. The SC
disbarred Atty. Robinol and found that Atty.
Montemayor did not encroach upon the the
formers attorney-client relationship with the
families.
H:
[re: Atty. Robinol] Atty. Robinol has no
right to unilaterally appropriate his clients
money not only because he is bound by written
agreement (the written agreement says that
portions of the land would be given to him not its
monetary equivalent) but also because it was
highly unjust for him to do so. Clients were
mere squatters who could barely raised their
respective quota of 2,500 per family with which
to pay for the land only to be deprived of the
same by one who, after having seen the color of
money, heartlessly took advantage of them. His
claim that since he was unjustly dismissed by his
clients he had the legal right to retain the money
in his possession has no basis because of the
following reasons: (1) There was a justifiable
ground for his discharge. His clients had lost
confidence in him for he had engaged in dilatory
tactics to the detriment of their interests, which
he was duty-bound to protect. (2) Even if there
were no valid ground, he is bereft of any legal
right to retain his clients funds intended for a
specific purpose-the purchase of land.
The principle of quantum meruit applies if a
lawyer is employed without a price agreed upon
for his services in which case he would be
entitled to receive what he merits for his
services, as much as he has earned. In this
case, however, the principle is inapplicable
because there was an express contact and a

stipulated mode of compensation.
H: [re: Atty. Robinol] Atty. Montemayor had in
no way encroached upon the professional
employment of a colleague. Of the 32 plaintiffs,
21 expressed their resolve to change their
lawyers. It is sufficient to make the consensus
binding.
Atty. Robinol is estopped from
questioning his discharge. In his memorandum
and in the proceedings, he stated that he had no
objection to Atty. Montemayors appearance as a
counsel. He was informed in writing by plaintiffs
of the termination of his services followed by
another letter of the same tenor. Clients are free
to change their counsel in a pending case at any
time and thereafter employ another lawyer who
may then enter his appearance. The plaintiffs
act was within their prerogative in deciding to
change their lawyer for loss of trust and
confidence.
RULE 16.04
NO BORROWING OR LENDING
Rule 16.04.
A lawyer shall not
borrow money from his client unless the clients
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.
NOTES
(Aguirre)
Stated positively, the first part of the above

rule allows the lawyer to borrow form his
client if the clients interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advise, while the second part
allows a lawyer to lend money to his client
only when he has to advance necessary
expenses in a legal matter he is handling for
the client as this will serve the interest of
justice.
Chapertous Contractwhere the lawyer

assumes all expenses of litigation and
reimbursement is contingent on outcome of
case is PROHIBITED! Chapertous contracts
are like wagersthe lawyer gets paid and
reimbursed if he wins the case and loses
even what he had spent on the case if he
loses.
Champertya bargain by a stranger (the

lawyer) with a party to a suit (the client) by

72
which such third person undertakes to carry

on the litigation at his own expense and risk,
in consideration of receiving, if successful, a
part of the proceeds or subject sought to be
recovered.
v Maintenanceconsists in maintaining,
supporting or promoting the litigation of
another; Chaperty is a bargain to divide the
proceeds of litigation between the owner of
the liquidated claim (the client) and a party
supporting or enforcing the litigation (the
lawyer)
v Contingent Fee Contractin this, the
lawyer gets reimbursed for any advances
made for the client in the course of the
representation, whether he wins the suit or
not; only the amount of attorneys fees is
contingent upon winning.
(Agpalo)
That a lawyer should not borrow

from his client is intended to prevent the
lawyer form taking advantage of his
influence over the client. While the lawyer
may borrow where the clients interests are
fully protected by the nature of the case he
is handling for the client, or by independent
advice from another lawyer, he should not
abuse the clients confidence by delaying
payment.
That a lawyer may not lend
money to client, except when, in the interest
of justice, he has to advance necessary
expenses in a legal matter he is handling, is
intended to assure the lawyers independent
professional judgment, for if a lawyer
acquires a financial interest in the outcome
of the case, the free exercise of his
judgment may be adversely affected. He
might be after his own recovery more than
that of his client, violating his duty of
undivided fidelity to client and making
lawyering a money-making venture and not
a profession.
Barnachea v. Quicho (2003)

F:
Atty. Quiocho had not been in the
practice of law for some time but decided to
revive his legal practice with some associates.
The complainant engaged the legal services of
repsondent to cause the transfer under her name
of title over property previously owned by her
sister. Complainant issued the total amount of
P41,280 for the expenses for the transfer and
payment for respondents legal services. Atty.
Quiocho encashed the checks. After two months,

respondent was unable to secure title over the
property in favor of complainant. She then
demanded the refund of the amount and the
documents she handed. Respondent failed to
comply.
Complainant
Baranachea
filed
a
complaint for breach of lawyer-client relations.
The SC suspended Atty. Quiocho from the
practice of law for one year.
H: A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or
property of his client that may come into his
possession. He is to keep the funds of his client
separate and apart from his own and those of
others kept by him. If money entrusted to a
lawyer for a specific purpose is not used, it must
be returned immediately. Failure to return raises
the presumption that he misappropriated it.
The relation of attorney and client is highly
fiduciary in nature and is of a very delicate,
exacting and confidential character. A lawyer is
duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with
his clients. The profession, therefore, demands
of an attorney an absolute abdication of every
personal advantage conflicting in any way,
directly or indirectly, with the interest of his
client.
Rubias v. Batiller (1973)

F: Atty. Rubias, a lawyer, filed a suit to recover
the ownership and possession of a parcel of lot
which he bought from his father-in-law, against
its present occupant Batiller. Batiller argued that
the contract of sale between Atty. Rubias and his
father-in-law was void because it was made
when plaintiff was counsel of his father-in-law in
a land registration case involving the property in
dispute (pursuant to art. 1409 & 1491 of the
Civil Code). SC held that the sale was void.
H: Assuming arguendo that his client could sell
the same, the sale would still be void and could
produce no legal effect because Article 1491 of
our Civil Code prohibits lawyers, amongst others,
by reason of the relation or trust or their peculiar
control over the property, from acquiring such
property in their trust or control either directly or
indirectly and even at a public or judicial
function. The nullity of such prohibited contracts
with regard to judicial officers and lawyers is
definite and permanent and cannot be cured by
ratification. In this regard, the permanent
disqualification grounded on public policy differs
from the first three cases under art. 1491
(guardians, agents, and administrators), whose
transactions it has been opined may be ratified
by means and in the form of a new contract, in
which case its validity may be determined only

73
by the circumstances at
execution of a new contract.
the
time
of
the
CANON 17
TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
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. [no
implementing rules]
NOTES
(Agpalo)
No lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser

or advocate for every person who may wish
to become his client. He has the right to
decline employment (subject to Canon 14 of
the CPR).
Once he agrees to take up the clients cause,

however, the lawyer owes fidelity to such
cause and he must always be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him; entire
devotion to the interest of the client; warm
zeal and maintenance and defense of his
clients right; the exertion of his utmost
learning and ability to the end that nothing
be taken or withheld from his client, save by
the rules of law, legally applied.
The client is entitled to the benefit of any

and every remedy and defense that is
authorized by law and he may expect his
lawyer to assert every remedy or defense
authorized by law in support of his clients
cause, regardless of his lawyers personal
views.
Fear, judicial disfavor, or public unpopularity

should not restrain a lawyer from the full
discharge of his duty.
The finest hours of the legal profession were

those where a lawyer stood by his client
even in the face and risk of danger to this
person or fortune. And his client can take
comfort in the thought that his lawyer will
not abandon him when his services are
needed most.
In re: Suspension from the Practice

of Law (2004)
F: Atty. Maquera was suspended from the
practice of law in Guam where he had also been
admitted as attorney. This suspension was due to
findings of misconduct, as he acquired his clients
property as payment for his legal services and as
a consequence obtained an unreasonable high
attorneys fee. IBP suspended Maquera but not
for the same reason as that held in his Guam
case. Rather, IBP rendered to suspend him due
to his failure to pay members dues. The SC held
that Maqueras acts in Guam violate standards of
ethical behavior for lawyers and thus constitute
grounds for his suspension in the Philippines.
However, because he had not been given an
opportunity to be heard on the matter in the
Philippines he could not be penalized therefore.
The Court, asked that he show cause why he
should not be penalized and suspended him,
instead, for one year for his non-payment of IBP
dues.
H:
The Superior Court of Guam found that
Maqueras acquisition of his clients right of
redemption as payment for legal fees, his
subsequent exercise of said right, and his act of
selling the redeemed property for huge profits
were tainted with deceit and bad faith when it
concluded that Maquera charged client an
exorbitant fee for his legal services.
Maqueras acts are 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.
However, Maqueras suspension in Guam does
not automatically result in his suspension or
disbarment in the Philippines. This only
constitutes prima facie evidence of Maqueras
unethical acts as a lawyer.
Due process
demands that he be given the opportunity to
defend himself and to present testimonial and
documentary evidence on the matter.
Ngayan v. Tugade (1991)

F:
Complainants procured the services of
Atty. Tugado in a case concerning the
unauthorized entry of Soriano and Leonido into
their dwelling. Atty. Tugade drafted an affidavit
which omitted the fact that Leonido was one of
the persons who barged into their dwelling. Mrs.
Ngayan signed the affidavit without reading it
because Atty. Tugade rushed. Atty. Tugade was
later discharged by complainants after they
noticed the omission.
After the discharge,
complainants found out that the name of Leonido
was not even included in the charge. The

74
omission was remedied by their new counsel and

a case was subsequently filed in court. Later,
Soriano and Leonido filed a motion for
reinvestigation and attached thereto the first
affidavit of Mrs. Ngayan. The motion was filed by
Atty. Gaminda, a former classmate of Atty.
Tugade. Complainants also discovered that Atty.
Tugade was the lawyer of the Leonidos brother.
When the motion for reinvestigation was set for
hearing before the city fiscal, Atty. Tugade
himself executed and submitted an affidavit in
favor of the adverse parties. He also sent a
personal letter to the fiscal denouncing
complainants and stating that he is filing criminal
and civil cases against them. The SC suspended
Atty. Tugade from the practice of law for one
year.
H:
Respondents act of furnishing the
adverse parties with a copy of their discarded
affidavit, thus enabling them to use it as
evidence against the complainants constitutes
betrayal of trust and confidence of his former
clients in violation of par. (e), Section 20, Rule
138, Rules of Court.
We tend to believe
complainants claim that Atty. Tugade was partial
to the adverse parties as he even tried to
dissuade complainants from filing charges
against Leonido, which could be explained by the
fact that respondent is the former classmate of
the adverse partys counsel and that respondent
is the lawyer of the brother of Leonido in an
insurance company.
Respondents act of
executing an affidavit as exhibit for the adverse
parties advancing facts which are prejudicial to
the case of his former clients such as the fact
that the crime charged in complainants affidavit
had prescribed and that he was asked to prepare
an affidavit to make the offense more grave so
as to prevent the offense from prescribing
demonstrates clearly an act of offensive
personality against complainants in violation of
paragraph (f) of Section 20, Rule 138, Rules of
Court. Likewise, respondents act of joining the
adverse parties in celebrating their victory over
the dismissal of the case against them
constitutes a degrading act on the part of the
lawyer. Additionally, respondents failure to
answer the complaint and his failure to appear
for investigation re evidence of his flouting
resistance to lawful orders of the court and
illustrate his despiciency for his oath of office.
Vda de Alisbo v. Jalandoon Sr. (1991)

F:
In an action to recover share in estate of
a deceased relative, Alisbo availed of Atty.
Jalandoons services. Jalandoon had acted as
counsel for the Sps. Sales who had secured a
judgment in their favor against Alisbo.
Jalandoon filed a first complaint on behalf of

Alisbo which was found to be defective as the
lone petitioner, Alisbo was insane and without
legal capacity to sue.
Jalandoons amended
complaint which was filed in the name of Alisbo
and other petitioners was dismissed for having
been filed beyond the reglementary period for
revival of judgment.
H: As a dutiful lawyer, he should have declined
the employment offered by Alisbo on the ground
of conflict of interest. Had he done that soon
enough, then Alisbos would have had enough
time to hire another lawyer and they would not
have lost their case through prescription of the
action. He thus violated Paragraph 1 and 2, No. 6
of the Canons of Professional Ethics which
provides that It is a duty of a lawyer at the time
of the retainer to disclose to the client a) all the
circumstances of his relations to the parties, b)
and any interest in or connection with the
controversy, which might influence the client in
the selection of the counsel. 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 client, it is his
duty to contend for that which duty to another
client requires him to oppose.
Atty. Jalandoon used his position as Alisbos
counsel precisely to favor his other client Carlito
Sales, by delaying Alisbos action to revive the
judgment n his favor and thereby deprive him of
the fruits of his judgment which Atty. Jalandoon,
as Sales counsel, had vigorously opposed.
Thus, although he prepared the complaint for
revival of judgment, he delayed its filing until
Sept 12, 1970. He postponed filing the action by
asking the Court to instead resolve pending
incidents in said civil case. The original complaint
which he filed in the names of Ramon Alisbo and
his brothers was only partially defective because
of Ramons incompetence. By dropping the other
plaintiffs, he made it wholly defective and
ineffectual to stop the running of the prescriptive
period. After filing the complaint, he sat on the
case. While he allegedly found out about Alisbos
insanity on July 17, 1971 only, he amended the
complaint to implead Alisbos legal guardian as
plaintiff on Dec 8, 1971 only, or almost five
months later. By that time, the prescriptive
period had run out. Atty. Jalandoon betrayed his
client Ramon Alisbos trust and did not champion
his cause with that whole-hearted fidelity, care,
and devotion that a lawyer is obligated to give to
every case that he accepts from a client.
There is more than simple negligence. There is a
hint of duplicity and lack of candor in his dealings

75
with his client, which call for the exercise of the

Courts disciplinary power.
Ppl v. Ingco (1971)

F: Respondent Alfredo Barrios, counsel of
Gaudencio Ingco, filed fifteen days late a motion
for the extension of the time for submitting the
brief for appellant Ingco, who had been
sentenced to death for the crime of rape with
homicide. He explained that he was busy with
another case pending in the CA and that he was
misled into assuming that he had taken the
necessary steps to file a motion for extension of
time for the submission of his brief by receipt of
the resolution from the CA granting him such
extension.
H:
Considering that the accused was
fighting for his life, the least that could be
expected of a counsel de oficio is awareness of
the period within which he was required to file
appellants brief. The mere fact that according to
him his practice was extensive requiring his
appearance in courts in Mla and other provinces
should not have lessened that degree of care
necessary for the fulfillment of his responsibility.
What is worse is that by sheer inattention, he
would confuse the proceedings in a matter
pending in the CA with this present case. Such
grave neglect of duty is deserving of sever
condemnation.
It is clearly unworthy of
membership in the Bar which requires dedication
and zeal in the defense of his clients rights, a
duty even more exacting when one is counsel de
oficio. On such an occasion, the honor and
respect to which the legal profession is entitled
demand the strictest accountability of one called
upon to defend an impoverished litigant. He who
fails in his obligation then has manifested a
diminished capacity to be enrolled in its ranks.
SEVERLY REPRIMANDED
Cantiller v. Potenciano (1968)

F:
Petitioners availed of Atty. Potencianos
services for their petition to annul a judgment
which orders them to vacate their apartment.
Atty. Potenciano assured them that he could
secure for them a restraining order as the judge
was his katsukaran (close friend). Contrary to
this, the judge asked respondent to withdraw his
appearance as counsel because of their
friendship. Respondent solicited various sums
from the petitioners which, allegedly, were to be
used in the litigation. But four days prior to the
hearing, Potenciano withdrew his appearance as
counsel. Unable to avail of another lawyers
services and to secure a restraining order, the
petitioners were forced to vacate the property.
The SC indefinitely suspended Potenciano from

the practice of law.
H: The failure to exercise due diligence or the
abandonment of a client's cause makes such
lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had
reposed on him. Assuming that respondent had
no previous knowledge that he would be asked
to withdraw, the record is quite clear that 4 days
prior to the hearing of the preliminary injunction,
respondent already filed a motion therein
withdrawing as complainant's counsel interposing
as reason therefore his frequent attacks of pain
due to hemorrhoids. Despite this void,
respondent failed to find a replacement. He did
not even ask complainant to hire another lawyer
in his stead. His actuation is definitely
inconsistent with his duty to protect with utmost
dedication the interest of his client and of the
fidelity, trust and confidence which he owes his
client. More so in this case, whereby reason of
his gross negligence complainant thereby
suffered by losing all her cases.
Ratio why much is demanded of a lawyer: Public
interest requires that an attorney exert his best
efforts and ability in the prosecution or defense
of his clients cause. A lawyer who performs that
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.
This is so 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.
That circumstance explains the public concern for
the maintenance of an untarnished standard of
conduct by every attorney towards his client.
[the case cites Agpalo and, in his textbook,
Agpalo points out the fact that the case cited
him]
CANON 18
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Canon 18.
A lawyer shall serve his
client with competence and diligence.
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.

76
Rule 18.02.
A lawyer shall not handle any
legal matter without adequate preparation.
collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent

on the matter.
Rule 18.03.
A lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence
in connection therewith shall render him liable.
NOTES
(Aguirre)
Rule 18.04.
A lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable period of time to the
clients request for information.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Duty to serve with competence and diligence
Lawyer impliedly represents that: he

possesses requisite degree of learning, skill,
ability which is necessary to the practice of
his profession and which other similarly
situated possess; he will exert his best
judgment in the prosecution or defense of
the litigation entrusted to him; he will
exercise reasonable and ordinary care and
diligence in the use of his skill and in the
application of his knowledge to his clients
cause; he will take such steps as will
adequately safeguards his clients interest. A
client may reasonably expect that counsel
will make good his representations.
Duty to safeguard clients interest
This commences from his retainer until his

effective release from the case or the final
disposition of the whole subject matter of
the litigation.
Even if the lawyer is counsel de oficio this

does not diminish or alter the degree of
professional responsibility.
Failure of the client to pay does not warrant

abandonment.
Ethical delinquency or impropriety arises

invariably either from a lack of appreciation
or a lawyers duty to his client or from a
blind and overzealous performance.
RULE 18.01
CLIENT CONSENT WITH COLLABORATING
COUNSEL
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
However well meaning he may be, a lawyer

cannot ask another lawyer to collaborate
with him in a particular case without the
consent of the client. The fiduciary nature of
attorney-client relationship prohibits this.
(Agpalo)
Some cases involve specialised fields of law

and require special training. A lawyer should
not accept an undertaking in specific area of
law which he knows or should know he is not
qualified to enter.
He may render such service if his client

consents, he can obtain a collaborating
counsel who is competent on the matter.
RULE 18.02
ADEQUATE PREPARATION
Rule 18.02.
A lawyer shall not
handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Lawyer should safeguard his clients rights

and interests by thorough study and
preparation; mastering applicable law and
facts involved in a case, regardless of the
nature of the assignment; and keeping
constantly
abreast
of
the
latest
jurisprudence and developments in all
branches of the law
inadequate preparation spawns adverse

effects that go far beyond the personal
interest of the client. Inadequate preparation
for instance may mislead the court to look at
the case in an uneven light. Careless
preparation may cast doubt upon lawyers
intellectual honesty and capacity.
Thorough study and preparation will not

ensure winning the litigation, however
lawyer shall have deep satisfaction of having
lost a case but won the esteem and respect
of his client and the approbation of the court
in the manner he espoused his clients cause
with skill, diligence, ability and candor.

77
Preparation of Pleadings
Pleadings show the extent of study and

preparation, articulate ideas, mirror the
personality of the lawyer, and reflect his
conduct and attitude. Thus, lawyers must
exercise utmost care in the preparation of
pleadings.
How a lawyer should prepare his pleading:
thoroughly discuss the issued raised; refrain
from using abrasive and offensive language;
not suppress or distort material and vital
facts, nor omit relevant documents which
bear on the merit or lack of merit of his
petition
The following may not excuse a lawyer from
complying with preparation of pleadings:
time pressure; inexperience of counsel;
assertiveness in espousing his clients cause
or even good faith and honest intention.
Note that a complaint for damages: should
allege and state the specific amounts
claimed in the body of complaint and the
prayer
Interviewing witnesses
A lawyer may interview a witness in advance

of trial to guide him in the management of
the litigation
lawyer is forbidden from communicating

upon the subject of controversy with the
opposite party, except with the latters
counsel.
It is the lawyers duty to obtain witnesss

retraction if he committed perjury
RULE 18.03
NOT TO NEGLECT LEGAL MATTERS
Rule 18.03.
A lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render
him liable.
A lawyer who accepts a legal matter from his

client is understood that he will take all
procedural steps necessary to prosecute the
clients claim or to defend the clients rights
in the action
Ordinary diligence required
The standard of diligence required of a

lawyer is that of a good father of a family.
He is not bound to exercise extraordinary
diligence
There is want of required diligence when a

lawyer fails without sufficient justification to
bring an action immediately, to answer a
complaint within the reglementary period, to
notify his client of the date of the date of
hearing, to attend the scheduled pre-trial
conference, to inform the client of an
adverse judgment within the reglementary
period to appeal, to take steps to have the
adverse decision reconsidered or appealed,
to ascertain the correct date of receipt of
decision, to acquaint himself with what has
happened to the litigation, to pay docket fee
on appeal, to claim judicial notice sent to
him by mail or to file the appellants brief
Witness however must be warned when

asked on cross-examination as to whether
counsel has conferred with him, a cheap
subterfuge employed by some lawyers to
entrap a witness in to falsehood, to be
truthful and frank to admitting it.
He should avoid any suggestion calculated to

induce witness to suppress or deviate from
the truth
Lawyer may also interview a prospective

witness for the opposing side in any civil or
criminal action without the consent of the
opposing counsel or party.
A lawyer may properly obtain statements

from witnesses whose names were furnished
by the opposing counsel or interview the
employees of the opposing party even
though they are under subpoena to appear
as witnesses for the opposite side.
If lawyer cannot appear at the scheduled

hearing, he should either request another
lawyer to appear for him and see to it that
he does so or ask for its postponement
(without assuming that postponement will be
granted)
A lawyer who enters in midstream has duty

to inquire status of the case
A lawyer should see to it that his client

attend the pre-trial conference. If client
cannot appear, he should secure a written
An adverse party may be used as witness.

But not within the meaning of the rule
permitting a lawyer to interview the witness
of the opposing party even without the
consent of the opposing counsel. REASON:

78
authority to compromise action and submit

the case to arbitration
changed his address without notice to the

court
A lawyer should not assume that motion for

extension will be granted. He should always
inquire with the clerk of court.
If a lawyer failed to present motion for

extension of time to file a pleading, motion,
brief or memorandum, and within the
reglementary period, he should file the same
accompanied with a motion for leave to
admit it, stating therein the reasons for the
delay.
Notice of change of address
A lawyer must make of record his correct

address in the case in which he appears for a
suit or and to inform the court in writing of
his change of address. Otherwise he will not
be entitled to be served with judicial notice if
address not on record.
A lawyer who cannot continue representation

should ask his client to be allowed to
withdraw so that another counsel may be
retained. When client refuses, or nowhere to
be found, which will render performance of
lawyers duties difficult or impossible, he
should ask that he be discharged or apply or
to the court to be released.
Pressure and large volume of legal work
provide no excuse for the inability to
exercise due diligence
What to do in case of conflict in trial dates
He should lose no time in asking for

postponement of the case or cases set later,
as he should not give undue preference as
against the other EXCEPT in favor of that
case wherein the court has served warning,
in
view
of
the
previous
repeated
postponements of trial
The most ethical thing to do: inform the

prospective client of all the facts so that the
latter may retain another lawyer. If client still
retains that lawyer, after full disclosure, he
assumes the risk and cannot complain of the
consequences if postponement is denied and
finds himself without an attorney to
represent him at the trial
Adoption of system to insure receipt of mails
A lawyer should maintain a system that will

insure his prompt receipt of notices and
communications sent to him by registered
mail at his address of record
The following will not prevent service of

registered mail from being effective after 5
days of notice by postmaster: lawyer could
not afford to hire a regular clerk to claim
mail; that his clerk failed to
call his
attention to it; the demands of his work
required him to be in different places;
The effect of failure to notify the court of a

change in address is that a notice served at
the attorneys original address is binding
upon the client who will suffer the
consequences.
Note that if a client dies, the lawyer should

inform court within 30 days, and request for
the substitution of the decedent in the event
that the claim survives death
Requiring clerk or court to do his duty
If the clerk of court is negligent, he shall call

the attention of the court to that fact or to
file the necessary motion to set the case for
pre-trial or trial so that the administration of
justice will not suffer any delay
While clerk of court may not do his duty, it

does not discharge lawyer from the
responsibility of seeing that the record on
appeal and the evidence are elevated to the
appellate court
He may not sit idly by and wait until the

clerk of court does his duty.
Duty to keep client fully informed
A lawyer must advise his client promptly

whenever he has any information to give
which it is important that the client receive.
These include: withdrawal of appeal and all
adverse consequences; mode or manner by
which interest is defended of why certain
steps are taken or omitted; when client
should be present at the hearing of his case
The client should also not sit idly by. He is

bound to contact his counsel from time to
time in order that he may be informed of the
progress of his case.
Standard of duty required of defense counsel
A defense lawyer is required to render

effective legal assistance to the accused,
irrespective of his personal opinion as to the
guilt of his client (In a criminal case.
Remember that he can decline in a civil suit

79
if suit is
another)
intended
to
harass
or injure
He should present by all fair and honorable

means, every defense and mitigating
circumstance that the law permits to the end
that his client may not be deprived of life,
liberty or property but by due process of law
legally applied.
In defense, a lawyer should not put on a
witness stand whom he knows will give a
false testimony. He should also not attribute
to another person the crime with which his
client is charged unless it can be inferred
that another may have committed it.
A lawyer may not cause the transfer, through
misrepresentation of a case pending in one
sala to another without the consent of the
judge, and for the purpose of obtaining a
more satisfactory remedy. He cannot
likewise employ improper or dishonorable
means to secure acquittal of an accused
known to him to be guilty, nor abandon him
or withdraw from the case even if he is
convinced of his clients guilt.
What is required of counsel de oficio
Expected to render effective service and to

exert his best efforts on behalf of an indigent
accused.
He ought not to be excused from his

responsibility for any trivial reason.
Duty of defense counsel when accused intends to

plead guilty
When a client desires to enter a guilty plea,

his counsel must fully acquaint himself with
the records and surrounding circumstances
of the case; confer with the accused and
obtain from him his account of what had
happened; advise him of his constitutional
rights; thoroughly explain to him the import
of a guilty plea and the inevitable conviction
that will follow; see to it that prescribed
procedure is strictly followed and disclosed in
the court records.
professional
writrunners
and pleaders:
lawyers who handle large volume of cases
for less than spectacular fees by advising,
influencing, cajoling or even coercing clients
to plead guilty, irrespective of their guilt or
innocence
guilt plea system puts the most reputable

lawyer into a trying situation. It would be to
the clients advantage in view of the
evidence of guilt and in view of the

prosecutions offer or willingess to charge
him with a lesser offense if the accused will
enter a plea of guilty.
The dilemma: if he were to advise his client

to enter a plea, he may be less than true to
his duty of extending the best legal
assistance. If he were to counsel him to
plead guilty, he may be confronted with the
problem of division of responsibility as to the
correctness of the step taken. Solution: none
really. These problems just underscore the
need for a defense counsel to be
conscientious and diligent in the discharge of
his duties to an accused who desires to enter
a guilty plea as the best insurance for a clear
conscience
Dalisay v. Mauricio (2005)

F:
Valeriana Dalisay was impressed with
Atty. Melanio Batas Mauricio Jr.s pro-poor and
pro-justice advocacy, and engaged his services
for a civil case where she is the defendant. She
handed him all pertinent documents, and paid
him a total of P56K.
Notwithstanding her
payments, Mauricio never rendered any legal
service regarding the civil case. Dalisay then
terminated their attorney-client relationship and
demanded the return of the amounts and
documents. Mauricio refused. The SC required
Mauricio to refund the P56K and suspended him
for 6 months.
H:
When Mauricio accepted PhP56,000 from
Dalisay, it was understood that he agreed to take
up the latters case and that an attorney-client
relationship between them was established.
From then on, it was expected of him to serve
Dalisay with competence and attend to her case
with fidelity, care and devotion. He did not even
follow-up the case which remained pending up to
the time she terminated his services. There was
also no evidence nor any pleadings submitted to
show that Mauricio filed any case considering
that the filing fee had to be paid simultaneously
with the filing of a case. It is clear that Mauricio
did not take any step to assist Dalisay in her
case, charging P56K is improper. While giving
legal advice and opinion on Dalisays problems
and those of her family constitutes legal
services, however, the attorneys fees must be
reasonable. Obviously, P56K is exorbitant. When
a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants
that he will exercise due diligence in protecting
the clients rights.
Endaya v. Oca (2003)

80
F:
The spouses Endaya were sued for
unlawful detainer. Atty.Wilfredo Oca of the Public
Attorneys Office was assigned to handle their
case. He failed to submit affidavits and position
papers required by the MTC. Fortunately for the
spouses, the case was dismissed because the
MTC held that the plaintiffs in that case were not
real-parties-in-interest. On appeal to the RTC,
the parties were required to submit memoranda.
Oca again failed to submit the documents. The
RTC reversed the MTC decision and the Endayas
were ordered to vacate the land and pay their
debts in arrears. Endaya received the decision
and confronted Oca who denied having received
the decision. This later proved to be false. The
SC suspended OCS for 2 months.
H: Ocas transgressions show his seeming
stubborn mindset against the acts required of
him by the courts. This intransigent attitude not
only belies lack of diligence and commitment but
evinces absence of respect for the authority of
the SC and other courts involved. In not filing
tha appeal memorandum, Oca denied the Endaya
the chance of putting up a fair fight in dispute.
He should have left it to the sound judgment of
the court to determine whether affidavits support
his clients, and not refuse to file altogether.
appeal, which was denied for having been filed

beyond the reglementary period.
Notwithstanding his belief that without the

supporting documents a pleading would be futile,
he
should
have
formally
and
promptly
manifested his intent not to file the pleadings to
prevent delay. Also, he tried to evade
responsibility for his negligence when Endaya
confronted him upon receipt of the adverse
decision. Oca was untruthful and effectively
betrayed the trust placed in him by the client.
Legarda v. CA (1992)
F: Legarda was defendant in a complaint for
specific performance. Atty. Coronel, her counsel,
failed to file an answer within the period and
Legarda was thus declared in default. The lower
court rendered a decision against Legarda.
Coronel failed to pose an appeal within the
period. Thus, the decision became final. The SC
suspended Atty. Coronel for six months.
Ocas
explanations
have
undertones
of
dishonesty, especially in being the counsel only
for one incident. Though he asked to be relieved,
this could not mean that less was expected of
him. Once a lawyer takes the case, he owes it to
the client to see the case to the end. Also, a
lawyer continues to be counsel until the lawyerclient relationship is terminated either by the act
of his client or his own act, with permission of
the court. Until such time, the lawyer is expected
to do his best for the interest of his client.
H: Coronel is guilty of gross negligence for

violating Canon 18 and rule 18.03 particularly.
By neglecting to file the answer to the complaint
against petitioner, he set off the events which
resulted in the deprivation of petitioners rights
over her house and lot. It should be
remembered that the moment the lawyer takes a
clients cause, he covenants that he will exert all
effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion.
A lawyer who fails to exercise due diligence or
abandons his clients cause makes him unworthy
of the trust reposed on him by the latter.
Rentoy v. Ibadlit (1998)

F:
Atty. Ibadlit was the lawyer of Reontoy.
RTC decided the case against his client. Atty.
Ibadlit alleges that he told Reontoys brother to
inform her that they had lost the case and that
appeal was futile. Confident that the brother had
conveyed the message and having failed to
receive any advise from Reontoy, Atty. Ibadlit did
not file an appeal. He was later informed that
she wanted to appeal thus he filed a notice of
H:
A lawyer has no authority to waive his
clients right to appeal and constitutes a
negligence and malpractice as proscribed in
18.03.
Marivelles v. Mallari (1993)

Atty. Mallari represented Mariveles in a BP 22
case, which he lost in the RTC of Davao. Despite
numerous extension (totaling 245 days) granted
by the CA, Mallari failed to appeal. Hence the
decision became final. The SC, however, granted
Mariveles appeal, admitting the brief filed by new
counsel stating: Where the negligence of
counsel is so great that the rights of the accused
are prejudiced and he is prevented from
presenting his defense, especially where the
appellant raises issues which place in serious
doubt the correctness of the trial courts
judgment of conviction, the aforesaid rule
[regarding dismissal of appeals] must not be
rigidly applied to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
RULE 18.04
INFORM CLIENT OF STATUS OF CASE
Rule 18.04.
A lawyer shall keep the
client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable period of time to the
clients request for information.

81
professional relationship instead of keeping them

hanging indefinitely.
Abay v. Montesino (2003)

F:
National Institute of Technology, where
Abay is a stockholder, availed of Atty.
Montesinos legal service in an action against the
estate of Galo. In CA, Montesino failed to file an
appellants brief so appeal was dismissed. Abay
contended that dismissal was due to counsels
failure to pass appellants brief. In defense,
Montesino asserted he felt that the case they
filed was wrong as the property no longer
belonged to the heirs of Galo and that they
should recover said property from another
person.
H: The failure of respondent to file the brief was
a clear violation of his professional duty to his
client. The Court cited Rule 18.03 and 18.04 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Not filing
the brief was prejudicial because it resulted in
the dismissal of the appeal. Respondent failed to
exercise due diligence towards the cause of his
client. His abandonment of that cause made him
unworthy of the trust of the client. Even if he
sincerely thinks its for the clients best interest,
he should have not abandoned the appeal
without the clients consent. He should have just
withdrawn his appearance and allowed the NIT to
hire another lawyer. The 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. Also, his failure to file the
brief despite numerous extensions violates Rule
12.03.
CANON 19
REPRESENTATION WITH ZEAL
Canon 19.
A lawyer shall represent
his client with zeal within the bounds of law.
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.
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.
Rule 19.03.
A lawyer shall not allow his
client to dictate the procedure in handling the
case.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
To society: he owes the duty not to engage

in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. To the legal profession: he is not to
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law nor to behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession. To the courts: not to do
any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in court. To the client: to impress upon
him compliance with the laws and principles
of fairness.
The lawyers obligation to represent his client

with zeal and devotion must always be
within the bounds of the law.
While his zeal in the task of advocacy is

commendable and his persistence in the
discharge
of
his
responsibility
is
understandable, it should not amount to
obstinacy nor should it be carried beyond the
limits of sobriety and decorum.
Blanza v Arcangel (1967)

F: Due to lack of evidence, the SC dismissed the
case
against
Atty.
Arcangel
who
after
volunteering to help petitioners Blanza and
Pasion claim pension (in connection with the
deaths their PC husbands) failed to inform them
of the progress of their case because they had
not paid him for photostating expenses he had
incurred.
H: A lawyer has a dynamic and positive role in
the community than merely complying with the
minimal technicalities of the stature. As a man
of law, he is necessarily a leader of the
community, looked up to as a model citizen. His
conduct must, perforce, be par excellence,
especially so when, as in this case, he volunteers
his professional services. Respondent here has
not lived up to that ideal standard.
It was
unnecessary to have complainants wait, and
hope, for six long years on their pension claims.
Upon their refusal to co-operate, respondent
should
have
forthwith
terminated
their
RULE 19.01

82
FAIR AND HONEST
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.
Rule 138, Sec. 20(d). Duties of

attorneys.It is the duty of an attorney: (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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Acceptance of a retainer in a civil suit implies

that a lawyer honestly believes that his client
has a good cause or defense which is ripe for
judicial adjudication.
It then becomes his duty to insist upon the
judgment of the court as to the legal merits
of his clients claim or defense. But this duty
should be carried out using only fair and
honest means. Thus, he should not offer in
evidence any document which he knows is
false; not present any witnesses whom he
knows will perjure; make such defense only
as he believes to be honestly debatable
under the law; abstain from all offensive
personality; 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.
Advocacy, within the bounds of law, permits

the
attorney
to
use
any
arguable
construction of the law or rules which is
favorable to his client; he is not allowed to
advance knowingly a claim or defense that is
unwarranted under existing law.
Rule: In espousing his clients cause, a

lawyer should not state his personal belief as
to the soundness or justice of his case.
Reasons: the lawyers personal belief has no
real bearing on the case; if expression of
belief were permitted, it would give improper
advantage to the older and better known
lawyer whose opinion would carry more
weight; If such were permitted, omission to
make such assertion might be taken as an
admission of the lack or belief in the
soundness of his clients cause.
83
Duty to restrain the client from impropriety
A lawyer should use his best efforts to

restrain and to prevent his client from doing
those things which he himself ought not to
do, particularly with reference to the conduct
toward the court, judicial officer, witness and
suitor.
If the client persists in such wrongdoing, the

lawyers should terminate their relation.
Technical defense
In an annulment of marriage or legal

separation proceeding, the circumstance that
the state is vitally interested in the
maintenance of the marriage relation does
not necessarily render improper the lawyers
appearance for a party in such proceeding
and securing for him what is due him under
the law.
What is unethical is the lawyers participation

(i.e. by encouraging the commission of a
matrimonial offense, by fabricating evidence,
by suppressing evidence) in any collusion
between the parties.
Lawyer must also avoid any act which may

invite or raise suspicion of collusion.
Consider this situation: A lawyer possesses

confidential information acquired from his
client who is not in collusion with the other
party, the disclosure of which may defeat the
action for annulment which outcome his
client does not want. The question is
whether he as counsel for the plaintiff should
reveal the information to the court or
whether he, as attorney for the respondent,
should plead it as a defense? The question
involves conflicting goals and loyalties: To his
client, he owes the duty to secure lawfully
for him what he desires-the annulment-and
to keep inviolate the clients confidence, both
of which require him to keep silent about the
damaging information. To the court, he owes
the duty to act with honesty and candor,
which requires that he divulge the
information. To society, he owes the duty to
accord fealty to the public policy that
considers marriage as a social institution in
the maintenance of which the public is
committed. Agpalos answer: He should
incline the scale of his decision in favor of
that solution which will best serve all his
loyalties, by declining the professional
employment or terminating the professional
relationship.
His
duty
to
maintain

undisclosed
outlasts his
inhibit him,
information
his clients confidence, which

professional employment, should
however, from volunteering such
to any interested party.
84
NOTES
(Agpalo)
A lawyer is not a gun for hire.
Rule 19.03 warns the lawyer not

to allow his client to dictate the procedure in
handling the case.
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 seek instruction

from his client on any substantial matter
concerning the litigation, which requires
decision on the part of the client (i.e.
whether to compromise the case, or to
appeal an unfavorable judgment.)
In
procedural matters, the client must yield to
the lawyer.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
While it is the lawyers duty to

comply with the clients lawful request, he
should resist and should never follow any
unlawful instruction of his client.
On the other hand, Canon 41 of the Canons

of Professional Ethics permits the lawyer to
inform the person injured by the fraudulent
acts of his client or the injured partys
counsel. Canon 41 may collide with the
lawyers duty to keep the clients confidence
inviolate which may be the reason for the
revision.
Rule: In matters of law, it is the

client who should yield to the lawyer and not
the other way around. Reasons: Lawyers
duty to the court is foremost. The dignity of
the legal profession may be compromised.
An excuse that a lawyer is only

following the clients instruction cannot
justify a lawyers violation of the rules and
ethics of the legal profession.
Rule: A lawyer may not volunteer the

information
concerning
the
clients
commission of fraud to anybody, as it will
violate his obligation to maintain his clients
secrets undisclosed.
CANON 20
ATTORNEYS FEES
RULE 19.02
RECTIFY CLIENTS FRAUD
Canon 19.02 merely requires the lawyer to

terminate his relationship with the client in
the event the latter fails or refuses to rectify
the fraud.
RULE 19.03
CONTROL PROCEEDINGS
Rule 19.03.
A lawyer shall not allow
his client to dictate the procedure in handling the
case.
Rule 138, sec. 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.
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 professed
case;
f. The customary charges for similar services
and the schedule of fees of the IBP Charter
to which he belongs;

g.
h.
i.
j.
The amount involved in the controversy and

the benefits resulting to the client from the
service;
The
contingency
or
certainty
of
compensation;
The character of the employment, whether
occasional or established; and
The professional standing of the lawyer.
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.
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 allowances or other
compensation
whatsoever
related
to
his
professional employment from any one other
than the client.
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.
Rule 138, sec. 24. Compensation of

attorneys.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.
Rule 138, sec. 32. Compensation for

attorneys de oficio.Subject to availability of
funds as may be provided by law the court may,
in its discretion, order an attorney employed as
counsel de oficio to be compensated in such sum
as the court may fix in accordance with section
24 of this rule. Whenever such compensation is
allowed, it shall not be less than P30 in any case,
nor more than the following amounts:
1) P50 in light felonies;
2) P100 in less grave felonies;
3) P200 in grave felonies other than capital
offenses;
4) P500 in capital offenses.
RA 5185, sec. 6 (An act granting

further
autonomous
powers
to
local
governments) Prohibition Against Practice. - A
member of the Provincial Board or City or

Municipal Council shall not appear as counsel
before any court in any civil case wherein the
province, city or municipality, as the case may
be, is the adverse party: Provided, however, That
no member of the Provincial Board shall so
appear except in behalf of his province in any
civil case wherein any city in the province is the
adverse party whose voters are en-franchised to
vote for provincial officials, nor shall such
member of the Provincial Board or City or
Municipal Council appear as counsel for the
accused in any criminal case wherein an officer
or employee of said province, city or municipality
is accused of an offense committed in relation to
the latter's office, nor shall he collect any fee for
his appearance in any administrative proceedings
before provincial, city or municipal agencies of
the province, city or municipality, as the case
may be, of which he is an elected official.
The provisions of this Section shall likewise apply
to provincial governors and city and municipal
mayors.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
A.
Right to Attorneys Fees
Generally
That the practice of law is a profession and

not a money-making trade does not operate
to deny a lawyer the right to attorneys fees
for his professional services. He has the right
to have and recover from his client a fair and
reasonable compensation for his services,
except in cases where he has agreed to
render service gratuitously or has been
appointed counsel de oficio.
Compensation of lawyer should be a mere

incident of the practice of law; the primary
purpose should be public service. Being an
officer of the court, what a lawyer may
collect as his fees is always subject to
judicial control.
Lawyers
should
avoid
controversies
concerning compensation so far as shall be
compatible with self-respect and with right
to receive a reasonable recompense for
services. Resort to law suits with clients
should only be done to prevent injustice,
imposition or fraud. The impression is that
those instituting suits are mercenaries.
Right to protection for counsel fees
Because the practice of law is not a business

and attorneys vital role in administration of

85
justice there is the need to secure the lawyer

his honorarium lawfully earned as a means
to preserve the decorum and respectability
of the legal profession.
Duty of court not only to see that a lawyer

acts in a proper and lawful manner but also
to see that a lawyer is paid his just fees.
With his capital consisting only of his brains
and skill acquired at tremendous cost in
money, time and energy, he is entitled to
protection of any judicial tribunal against any
attempt on the part of his client to escape
payment of his just compensation. (ironic if,
after putting the best in him to secure justice
for his client, he himself would not get his
due)
GENERALLY: right of lawyer to reasonable
compensation for services requires the
following:
1. that attorney-client relationship exists;
and
2. that he rendered services to the client.
Written agreement
A written agreement is not necessary to

establish a clients oblig to pay attorneys
fees. As long as the lawyer is honestly and in
good faith trying to serve and represent the
interest of his client, an absence of express
undertaking does not defeat recovery of
fees.
Acts of recognition, acquiescence by a client

in his attorneys conduct may take the place
of a request to act, provided that the case
was such that the client might reasonably
know that he would be expected to pay the
service.
Clients obligation to pay attorneys fees

arises from the inanimate contract of facis ut
des (I do and you give) which is based on
the principle that no one shall unjustly enrich
himself at the expense of another.
Quantum meruit
When no price is stipulated for lawyers

service, courts will fix amount on quantum
meruit basis, or such amount which his
service merit.
Requisite for principle: that there is an

acceptance of the benefits by one sought to
be charged for the services rendered under
circumstances as reasonably to notify him
that the lawyer performing the task is
expecting to be paid compensation.
86
Doctrine of quantum meruit is a device to

prevent undue enrichment based on the
equitable postulate that it is unjust for a
person to retain benefit without paying for it.
Other times when doctrine applicable: where

amount stipulated in written agreement is
found to be unconscionable or where client
dismissed counsel before termination of case
or where the lawyer withdrew therefrom for
valid reasons.
Who is liable for attorneys fees
General rule: only the client who engaged

the services of counsel either personally or
through an authorized agent is liable for
attorneys fees.
Exceptions rest on equitable principle that a

person who accepts the benefits of the legal
representation impliedly agrees to pay the
lawyers service for he may not unjustly
enrich himself at the expense of the lawyer.
Liability of persons benefited by counsels

services
General rule: a person who had no

knowledge of, or objected to, the lawyers
representation may not be held liable for
attorneys
fees
even
though
such
representation redounded to his benefit..
The objection should be raised before and
not after beneficial services shall have been
rendered by the lawyer; otherwise, the party
who benefited may be required to pay
counsel fees. For it is neither just that client
who retained lawyer should alone pay nor is
it fair that those who, investing nothing and
assuming no risk, received benefits should
not contribute their proportionate share to
counsel fees (based on equity).
That a person who employed lawyer as

counsel for a party has not been duly
authorized to do so does not necessarily
exempt latter from liability to pay attorneys
fees. If legal representation redounded to his
benefit, retention or acceptance of the
benefit cures defect of lack of authority on
part of agent to retain the lawyer on partys
behalf and creates oblig to pay lawyer.
Exception:
employment
of
lawyer
to
represent government entity by an official
who has no authority in law. since the
benefits secured by the legal representation
cannot take the place of the law and will not
create an obligation on the part of the
government entity to pay the private lawyer
for his services.

Liability of assignee
Since assignee of all interests

pendente lite usually steps into shoes of
assignor and acquires all of latters rights
and obligations in the action, assignee may
be held liable for counsel fees from out of
the proceeds of favorable judgment. This
obligation gives the assignee the right to
intervene in fixing amount of fees which may
be a proper charge against the judgment
rendered in the action.
Liability in labor cases
Lawyer who represented a union and its

members and with whom he has a retained
for payment of a fixed percentage of
amounts recovered from the company is
entitled to be paid not only by union
members but by non-union members as well
who derived benefits from his services. But
where benefits were given not because of
lawyers services but because of company
policy, lawyer is not entitled to claim
attorneys fees.
Attorneys fees in labor cases may not be

more than what the law provides and they
may not be checked off from any amount
due the employees without their written
consent.
Liability in derivative suits
Where, in a derivative suit, the professional

services of counsel who instituted the action
upon request of a stockholder are beneficial
to the corporation, counsel fees may be
properly charged against corporate funds.
But as any stockholder may file a derivative
suit on behalf of the corporation, any other
stockholder may intervene and oppose the
grant of such fees as a charge against funds
of the corporation.
Liability in estate proceedings
Executor or administrator who

employs services of an attorney may not
hold estate directly liable for his fees. He
may, however, if services are beneficial to
the estate, seek reimbursement from the
estate if he has already paid them or include
them in his account with due notice to all
parties interested.
Ultimately, estate will answer for

the fees of lawyer whose services are
beneficial to estate, and if the assets have
been distributed, distributees or heirs will
contribute their share to the counsel fees as
the obligs of the estate follow the assets
wherever they are except in hands of a
purchaser in good faith.
To hold the estate ultimately

liable for attorneys fees requires that the
person to whom the services were rendered
was
at
the
time
the
executor
or
administrator
and
the
services
were
rendered to him in that capacity.
Where administrator is himself

counsel for the heirs, heirs must pay
attorneys fees.
The person who retained the

lawyer and not the estate is the one liable
for AF arising out of a litigation in the
protection of a particular person or between
beneficiaries or an executor or administrator
and an heir except with respect to those
services which were rendered for the benefit
of the estate prior to the controversy
provoked by the heir.
Attorneys fees of a lawyer

employed by an executor to secure approval
of a will may, if the lawyer is successful, be
properly charged against estate. But the
estate may not be liable for counsel fees for
services rendered to annul a will at the
request of the executor (executor liable).
Rationale: executors duty is to enforce and
not invalidate the will (will desire,
Liability in receivership proceedings
Assets under receivership may be liable for

fees of lawyer employed by a receiver to
help him in the discharge of his duties.
But attorneys fees of the counsel for a

defendant in a receivership proceeding are
personal obligs of defendant and may not be
paid out of the funds in the hands of the
receiver, unless services rendered by lawyer
have redounded to benefit of receivership or
of plaintiff who asked for the appointment of
the receiver.
Liability
in
proceedings
trusteeship
or
guardianship
Same rule for trusteeship and

guardianship proceedings: trustee may be
indemnified out of the trust estate for his
expenses in rendering and proving his
accounts and for the related counsel fees in
the same way that property of the ward may
lawfully answer for counsel fees of the
lawyer employed by guardian. Both are,
however, subject to court approval.

87
command of owner of the estate as to how

the inheritance shall be distributed).
Lawyer who acted as counself

for administrator to secure invalidation of will
may have his fees charged against the
estate if its disapproval would mean bigger
share in the inheritance of the administrator
as an heir and other heirs similary situated.
Benefit of legal representation to estate:
difference between what they would receive
without a will and what they would have
received under the will.
Who are entitled to or to share in attorneys fees
Lawyer engaged by client is one entitled to

have and recover no more than a reasonable
compensation for his services. If more than
one lawyer employed, general rule: lawyers
who jointly represent a common client for a
give fee, in the absence of agreement as to
division of fees, share equally as they are
special partners for a special purpose.
Fees of lawyers separately employed by

client will depend upon their respective fee
arrangements with client. But if there is no
such arrangement, or if they have rendered
services at one time or another, each of
them will be entitled to no more than what
his
services
actually
performed
are
reasonably worth.
Right of lawyer to share in the professional

fees rests on services performed or on his
being, based on an agreement, a partner of
another or in a law firm.
Improper for an attorney to receive

compensation for merely recommending
another lawyer to his client because such
practice would tend to germinate evils of
commercialism and to destroy proper
appreciation of professional responsibility.
Non-lawyer not entitled to fees
Non-lawyer cannot recover attorneys fees

even if there is a law authorizing him to
represent a litigant in court because basis of
reasonable compensation is the existence of
attorney-client relationship and the rendition
of services.
Restrictions on some lawyers to charge fees
Lawyer who is absolutely disqualified from

engaging in private practice of law by reason
of his government position may neither
practice law nor, should he do so illegally,
charge attorneys fees for such services.
Exception:
fees
for
services
already
performed before lawyer qualified for public

office even though payment is made
thereafter.
Executor or administrator is prohibited from

charging the estate under his administration
of his professional fees for services rendered
by him as a lawyer. Basis: One acting in a
fiduciary capacity must no place himself in
such a position as to make his interests
antagonistic with those of his principal. This
principle, even in absence of an express
statutory prohibition, also restricts right to or
limits amount of attorneys fees which a
lawyer who occupies a fiduciary position may
otherwise collect from his principal for his
services as an advocate.
Right of counsel de oficio to fees
Lawyer designated by court to render

professional services, in the absence of law
allowing
compensation,
cannot
charge
government nor the indigent litigant for his
professional services. Appointment neither
violates constitutional restriction against
taking of property without just compensation
or the due process of law nor imposes upon
the government the oblig to pay him his fees
because one of the obligs of an attorney
willingly assumed when he took his oath as
lawyer is to render free legal services
whenever required by the court to do so.
Rules of Court: Court, in its discretion, may

grant (token) compensation subject to
availability of funds: P30-P50 in light
felonies; P100 in less grave felonies; P200 in
grave felonies other than capital offenses;
P500 in capital offenses.
This is not
intended as a source of regular income
Attorneys conduct affecting his right to fees
Misconduct on part of lawyer may affect or

negate his right to recover from client a
reasonable
compensation
for
services
already performed. (examples: negligence,
carelessness,
misrepresentation,
unfaithfulness
or
abuse
of
clients
confidence). Basis: good morals and public
policy
Adverse result of litigation does not in itself

deprive a lawyer of right to claim a
reasonable compensation unless it is due to
lawyers misconduct or fee stipulated is
contingent upon favorable outcome of
action. Honest mistake does not defeat right
to fees.

88
Withdrawal of counsel from the case
Unceremonious
withdrawal
from
or
abandonment of action which prejudices
client negates right to compensation for
services rendered. It is a breach of implied
undertaking to prosecute or defend until
termination of litigation.
Lawyer who is forced to resign, with clients

conformity or in accordance with prescribed
procedure, because of his own fault or
misconduct loses right to fees earned.
Withdrawal of counsel who has done work

faithfully does not affect his right to fees. If
with clients written consent, it is presumed
that they mutually agreed to terminate
services and to compensate lawyer for
services until termination. Laywer should
refund part of retainer as has not been
clearly earned. If without clients written
consent but for a justifiable cause made
after due notice to client, lawyer may
recover reasonable worth of his services up
to date of withdrawal unless fee is
contingent and contingency has not arisen.
Representation of adverse interests
Simultaneous representation of opposing

parties, in the absence of clients consent to
the dual representation made after full
disclosure of the facts, negates right to fees
from both.
Lawyers acceptance of employment from

new client against a former client in a matter
related to former controversy precludes
recovery of fees from the former client only
if the latter objected to representation. But
new client could not defeat right to fees in
the absence of concealment and prejudice by
reason of lawyers previous relationship with
adverse party.
Lawyers right unaffected by clients conduct
Although a client has right to discharge

lawyer anytime, dismiss or settle action or
even waive the whole of his interest in favor
of adverse party, he cannot, in the absence
of lawyers fault, consent or waiver, deprive
the lawyer of his just fees already earned.
Attorneys discharge by client
Discharge of lawyer by his client without a

valid cause before conclusion of litigation
does not negate lawyers right to recover
payment for services. Whether it will affect
right to fees or not will depend on existence
or absence of a valid written contract for
professional services and nature of that

contract.
No express written agreement as to fees:

reasonable value of services til date of
dismissal.
Express agreement as to fees not reduced to
writing: reasonable value of services til date
of dismissal. Except: where dismissal comes
after successful prosecution or defense: full
amount
Contract in writing and fee stipulated is

absolute and reasonable: full amount.
Fee stipulated in valid written contract
contingent: reasonable value of services
rendered. If contingency occurs or client
prevents its occurrence by dismissing,
settling or waiving his cause: full amount
Lawyer should question discharge to entitle

him to recover under the contract, otherwise
quantum meruit basis will be applied.
Discharge of lawyer for cause does not
necessarily deprive lawyer of right to be paid
for his services. He may only be deprived if
cause for dismissal constitutes in itself a
sufficient legal obstacle to recovery.
Clients dismissal of action
Client may dismiss action even without

consent of lawyer but he cannot deprive
lawyer of his attorneys fees for services
rendered, in the absence of a waiver.
In good faith and based on honest belief that
client has no valid cause: reasonable worth
of services, except: fee is contingent no
recovery
In bad faith and intended to defraud lawyer
of compensation: full amount stipulated in
valid written contract or, in its absence,
reasonable value of services based on
quantum meruit
Lawyers consent to dismissal does not

negate right to compensation unless such
consent amounts to waiver of right.
Clients compromise of action
Lawyer cannot prevent client from settling

case
due
to
right
to
reasonable
compensation, in the same way that client
cannot, by entering into a compromise
agreement, deprive lawyer of his fees in the
absence of waiver on lawyers part.
With consent of lawyer: reasonable value
based on quantum meruit

89
In bad faith or in fraud of counsel: full

amount stipulated in valid contract or, in its
absence, reasonable worth of services
B.
Client has no right to compromise or waive

so much of acknowledged claim secured
through efforts of lawyer as would prejudice
stipulated
fee,
whether
absolute
or
contingent, and adverse party has no right
to accept such compromise or waiver
unqualifiedly.
Contract for Attorneys Fees
5.
6.
Concepts of Attorneys Fees

1. Ordinary: an attorneys fee is the reasonable
compensation paid to a lawyer for the legal
services he has rendered to client. Basis is
employment by client
2. Extraordinary: an attorneys fee is an
indemnity for damages ordered by court to
be paid by losing party to the prevailing
party in litigation; payable not to lawyer but
to the client, unless otherwise agreed upon;
also known as attorneys fee as damages
Forms of Contract for Legal Service

1.
2.
Oral
Written this is more advantageous for
lawyers, hence, most contracts for attorneys
fees are in this form.
Advantages of a Written Retainer Contract:
there is control of amount of fee; if lawyers
service is terminated without justifiable
cause, lawyer is entitled to full amount of
fees
When lawyer cannot recover full amount despite

existence of retainer
Situations wherein Counsel Cannot Recover

Full Amount Despite a Written Retainer
Contract: when the services called for were
not performed as when the lawyer withdrew
before case is finished, unless withdrawal
justified; when there is a justified dismissal
of the attorney, the contract will be nullified
and payment shall be based on quantum
meruit; when the stipulated attorneys fees
are
unconscionable;
when
stipulated
attorneys fees are in excess of what is
expressly fixed by law; when lawyer is guilty
of fraud and bad faith toward client in the
matter of employment; when the counsels
services were worthless because of his
negligence; when contract of employment is
illegal, against morals and public policy;
serving adverse interests, unless lawyer
proves
he
acted
with
consent
and
acquiescence of both parties
Fixed Fee based on piece work

Combinations of other stipulations
Generally, attorneys fees in concept of

damages are not recoverable due to public
policy. There are however exceptions to the
rule.
Kinds of Retainer
1.
General Retainer (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 routinary
business of the client and referred to him for
legal action.
This could be paid monthly or annually,
depending on lawyer-client arrangement.
This is considered as compensation for lost
opportunity.
2.
Special Retainer: Fee which client will pay to

his
lawyer
for
a
specific
matter
(case/service), possibly in addition to a
general retainer.
Rationale for Adequate Compensation
Adequate compensation is necessary in

order to enable lawyer to serve his client
effectively and to preserve the integrity and
independence of the profession. The legal
profession cannot remain a viable force in
fulfilling its role in our society unless lawyers
receive adequate compensation for his
services. A lawyer like all human beings has
a right to livelihood.
Effects of Nullity of Contract

Kinds of Attorneys Fee Stipulation
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
2.
Absolute
Contingent
Fixed Fee payable per appearance
Fixed Fee computed by number of hours
spent
preclude a lawyer from recovering fees for

such services (if nullity based on illegality of
object sought to be achieved)
lawyer entitled to recover what is justly due
him for his services based on quantum
meruit ( if nullity not based on illegality of

90
object)
lawyer during litigation will shoulder all the

expenses and by the end of the case, if a
favorable decision is rendered, the lawyer
will get all the rewards, including monetary
and non-monetary claims.
Effects of Unconscionability of Amount
The Court protects the client by monitoring

the amount paid to lawyers. Such amount
must always be reasonable to avoid abuse of
clients by lawyers.
Reasonability of fee is determined from the

facts of each case. It is considered as
reasonable if it is within the capacity of client
to pay, and is directly commensurate with
the value of the legal services rendered.
In contrast, amount is considered as

unconscionable if it is such that no man in
his right senses would offer on one hand and
no honest and fair man would accept on the
other.
1. contract for attorneys fees invalidated
2. recovery of attorneys fees based on
quantum meruit
Validity of Contingent Fee Contract
Construction of Professional Contract
General rule to be followed is that to adopt

such a construction as would be more
favorable to client even if it would work
prejudice to lawyer.
A lawyer who prepares a contract of

professional services is presumed to have
seized up the entire situation before entering
into agreement.
Words inserted by client in his own

handwriting are to be taken in his favor, the
insertion presumed to have been made for
his benefit.
It is interpreted in accordance with its terms

and in favor of greatest reciprocity of
interest.
Contingent Fee Contract
A contingent fee contract is an agreement in

writing in which the fee, usually a fixed
percentage of what may be recovered in
action is made to depend upon the success
in the effort to enforce or defend a supposed
right.
Lawyer gets paid only if he wins the case for
the client unless the client prevents the
successful prosecution or defense of the
action, in which case the lawyer will be
entitled to recover on quantum meruit basis
or to the full amount as fixed in a valid
written agreement.
A much higher compensation is allowed as

contingent fees in consideration of the risk
that the lawyer will get nothing if case fails.
Contingent fee of 30% of money judgment is
still considered valid.
A lawyer usually advances expenses of

litigation as more often than not the client is
not in a financial capacity to pay. This
contract is often the only way that a poor
litigant may have his right enforced or
protected by a lawyer.
In contrast to a champertous contract, a

contingent fee contract is allowed by law. A
champertous contract is one wherein the
Validity depends on reasonableness of the

amount fixed as contingent fee based on
circumstances of the case. It is generally
valid and binding unless it is obtained by
fraud, imposition or suppression of facts, or
the fee is so clearly excessive as to amount
to extortion.
Research and Services Realty V. CA

(1997)
F:
After termination, Atty. Fonacier filed
suit for Urgent Motion to Direct Payment of
Attorneys Fees &/or Register Attorneys Charging
Lien claiming that noncollection cases were
included in the contingent fee arrangement
specified in his retainer contract wherein there
was to be contingent compensation for any
award arising from any lawsuit handled by him.
This was acted upon favorably by RTC ordering
Research and Services Realty (RSR) to pay
Fonacier P600K as attorneys fees based on
quantum meruit. RSR appealed and contended
that Fonacier has no justification to claim
attorneys fees as: he was not entitled to
attorneys fees in retainer contract and he did
not exert effort to amicably settle specific case
nor was he even present during negotiation of
the same. The SC held that Fonacier is entitled

91
to claim attorneys fees for noncollection cases

but that his attorneys fee on a contingent basis
is unwarranted.
H:
The absence of stipulation of additional
attorneys fees cannot be construed as a bar to
the collection of additional attorneys fees in noncollection cases. Nothing therein shows that Atty.
Fonacier agreed to render professional services
in such cases gratuitously. The civil case in
question is not yet resolved and no judgment has
yet been rendered in favor of RSR. If at all
Fonacier may be entitled to attorneys fees, it
would be on the basis if quantum meruit as of
the expiration of his retainer contract on 31
March 1993.
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v

CA (1990)
F:
Lawyers filed verified motion to enter in
the records their charging lien. Attorneys liens
were annotated on the certificate of land titles.
Consequently, the other partys petition against
sale of land was granted with prejudice and a
new certificate of title with his name was made
wherein attorneys liens were annotated. The
Court held that the lawyers were not entitled to
the enforcement of charging lien for payment of
its attorney's fees and also held that a separate
civil suit is not necessary for the enforcement of
such lien.
H:
A charging lien, to be enforceable as
security for the payment of attorney's fees,
requires as a condition sine qua non a judgment
for money and execution in pursuance of such
judgment secured in the main action by the
attorney in favor of his client. A lawyer may
enforce his right to fees by filing the necessary
petition as an incident in the main action in
which his services were rendered when
something is due his client in the action from
which the fee is to be paid. An enforceable
charging lien, duly recorded, is within the
jurisdiction of the court trying the main case and
this jurisdiction subsists until the lien is settled.
There is certainly no valid reason why the trial
court cannot pass upon a petition to determine
attorney's fees if the rule against multiplicity of
suits is to be activated.
Quirante v. IAC (1989)

F:
Atty
Quirante
filed
motion
for
confirmation of attorneys fees in the trial court,
presenting alleged agreement between him and
Casasola about said fee while the main case is
still pending. The case is being heard on appeal.
The Court held that Atty. Quirante cannot have a

confirmation of attorneys fees.
H:
Since the main case from which the
petitioner's claims for their fees may arise has
not yet become final, the determination of the
propriety of said fees and the amount thereof
should be held in abeyance. This procedure gains
added validity in the light of the rule that the
remedy for recovering attorney's fees as an
incident of the main action may be availed of
only when something is due to the client.
Tanhueco v. de Dumo (1989)

F:
De Dumo is Tanhuecos counsel for
recovery of indebtedness from different debtors.
No
document
about
their
lawyer-client
relationship but Hilaria offered to give 15% of
what de Dumo may be able to collect from
debtors. Contrary to this, Lawyer contends that
their agreement is to give him 50% of debt
collected. The Court held that the attorneys
fees charged by de Dumo were unacceptable.
H:
The contingent fee here claimed was,
under the facts obtaining in this case, grossly
excessive and unconscionable. Such a fee
structure, when considered in conjunction with
the circumstances of this case, also shows that
an unfair advantage was taken of the client and
legal fraud and imposition perpetrated upon her.
It must be stressed that the mere fact that an
agreement had been reached between attorney
and client fixing the amount of the attorney's
fees, does not insulate such agreement from
review and modification by the Court where the
fees clearly appear to be excessive or
unreasonable. This Court has power to guard a
client, especially an aged and necessitous client,
against such a contract.
Rule 138, 32 Compensation for attorneys de
oficio. Subject to availability of funds as may be
provided by law the court may, in its discretion,
order an attorney employed as counsel de oficio
to be compensated in such sum as the court may
fix in accordance with section 24 of this rule.
Whenever such compensation is allowed, it shall
not be less than thirty pesos (P30.00) in any
case, nor more than the following amounts: (1)
Fifty pesos (P50.00) in light felonies; (2) One
hundred pesos (P100.00) in less grave felonies;
(3) Two hundred pesos (P200.00) in grave
felonies other than capital offenses; (4) Five
hundred pesos (P500.00) in capital offenses.
Albano v. Coloma (1967)

F:
Coloma was Albanos counsel during the
Japanese occupation. According to Albano,

92
Coloma
failed
to
expedite
hearing
and
termination of case. Coloma denied that she did
nothing to expedite the hearing and termination
of such civil case as the records would show
otherwise. After Albanos won in the case,
Coloma intervened to collect attorneys fee which
is computed at 33.3% of what the Albanos can
recover. The Court held that Coloma may recover
attorneys fees.
H:
Counsel, any counsel, if worthy of his
hire, is entitled to be fully recompensed for his
services. With his capital consisting solely of his
brains and with his skill, acquired at tremendous
cost not only in money but in the expenditure of
time and energy, he is entitled to the protection
of any judicial tribunal against any attempt on
the part of a client to escape payment of his
fees. It is indeed ironic if after putting forth the
best that is in him to secure justice for the party
he represents, he himself would not get his due.
Such an eventuality this Court is determined to
avoid.
RULE 20.01
FEE GUIDE
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 professed
case;
f. The customary charges for similar services
and the schedule of fees of the IBP Charter
g. The amount involved in the controversy and
service;
h. The
contingency
or
certainty
of
compensation;
i. The character of the employment, whether
j. The professional standing of the lawyer.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Amount Fixed in a Valid Contract
A valid written contract is conclusive as to

amount of compensation. Unless both parties
set aside contract and submit question of
reasonableness of amount of fees for court

to resolve on quantum meruit basis, neither
client nor lawyer may disregard amount
fixed.
Rule 20.01 as guide only
none of the factors is controlling but are

guides only. Other factors:
a) actual purchasing power of Philippine
peso
b) omission or fault of lawyer
c) loss of opportunity on part of lawyer for
other employment
d) financial capacity of client
Amount based on Quantum Meruit
Quantum Meruit means as much as a lawyer

deserves.
Its
essential
requisite
is
acceptance of the benefits by one sought to
be charged for services rendered under
circumstances as reasonably to notify him
that lawyer expects compensation.
Instances when Court will fix Amount of
Attorneys Fees based on Quantum Meruit
1.
agreement is invalid for some reason
other than illegality of object of performance
2.
amount stipulated is unconscionable
3.
no agreement as to fees existed
between parties
4.
client rejects amount fixed in contract as
unconscionable and is found to be so
5.
lawyer, without fault, was unable to
conclude litigation
Agpalo adds (1) the results secured and (2)

whether of not the fee is contingent, it being
recognized as a rule that an attorney may
properly charge a higher fee when it is
contingent that when it is absolute.
Even other consideration may be the actual

purchasing power of the Philippine Peso, the
omission of fault of the lawyer in the
discharge of his duties, the loss of
opportunity on the part of a lawyer for other
employment of the financial capacity of the
client.
Loss of Opportunity for other employment

may be due to (1) the acceptance of a
retainer or (2) that the work may require
tedious details and considerable time.
Nature of services
Value of lawyers services determined in

large measure by nature, quality and
quantity of services. Competence judged by
character of work.

93
Hotly-litigated action requires more work

and higher fee than a simple money claim.
Lawyers services should be taken as a

whole.
Time employed not in itself an appropriate

basis for fixing amount but length of
employment which runs for years is
significant as the longer the period of
employment the more work it entails and the
lesser the opportunity lawyer has for other
profitable retainers.
Time devoted for study and research must

also be considered.
That lawyer has been helped by assistants in

his office cannot reduce compensation as he
is paying his assistants and is not expected
to do everything personally. (like an army
general who directs and supervises, and
deserves credit for victory won)
Skill and standing of attorney
Skill, experience and standing of lawyer bear

a direct proportion to amount of attorneys
fees.
Reputation for professional capacity and

fidelity to trust acquired through years of
hard labor and devotion to duty, evidenced
by quality of work and eminent standing in
community.
Argument made in a pleading or brief or

orally in court acquires a different meaning
and import according to persuasive ability of
professional and personal prestige of lawyer.
Ability, skill and competence cannot be

measured by lawyers income or length of
practice.
Lawyers competence and ability must be
judged by character and quality of his work
and services not only in the field of law but
in other fields of public and private
endeavors. Court may take judicial notice of
the prestige of a lawyer as a distinguished
member of the bar.
Value of interest involved
The bigger the size or value of interest or

property involved the higher the attorneys
fees. Reason: the higher the stakes the more
case is hotly litigated and the greater the
efforts the lawyer exerts.
But: in a million peso litigation, percentage

fee contingent upon recovery becomes
smaller as amount of recovery gets bigger
because amount of work required remains
the
same
even
though
interest
in
controversy exceeds several million pesos.
In the last analysis, value of interest

depends upon extent of the special and
additional services and efforts demanded of
the case.
Loss of opportunity for other employment
Loss of opportunity for other employment on

part of lawyer should be considered.
Two ways: (1) acceptance of retainer from

client will preclude a lawyer from appearing
for others in cases likely to arise out of the
transaction in view of prohibition against
representation of adverse interests; (2) work
may require tedious details and considerable
time that may deprive him of opportunity to
render legal services in other cases
Difficulty of issues involved
Novel or difficult issues require greater

efforts on part of lawyer in terms of
preparation, study and research to convince
court as to the soundness of clients cause.
In fixing lawyers fees, court looks at novelty

or difficulty of issue and the demands they
impose on lawyers part.
Test case
Where there are several identical actions or

possible disputes and one case is litigated as
a test case, value in controversy of all
actions
should
bear
its
appropriate
proportion to the amount due as fees to
lawyer who prosecuted test case (totality of
the amounts in all the actions dependent
upon the result of test case).
A test case is usually litigated with energy

and diligence even if the actual amount is
insignificant because the resolution of the
other actions which involve large sums of
money is made to depend on the favorable
outcome of the test case.
Those who may be benefited by the result of

the test case may be required to contribute a
proportionate share to fees of lawyer who
prosecuted test case.
Results secured
Winning client may be more than willing to

pay for stipulated amount while losing client

94
may hesitate. In fixing waht a lawyer is

reasonably entitled to, result of case is given
much weight.
That a lawyer, in spite of his efforts, failed to

secure for his client what he desires, does
not, however, deprive him of the right to
recover compensation for his services except
when fee agreed upon is contingent.
(Practice of law would cease to be dignified
and honorable if all professional fees
contingent fees.)
Whether fee is contingent
Contingent fee: lawyer entitled to higher

compensation than if fee were absolute.
Reason: risks borned by lawyer as to
reimbursement of expenses advanced
Capacity of client to pay
Financial ability of client to pay may be

considered in determining amount of fees,
not to enhance what is reasonable but to
ascertain whether client is able to pay a fair
and just compensation. It may be looked
into
as
an
incident
in
determining
importance and gravity of interests involved.
Poor, ignorant client may not be in a position

to appreciate what a reasonable fee is and
may likely agree, because of his necessities,
to anything his counsel proposes. While a
wealthy client can deal with lawyer at arms
length.
Statutory limitation as to fees
Legislature, in the exercise of its police

power, may by law precribe the limit of the
amount of attorneys fees which a lawyer
may charge. A contract beyond the limit is
null and void, and the lawyer who collects in
excess of the limit may be criminally held
liable.
Law should be interpreted strictly and not

extended
beyond
what
it
expressly
comprehends.
RULE 20.02
CLIENTS CONSENT OF FEES FOR REFERRAL
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.
Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in case of referral,
with the consent of the client, be entitled to a
division of fees in proportion to the work
performed and responsibility assumed.

NOTES
(Agpalo)
Lawyers sometimes use the lawyer-referral

system. It is an aid to selection of qualified
lawyers. This system helps individuals in
locating lawyers competent to handle their
particular problem. It enables laymen to
have informed selection of competent
lawyers who have experience in the subject
matter involved in a particular case.
It is however stressed that it is improper for

a lawyer to receive compensation for merely
recommending another lawyer to his client
for if such practice is permitted, it would
tend to germinate evils of commercialism
and to destroy proper appreciation of
professional responsibility.
It is only when, in addition to referral, he

performs
legal
service
or
assumes
responsibility in case that he will be entitled
to a fee.
Urban Bank, Inc. v. Pena (2001)

F:
Atty. Pena was issued a letter of
authority which gave him the right to represent
Urban Bank in any court action connected with
eviction. But Pena, before doing so, made clear
that it is ISC which availed of his service. This
letter was later on altered. After eviction, Pena
filed collection suit versus Urban Bank. With this,
Urban Bank filed case versus Pena, alleging that
they were not the one who availed of Penas legal
services. The Court did not agree that Pena
should be disbarred on the ground of deceit,
malpractice and gross misconduct.
H:
Atty. Pena can hardly be faulted and
accused of deceit, malpractice and gross
misconduct for invoking the aid of the court in
recovering recompense for legal services which
he claims he undertook for the bank and which
the latter does not deny to have benefited from.
RULE 20.03
CLIENTS CONSENT OF ACCEPTANCE FEE
FROM THIRD PERSONS
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
allowances or other compensation whatsoever

95
related to his professional employment from any

one other than the client.
decided that
attorneys fee
Rule 138, sec. 20(e) . Duties of

attorneys.It is the duty of an attorney: (e) to
accept no compensation in connection with his
client's business except from him or with his
knowledge and approval.
H:
An attorney client relationship can be
created by implied agreement, as when the
attorney actually rendered legal services for a
person who is a close friend. The obligation of
such a person to pay attorneys fees is based on
the law of contracts concept of facio ut des (no
one shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense
of others.) Absence of an express contract for
attorneys fees between respondent David and
petitioner Corpus is no argument against the
payment of attorneys fees, considering their
close relationship which signifies mutual trust
and confidence between them.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
The reason for the rule is to ensure

protection of lawyers in collection of fees.
Moreover, it is designed to secure the
lawyers wholehearted fidelity to the clients
cause and to prevent that situation in which
the receipt by him of a rebate or commission
from another in connection with the clients
cause may interfere with the full discharge of
his duty to the client. It must be noted that
the amount received by lawyer from
opposite party or third persons in the service
of his client belongs to the client except
when the latter has full knowledge and
approval of lawyers taking.
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.
Lawyers should avoid the appearance of
fulfilling duty merely for the compensation.
Take note of Rule 138, Secs 24, 32 above
Corpus v. CA (2001)
F:
Atty David and Corpuz were good
friends. In Corpuzs civil case, David became his
counsel. Prior to rendering of final judgment,
Corpuz gave the lawyer a check which the latter
returned. After favorable decision was rendered,
Atty David demanded attorneys fee which
Corpuz refused to deliver alleging that Davids
services were offered gratuitously. The Court
should
be
paid
Remedies in estate proceedings
Lawyer should first administrator or executor

to pay.
If administrator or executor refuses, lawyer

may: File independent civil action against
administrator or executor in his personal
capacity. If latter is ordered to pay, he may
in turn include the amount paid in his
account filed with probate court.
File petition with probate court praying that
court, after due notice to all persons
interested, allow his claim and direct
administrator or executor to pay.
If administrator or executor dies before

lawyers fees could be paid, he may file claim
against (1) estate of deceased administrator
or executor or (2) a petition for allowance of
his fees with probate court, but not against
substitute or new administrator.
When to enforce right to fees: before estate

proceeding is definitely closed. General rule:
probate court loses jurisdiction to entertain
and adjudicate fees after proceeding closes.
Exceptions: (1) when petition for allowance
of fees filed before closure (2) distribution of
assets made without prejudice to claim for
attorneys fees
Allowance of counsel fees in estate

proceedings rests on sound discretion of
probate court but it may be modified by
appellate court when fee allowed is
inadequate or excessive.
Order fixing fees continue to be under

control of probate court until proceeding is
NOTES
(Agpalo)
David
ETCETERA NOTES.
(Agpalo)
RULE 20.04
AVOID COMPENSATION CONTROVERSY
WITH CLIENT
Rule 20.04.
controversies
with
clients
concerning
his
Atty.

96
closed and may increase or decrease

depending on facts and circumstances even
though fee has been fully or partially paid.
But an order of probate court which has
been affirmed or modified by appellate court
can no longer be changed by probate court.
The latter cannot order immediate payment
of fees after perfection of an appeal from
order allowing it.
In case where probate court has lost

jurisdiction after final closure of estate
proceeding, lawyer may file independent civil
action against administrator in his personal
capacity and against distributees of the
assets of the estate.
Court jurisdiction
Court having jurisdiction to try main action

in which lawyer rendered services also has
jurisdiction to pass upon the question of fees
even though the total sum thereof is less
than the jurisdictional amount cognizable by
the court and continues to have jurisdiction
until the proceeds of the judgment shall
have been delivered to the client.
If court has no jurisdiction or has lost it,

court can have no power to award and fix
attorneys fees. Lawyer may, however,
enforce claim in separate civil action subject
to same jurisdictional req as any other
ordinary civil suit.
But if client not only fails to object to
exercise by court of jurisdiction to entertain
an action for recovery of attys fees but also
asks for some affirmative reliefs, he may be
estopped, on appeal, to assail the propriety
of action taken by trial court in fixing and
allowing counsel fees
Necessity of hearing
Petition for recovery of attys fees has to be

prosecuted and allegations established.
Persons entitled to or must pay attys fees

have the right to be heard upon question of
their propriety or amount.
Who may have right to intervene and be

heard: lawyer himself, client, clients
assignee of the interest in litigation,
stockholders in a derivative suit concerning
attys fees sought to be charged against
corporate funds, and administrator, executor,
heir and creditor in an estate proceedings.
Burden of proof is upon lawyer to establish

his allegations.
97
Trial court who awards smaller fee than that

sought without allowing lawyer to adduce
evidence
commits
a
reversible
error
correctable by certiorari.
Where there is written agreement for attys

fees, no other piece of evidence is necessary
to prove amount. Opinions of lawyers as
expert witnesses are not binding upon court
but may be taken into account along with
professional knowledge and various factors
affecting compensation.
Court cannot authorize payment until all

parties are given opportunity to be heard. In
the absence of evidence, court is presumed
to have granted award for counsel fees only
after it has heard all parties involved.
Court may not order immediate payment

where question as to propriety or amount is
pending resolution by appellate court.
Defenses
Usual defenses apply: res judicata, want of

jurisdiction, prescription of action, nullity of
contract, negligence in discharge of lawyers
duties, lack of atty-client relationship,
payment or unconscionableness of amount
claimed.
Application of clients funds
Lawyer who has in his possession funds of

the client may not apply them to pay his
fees without clients consent, express or
implied.
If client refuses to give consent, lawyer

should secure court order for the allowance
of fees with notice to client to give client
opportunity to be heard. After securing
award, he may lawfully apply clients funds
in his possession for payment of his fees as
fixed by court.
Execution
Final award of attys fees may be enforced

by execution. Award may be enforced
against any property of client, including
proceeds from judgment secured for client in
the main action.
Attorneys Fees as Damages
Two concepts of attorneys fees compared
Indemnification: given by court to winning

litigant in the form of damages. It may be
decreed in favor of party, not his lawyer, in
any of the instances authorized by law.

4.
Compensation: attys fee paid by client to his

counsel.
Liability of losing party for attys fees

(indemnification) awarded to winning party
not bound by or dependent upon fee
arrangement of winning party with his
lawyer but court may take that fee
arrangement into account as an element of
damages.
Fee as item of damages belongs to client,

not to his lawyer. But client and lawyer may
agree that whatever may be awarded by
court as attys fees will go directly to lawyer,
in which case, losing party shall pay directly
to lawyer of prevailing party.
Similarities: both require, as a prerequisite
to grant, the intervention of or rendition of
professional services by lawyer, both fees
subject to judicial control and modification,
and rules governing determination of their
reasonable amount applicable to both.
Fee as damages not recoverablegeneral rule
General rule: attys fees as damanges not

recoverable because it is not the fact of
winning that ipso facto justifies the award
but the attendance of any of the special
circumstances and, in case of public litigant,
the existence of the right to private counsel.
Public policy requires that no penalty be

placed on the right to litigate, even if done
erroneously. Otherwise, it will put a premium
on right to redress grievances and tempt a
party and his counsel to swell the fees to
undue proportion and discourage out-ofcourt settlement.
Fees as damages recoverableexception to the

rule
New Civil Code provides 13 exceptions to the

rule:
1. When there is agreement
Court may reduce if fee unreasonable or
unconscionable.
2. When exemplary damages are awarded
Exemplary damages awarded by way of
example.
3. When defendants action or omission
compelled plaintiff to litigate
Act or omission of other party must be in
gross bad faith.
Both plaintiff (in his complaint) or
defendant (in his counterclaim) entitled
to award.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
In
criminal
cases
of
malicious
prosecution
Show that (1) he was acquitted and (2)
person who charged him knowingly
made a false statement of facts or that
filing was prompted by sinister design to
vex him.
When action is clearly unfounded
Action or proceeding must be so
untenable as to amount to gross and
evident
bad
faith
depending
on
circumstances of case; good faith a
defense.
When defendant acted in gross and
evident bad faith
Refusal to pay valid claim must be made
in gross and evident bad faith.
In actions for support
Person obliged to give support is also
obliged to pay attorneys fees as may be
necessary to enable person entitled to
such support to enforce his rights.
In cases of recovery of wages
Covers household helpers, laborers and
skilled workers
In
actions
for
indemnity
under
workmens
compensation
and
employees liability laws
In a separate civil action arising from a
crime
Party entitled to recover damages
arising from a crime can only do so in a
separate civil action or in a civil suit to
enforce subsidiary civil liability.
When at least double costs are awarded
Usually awarded in frivolous action or
appealone
which
presents
no
justiciable question or is so readily
recognizable as devoid of merit on its
face.
When the court deems it just and
equitable
There should be factual, legal or
equitable justification which appears on
record.
When a special law so authorizes
Purpose: to lessen unnecessary litigation
Right to private counsel a precondition
Two reqs to recover attys fees as an item of

damages: (1) case falls under any of the
exceptions and (2) he must have employed
and, in the case of public litigant, must show
his right to employ a private counsel.
Award of attorneys fees discretionary
Exercise of discretion by court on awarding

of attys fees as damages must be based on
facts appearing on the text of decision.
Decisions body, not just the disposition,
must state reason for award, unless text

98
shows case
exceptions.
comes
within
one
of
the
In the absence of showing that trial court

abused discretion, grant or denial of attys
fees may not be disturbed on appeal.
Appellate court may, in the exercise of its
discretion, award attys fees or increase or
reduce
amount
whenever
law
and
circumstances warrant.
Pleading and practice
Trial and appellate court will not grant attys

fees if claim of attys fees in the concept of
damages and the grounds relied upon are
not pleaded.
But with claim for attys fees having been set

up, appellate court may grant such fees even
if party did not appeal from lower courts
decision denying such award.
Claim for attys fees must not only be
alleged, factual basis and amount must also
be proved. That grant is discretionary does
not dispense with need for proof even if
party against whom it is asserted does not
deny claim. Exception: when what is sought
is in the nature of liquidated damages fixed
in a valid written agreement.
Amount must be proved and specificall

prayed for, not just in such other relief and
remedy as the court court may deem just
and equitable.
Since award of attys fees is the exception,

not the rule, trial court should make findings
of fact and law to bring case within the
exception and justify the award.
CANON 21
PRESERVE CLIENTS CONFIDENCE
Canon 21.
A lawyer shall preserve
the confidence and secrets of his client even
after
the
attorney-client
relationship
is
terminated.
Rule 21.01.
A lawyer shall not reveal the
confidence 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.
99
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 advantage or that of a
third person, unless the client with full
knowledge of the circumstances consents
thereto.
Rule 21.03.
A lawyer shall not, without the
written consent of his client, give information
from his files to an outside agency seeking such
information for auditing, statistical, bookkeeping,
accounting, data processing, or any similar
purpose.
Rule 21.04.
A lawyer may disclose the
affairs of a client of the firm to partners or
associates thereof unless prohibited by the
client.
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 confidences or secrets of the
client.
Rule 21.06.
A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet
conversation about a clients affairs even with
members of his family.
Rule 21.07.
A lawyer shall not reveal that he
has been consulted about a particular case
except to avoid possible conflict of interests.
Rule 138, 20(e). Duties of attorneys.

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
client's business except from him or with his
Rule
130,
sec.
21(b).
Privileged
communication. 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
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.

Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor
Revelation of secrets.In addition to the proper
administrative action, the penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period, or a fine
ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall

be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or solicitor

( procurador judicial) who, by any malicious
breach of professional duty or of inexcusable
negligence or ignorance, shall prejudice his
client, or reveal any of the secrets of the latter
learned by him in his professional capacity.
necessary for the transmission of the

information or the accomplishment of the
purpose for which it was given. Covers all
actions, signs, means of communication
There is a difference between confidences

and secrets of clients. While confidences
refer to information protected by attorneyclient privilege under the Revised Rules of
Court (information pertinent to the case
being handled), secrets are those other
information gained in the professional
relationship that the client has requested to
be held inviolate or the disclosure of which
would be embarrassing or would likely be
detrimental to client (information not exactly
pertinent to case).
The intent of client to make communication

confidential must be apparent. But once
conveyed to lawyer, confidentiality attaches
not only to statements but also to other
forms of communication.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon an

attorney-at-law or solicitor (procurador judicial)
who, having undertaken the defense of a client
or having received confidential information from
said client in a case, shall undertake the defense
of the opposing party in the same case, without
the consent of his first client.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Neither attorney nor client nor anyone who

stands in a peculiar relation of confidence
with either of them can be compelled to
disclose any privileged communication.
The lawyers duty to maintain inviolate his

clients confidence is perpetual. It outlasts
even the lawyers employment. He may not
do anything which will injuriously affect his
former client nor may he at any time
disclose or use against him any knowledge
or information acquired by virtue of
professional relationship.
This duty exists because unless the client

knows that his attorney cannot be compelled
to reveal what is told to him, he will
suppress what he thinks to be unfavorable
and the advice which follows will be useless
if not misleading.
This canon also applies to prospective
clients.
Formerly,
in
order
that
a
communication shall be privileged, the
attorney-client relationship should exist at
the time of communication. But at present,
communication made by prospective client is
covered for as long as it is made to the
lawyer in his professional capacity.
Exists where legal advice is sought in a
lawyers professional capacity with respect to
communications relating to that purpose.
This is called :evidentiary privilege.
Confidentiality
A confidential communication refers to

information transmitted by voluntary act of
disclosure between attorney and client in
confidence and by means which so far as the
client is aware, discloses the information to
no third person other than one reasonably
Requisites for Privilege Communication to Attach
if person to whom information is given is a

lawyer
there is legal relationship existing (may be

disregarded for prospective clients
legal advice must be sought from

attorney in his professional capacity
Some privileged communication may lose

privileged character (eg client gave it to 3 rd
person).
Client
must
intend
the
communication be confidential.
Question of privilege determined by court.

The burden of proof: party who asserts
privilege
Applies to attorneys, no attorney-client

relation when person is not a lawyer, unless
pretending to be a lawyer
Not privileged if advice is not within lawyers

professional capacity
the
Persons Entitled to claim Privilege
The privilege is intended primarily to protect

client and incidentally in consideration for
oath and honor of attorney. Hence, the work
product of the lawyer, including his effort
and researches, contained in his files is
confidential even after his death. Contents of
lawyers files may not be disclosed without a
clients consent.

100
Generally, the
attorney-client
privilege
covers the lawyer, client and third persons
who by reason of their work have acquired
information about the case being handled.
This includes the following: (1) attorneys
secretary, stenographer and clerk; (2)
interpreter,
messengers,
or
agents
transmitting
communication
(3)
an
accountant, scientist, physician, engineer
who
has
been
hired
for
effective
consultation.
Assignee may claim the privilege
Identification of client privilege extends

when the ff are not present:
(1) commencement of litigation on behalf of the
client,
(2) identification relating to employment of 3 rd
person,
(3) employment of attorney with respect to
future criminal/ fraudulent transaction,
(4) prosecution of a lawyer for a criminal offense
This rule does not cover those kept for

custodial purposes only nor contracts
relating to attorneys fees
Genato v. Silapan (2003)

F:
Atty. Silapan and Genato had a attorneyclient relationship. Genato filed charges against
Silapan due to the latters failure to pay
amortization fees. Silapan alleged in his answer
that Genato is a businessman in real estate
business, who traded and buys and sells
deficiency taxed imported cars, provides shark
loan and engages in other shady deals. He also
alleged that Genato has many pending cases and
had attempted to bribe officials to lift the case.
The SC held that Silapan had violated
confidentiality
of
lawyer-client
relationship
relationship.
Held: Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on
him. The rule is that an attorney is not permitted
to disclose communications made to him in his
professional character by a client, unless the
latter consents. This obligation to preserve the
confidences and secrets of a client arises at the
inception of their relationship. The protection
given to the client is perpetual and does not
cease with the termination of the litigation nor is
it affected by the partys ceasing to employ the
attorney and retaining another, or by any other
change of relation between them. It even
survives the death of the client.
101
It must be stressed, however, that the privilege
against disclosure of confidential communications
or information is limited only to communications
which are legitimately and properly within the
scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. It
does not extend to those made in contemplation
of a crime or perpetration of a fraud. It is not
within the profession of a lawyer to advise a
client as to how he may commit a crime. Thus,
the attorney-client privilege does not attach,
there being no professional employment in the
strict sense.
Nevertheless, respondents explanation that it
was necessary for him to make the disclosures in
his pleading fails to satisfy the Court. The
disclosures were not indispensable to protect his
rights, as they were not pertinent to the
foreclosure case.
It was improper for the
respondent to use it against the complainant in
the foreclosure case as it was not the subject
matter of litigation therein and respondents
professional competence and legal advice were
not being attacked in said case.
Hilado v. David (1949)

F:
Prior to Atty Franciscos rendering of
legal service to Assad, Hilado consulted the same
lawyer and even presented him with documents
about case against Assad.
Hilado and her counsel
want Francisco
disqualified as counsel for Assad. The SC found
that an attorney-client relationship existed
between Hilado and Francisco and that the latter
had violated the confidence of client.
H:
To constitute professional employment it
is not essential that the client should have
employed the attorney professionally on any
previous occasion. If a person, in respect to his
business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults
with his attorney in his professional capacity with
the view to obtaining professional advice or
assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits
or acquiesces in such consultation, then the
professional employment must be regarded as
established. Information so received is sacred to
the employment to which it pertains, and to
permit to be used in the interest of another, or,
worse still, in the interest of the adverse party,
is to strike at the element of confidence which
lies at the basis of, and affords the essential
security in, the relation of attorney and client.
Communications between atty. and client are, in
a great number of litigations, a complicated
affair, consisting of entangled relevant and
irrelevant, secret and well known facts. In the

complexity of what is said in the course of the

dealings between an atty. and a client, inquiry of
the nature suggested would lead to the
revelation, in advance of the trial, of other
matters that might only further prejudice the
complainant's cause. Litigants would then be
wary in going to an atty. Abstinence from
seeking legal advice in a good cause is by
hypothesis an evil which is fatal to the
Rationale behind this prohibition: not only to
prevent
the
dishonest
practitioner
from
fraudulent conduct, but alsol to protect the
honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion of
unprofessional practice. It 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.
Wihout impugning Atty. Franciscos good faith,
SC cannot allow taking cause of adversary of the
party who had sought and obtained legal advice
from his firm not necessarily to prevent any
injustice to the plaintiff but to keep above
reproach the honor and integrity of the courts
and of the bar.
RULE 21.01
WHEN REVELATIONS OF CONFIDENCE AND
SECRETS ALLOWED
Rule 21.01.
A lawyer shall not
reveal the confidence or secrets of his client
except:
a. When authorized by the client after
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.
A lawyer may not disclose any information

concerning the clients case, which he
acquired from the client in confidence, other
than what may be necessary to prosecute or
defend his clients cause.
In fact, loyalty to the court may not override

this privilege as said loyalty involves
steadfast maintenance of principles which
the courts themselves have evolved for the
effective administration of justice; one of
these principles is that of preservation of
clients confidence communicated to lawyer
in his professional capacity. Breach of this
fidelity is sufficient to warrant disciplinary
sanction against the lawyer.
If a lawyer manages to acquire info

regarding the opposing partys cause, he
must withdraw
If obtained by 3rd person counsel must not

call (question of impropriety)
Client may not make communications to

opposing counsel to silence him (such
communication is not privileged)
If corporate client, secret of 1 corporate

officer may be disclosed to directors but not
to others
Involves a balancing of loyalties (eg client

committed perjury, should lawyer disclose?)
Exceptions to the General Rule
There are however instances when lawyer

may
disclose
clients
secrets.
These
exceptions to the general rule are found in
Rule 21.01.
A lawyer may disclose commission of

contemplated crimes or perpetuation of
fraud
considering
that
professional
relationship should only be for lawful
purposes. A person who is committing a
crime or is about to commit a crime can
have no privileged witness. For the
application of the privilege to attach, the
period to be considered is the date when the
privileged communication was made by the
client to the attorney in relation to either a
crime committed in the past or with respect
to a crime intended to be committed in the
future.
A waiver of the privilege must be made in

entirety. A client may waive protection of
NOTES
(Agpalo)
A lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts

connected with his clients case. Such
knowledge must be considered sacred and
must be guarded with care to ensure the
confidence of the client is not abused. Only
when client consents will a lawyer be allowed
to make use of said information. Use of said
information, whether privileged or not, is
prohibited if it is to the:
a) disadvantage of the client;
b) lawyers advantage;
c) advantage of third persons.

102
privilege through lawyer except where the

controversy involves the attorneys relation
with his client. In such case, only the client
may waive privilege.
However, in case client files complaint

against his lawyer or unreasonably refuses
to pay his fees, client waives privilege in
favor of lawyer who may disclose so much of
clients confidences as may be necessary to
protect himself or to collect fees. It must be
noted that a client may not be permitted to
take advantage of the attorney-client
relation to defeat the just claim of his lawyer.
Consent given by client to lawyers secretary
(staff/employees) will not give him/her the
right to reveal confidences. Lawyers consent
is necessary.
PROTECTION FROM DISCLOSURE
Rule 21.04.
A lawyer may disclose
the affairs of a client of the firm to partners or
associates thereof unless prohibited by the
client.
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 confidences or secrets of the
client.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Professional employment of a law firm is

equivalent to retainer of the members
thereof even though only one partner is
consulted. When one partner tells another
about the details of the case, it is not
considered as disclosure to third persons
because members of a law firm are
considered as one entity.
The clients secrets which clerical aids of

lawyers learn of in the performance of their
services
are
covered
by
privileged
communication. It is the duty of lawyer to
ensure that this is being followed. The
prohibition against a lawyer from divulging
the confidences and secrets of his clients will
become futile exercise if his clerical aids are
given liberty to do what is prohibited of the
lawyer. (EX. Signing of confidentiality
contract)
RULE 21.02
WHEN USE OF INFORMATION RECEIVED IN
COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT IS ALLOWED
Rule 21.02.
A lawyer shall not, to
the disadvantage of his client, use information
he use the same to his advantage or that of a
third person, unless the client with full
thereto.
RULE 21.03
PROHIBITION
TO
GIVING
INFORMATION TO OUTSIDE AGENCY
OF
Rule 21.03.
A lawyer shall not,
without the written consent of his client, give
information from his files to an outside agency
seeking such information for auditing, statistical,
bookkeeping, accounting, data processing, or
any similar purpose.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
The reason for the rule is that the work and

product of a lawyer, such as his effort,
research, and thought, and the records of his
client, contained in his files are privileged
matters.
Neither the lawyer nor, after his death, his
heir, or legal representative may properly
disclose the contents of such file cabinet
without clients consent
RULE 21.04 AND 21.05
RULE 21.06
PROHIBITION
OF
COVERSATION
INDISCREET
Rule 21.06.
indiscreet conversation about a clients affairs
even with members of his family.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
A lawyer must not only preserve the

confidences and secrets of his clients in his
law office but also outside including his
home.
He
should
avoid
committing
calculated indiscretion, that is, accidental
revelation of secrets obtained in his
professional
employment.
Reckless
or
imprudent disclosure of the affairs of his
clients may jeopardize them. Not every
member of the lawyers family has the
proper orientation and training for keeping

103
clients confidences and secrets.

RULE 21.07
NOT TO REVEAL
CONSULTED
b)
c)
THAT
LAWYER
WAS
Rule 21.07.
A lawyer shall not
reveal that he has been consulted about a
particular case except to avoid possible conflict
of interests.
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,
client.
Rule 14.03.
A lawyer may refuse to accept
representation of an indigent client if:
a) he is not in a position to carry out the work
effectively or competently;
b) he labors under a conflict of interests
client.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
This
rule
clarifies
that
privilege
communication applies even to prospective
clients. Moreover, the prohibition applies
even if the prospective client did not
thereafter actually engage the lawyer. By the
consultation, the lawyer already learned of
the secrets of prospective client. It is not fair
if he will not be bound by the rule on
privileged communication in respect of
matters disclosed to him by a prospective
client. This rule, of course, is subject to
exception of representation of conflicting
interests.
CANON 22
WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES
FOR GOOD CAUSE
Canon 22.
A lawyer may 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 case:
a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral
course of conduct in connection with the
matter he is handling;
d)
e)
f)
g)
When the client insists that the lawyer

pursue conduct violative of these canons and
rules;
When his inability to work with co-counsel
will not promote the best interest of the
client;
When the mental or physical condition of the
lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out
the employment effectively;
When the client deliberately fails to pay the
fees for the services or fails to comply with
the retainer agreement;
When the lawyer is elected or appointed to
public office; and
Other similar cases.
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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Causes of Termination of Attorney-Client Relation
1. Withdrawal of the lawyer under Rule 22.01
2. Death of the lawyer
3. Death of cient
4. Discharge or dismissal of the lawyer by the
client
5. Appointment or election of a lawyer to a
government position which prohibits private
practice of law
6. Full termination of the case
7. Disbarment or suspension of the lawyer from
the practice of law
8. Intervening incapacity or incompetence of
the client during pendency of case
9. Declaration of presumptive death of lawyer
10. Conviction of a crime and imprisonment of
lawyer
Note: Except for items 2 and 6, the lawyer has
duty to notify the court in case of termination of
attorney-client relationship.
Death or Incapacity of the Client
Upon the death of the client, the attorneyclient relation terminates as the relationship
is personal. This relation also concludes upon
incapacity of a client during pendency of the
litigation, the reason being that the client
loses legal capacity to contract.
The death of the administrator or executor of

estate does not terminate the relation as the
true client in such a situation is the estate

104
and not the estates legal representative.
Lawyer should inform court promptly about

death, incapacity or incompetency of client
and to give name and residence of his
executor, administrator, guardian or other
legal rep.
case is continued by him without the

transferee being substituted in his place, he
may not, without consent of transferee,
dismiss his attorney.
party refers to natural and not juridical

persons. Ex. death of a partner does not
terminate atty-client relationship but legal
dissolution of corporate client or its
insolvency and the appointment of a receiver
may bring about that result
Death of Attorney
A contract for legal services being personal,

it terminates upon death of the lawyer.
However, if the lawyer is a member of a law
firm, which firm appears as counsel for the
client, the death of the attending lawyer will
not terminate the relation. The firm will
continue to appear as counsel for client
unless there has been agreement that
services were to be rendered only by the
said attorney.
Who may Terminate Attorney-Client Relation
1. Client
Client has absolute right to discharge his
attorney with or without just cause or even
against lawyers consent. Existence or nonexistence of a just cause is important only in
determining right of an attorney to
compensation for services rendered.
Discharge of an attorney or his substitution
by another without justifiable cause will not
operate to extinguish the lawyers right to full
payment of compensation as agreed upon in
writing.
2. Attorney
3. Court
4. Circumstances beyond control of parties
If lawyer acquired from client interest in the

subject matter of litigation before he became
involved, he can in his own right and
independently of the clients right intervene
as party litigant to protect his interests. If
attorney acquired such interest from client
during pendency of litigation, transaction is
not only null and void (contrary to law) but
may subject lawyer to disciplinary action for
acquiring that interest.
Necessity of notice of discharge
No need for formal notice of discharge as

between client and attorney as any act
indicating an unmistakable purpose to
terminate relation is sufficient.
Not implied revocation of authority: if

another attorney appears without stating
that services of prior counsel has been
dispensed with by client or in pleading by
new counsel, client condemned conduct of
original counsel
Notice necessary and a copy must be served

as to court and adverse party.
If client has not filed notice of discharge,

lawyer should file notice of withdrawal with
clients conformity or application to retire
from case.
Limitations on clients right
Lawyer has right to full payment of

compensation agreed in writing if dismissal
or substitution is without justifiable cause.
Effect of discharge of attorney
Discharge of attorney must be made known

to the court and adverse party through a
formal notice. This is unnecessary between
the lawyer and client, himself. But insofar as
the court and other party are concerned, the
severance of the relation of attorney and
client is not effective until a notice of
discharge by the client or a manifestation
clearly indicating that purpose is filed with
the court and a copy thereof served upon
the adverse party.
Lawyer may, in the discretion of court,

intervene in the case to protect his right to
fees.
Right to discharge counsel not allowed if

intended to extend time to file pleading or to
indefinitely avoid trial.
Before discharge is recorded in the court, the

lawyers power is limited to (1) making that
fact known to court and to adverse party,
and to (2) preserving and protecting clients
interest until final discharge or new counsel
enters appearance. He cannot pretend to
continue representing client.
If client has transferred whole of his

interests in the litigation pendente lite and
If attorney reappears to file pleading, it is

presumed that he has been reemployed.

105
Exception: to prevent failure or miscarriage

of justice
Acceptance of incompatible office
Lawyer who accepts public office ceases, by

operation of law, to engage in private
practice and becomes disqualified from
continuing to represent a client in those
cases which the law prohibits him from doing
so or requires his entire time to be at the
disposal of the government. His qualification
to public office terminates attorney-client
relationship.
Court however does not take judicial notice.

Without a withdrawal or manifestation, court
may regard him as counsel of record upon
whom written notice may be served which
will bind the client.
Obando v. Figueras (2000)

F:
Eduardos counsel, Atty. Yuseco filed a
Motion to Dismiss against Obandos petition to
nullify sale of a land. This motion was granted.
Obando now alleges that trial court should not
have acted on the motion filed by Atty. Yuseco
because he no longer represented Eduardo, et al.
The Court held that the trial court could act on
the motion filed by Atty. Yuseco.
H:
Representation continues until the court
dispenses with the services of counsel in
accordance with Section 26, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court. Counsel may be validly
substituted only if the following requisites are
complied with: (1) New counsel files a written
application for substitution; (2) The clients
written consent is obtained; (3) The written
consent of the lawyer to be substituted is
secured, if it can still be; if the written consent
can no longer be obtained, the application for
substitution must carry proof that notice of the
motion has been served on the attorney to be
substituted in the manner required by the Rules.
Court is convinced that Eduardo did not dismiss
Atty. Yuseco. In fact, Eduardo manifested that he
had been tricked by Petitioner Obando into
signing the aforesaid Compromise Agreement.
In any case, at the discretion of the court, an
attorney who has already been dismissed by the
client is allowed to intervene in a case in order to
protect the clients rights. In the present case,
had there been any irregularity, it should have
been raised by Eduardo, not by Obando.
Eduardo had no reason to complain, the Motion
to Dismiss was not prejudicial but beneficial to
him.
F:
Laput v. Remotigue (1962)

supra at Rule 8.01
H:
The solicitor general found that before
respondents filed their appearance, the client
had already filed with the court a pleading
discharging the complainant.
The fact that
complainant was not able to get a copy was not
the fault of respondents. Also, it was found that
Mrs. Barrera dismissed complainant as lawyer
because she no longer trusted him because she
found out that some checks were sent to the
complainant instead of her and that several
withdrawals were made by complainant in her
account without her permission.
There is no irregularity in the appearance of
respondents
as
counsel.
Complainants
withdrawal and his filing of a motion for the
payment of his attorneys fees estop him from
now complaining that the appearance of
respondent Patlinghug is unprofessional. As for
the respondents, they only entered their
appearance after Mrs. Barrera had dispensed of
the complainants services and after the
petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn.
RULE 22.01
GOOD CAUSES FOR
WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES
Rule 22.01.
A lawyer may withdraw
his services in any of the following case:
b) When the client insists that the lawyer
rules;
c) When his inability to work with co-counsel
client;
d) When the mental or physical condition of the
e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the
f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to
public office; and
g) Other similar cases.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Lawyer cannot just withdraw from case since

he has impliedly stipulated that he will
prosecute case to conclusion and he owes

106
the duty to assist in administering justice as

Lawyer may retire from action with written

consent of client filed in court and a copy
served to adverse party. Such withdrawal
does not require approval of court to take
effect especially if new counsel has entered
appearance. If theres no new counsel yet,
court may require lawyers withdrawal be
held in abeyance until appearance of new
counsel.
Change or Substitution of Counsel
Lawyer may retire from case without clients

consent if court, on notice to the client and
the attorney and on hearing, determines
that he ought to be allowed to retire on good
cause.
The grounds for withdrawal without clients

consent are enumerated in Rule 22.01.
Grounds for withdrawal without clients consent
Other similar instances include: conflict of

interests; when lawyer finds it impracticable
or difficult to perform duties due to clients
actions; ethical proscription against lawyer
acting as witness and advocate at the same
time.
Lawyer should not presume petition for

withdrawal will be granted. He must still
appear on date of hearing since attorneyclient relationship does not terminate
formally until there is a withdraw of record.
In criminal case, counsel for accused should

not ask to be relieved on mere trivial
ground. Nor may he retire from action
because accused has confessed to him his
guilt. Lawyers right and duty to extend the
best legal assistance to an accused demand
that
he
continue
representing
him
irrespective of his personal opinion as to his
clients guilt.
Procedure for withdrawal
If without written consent from client, lawyer

should file petition for withdrawal in court
and he must serve copy of his petition upon
his client and the adverse party at least 3
days before date set for hearing. He should
also give time to client to secure services
from another lawyer in the case from which
he is withdrawing.
Ordinarily, court will not relieve lawyer

without notice to client, except under
peculiar circumstances.
Any notice served upon lawyer is notice to

and is binding upon client.
Change of counsel
1) client discharges attorney with or without
cause: no consent or notice to lawyer
needed, nor court approval
2) attorney may initiate move by withdrawing
his appearance with written consent of client
or with leave of court on some justifiable
ground
3) substitution of counsel in the form of
application for that purpose: constitutes an
appearance of the substituting counsel and is
a polite way of effecting change; compliance
with formalities is necessary since it involves
ethical considerations
Requirements for substitution
1) written application for substitution
2) written consent of client
3) written consent of attorney to be substituted
* in case written consent of attorney cannot be
secured, proof of service of notice of application
upon attorney to be substituted.
** in case of death of original attorney,
additional requirement of verified proof of death
necessary
usually initiated by substituting counsel

hence the need to obtain conformity of
original lawyer or at least notice to original
lawyer of substitution
consent of original lawyer or notice

requirement is designed to afford the lawyer
the opportunity to protect his right to
attorneys fees. If he gives consent, it is
presumed he has settled that question. If
not, he can ask in same action that his
chance to have his right to attorneys fees be
preserved and protected.
Effects of Defective Substitution
A defective substitution is one which lacks

any of the requisites for a valid substitution.
It does not effect a change of counsel; nor

constitute an appearance of new lawyer,
both of whom shall be deemed counsel of
record; pleadings filed by the new lawyer
deemed effective.
Employment of additional counsel
Client has right to as many lawyers as he

can afford. Clients proffer of assistance of

107
additional counsel should not be regarded as

evidence of want of confidence.
Professional courtesy requires that a lawyer

retained as collaborating counsel should at
least communicate with counsel of record
before entering his appearance and should
decline association if objectionable to original
counsel.
But if first lawyer is relieved by client,

another lawyer may come into the case.
Montano v. IBP (2001)

F:
Atty. Dealca and Montano agreed that
50% attorneys fees shall be paid upon case
acceptance and the other half upon its
termination. Despite agreement, Atty. Dealca
asked for payment of balance during the course
of case. Upon failure to give balance of P3,500,
Dealca withdrew appearance as counsel. The
Court found that Dealca had not withdrawn for
good cause.
H:
A lawyer shall withdraw his services only
for good cause and upon notice appropriate in
the circumstances; a lawyer shall avoid
controversies
with
clients
concerning
his
Atty. Dealcas withdrawal was unjustified as
complaint did not deliberately fail to pay him the
attorneys fees. In fact, complainant exerted
honest
efforts
to
fulfill
his
obligation.
Respondents contemptuous conduct does not
speak well of a member of the bar considering
that the amount owing to him was only
P3,500.00.
Domingo v. Aquino (1971)

F:
Atty. Unson, the estates counsel, denied
having received notice and copy of CFI judgment
rendering a favorable decision to Aquinos money
claim. The estates new administrator wants to
file motion for reconsideration and prays that
copy of CFI decision be given to her counsel and
not to Atty. Unson, former special administrators
counsel. The court held that Atty. Unson was the
estates counsel and that notice of judgment had
been duly served.
H:
Party in the subject case was the
intestate estate of the deceased Luis C.
Domingo, Sr. and that Atty. Unson represented
the estate as counsel in the said case. The fact
that Luis Domingo Jr was administrator when
legal services of Unson was availed of does not
make Unson the counsel for Luis Domingo Jr.
Thus,
notwithstanding
Luis
removal
as
administrator, Atty. Unson continued to represent
the estate as counsel in the appellate court. He
continued to be authorized to represent the
estate as its counsel, until the new administrator
should terminate his services which she never
did. The court was never informed of change in
counsel or party-administrator.
RULE 22.02
DUTIES OF A LAWYER WHO WITHDRAWS
Rule 22.02.
A lawyer who withdraws
or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien,
which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate
Rule 16.03.
A lawyer shall deliver
the funds and property to 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
Rules of Court.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Duties of a Discharged Lawyer or One who
Withdraws
1. Immediately turn over all papers and
property to which the client is entitled and
cooperate with successor in the orderly
transfer
of
the
matter, including
all
information necessary for the proper handling
of the matter.
2. cooperate with the succeeding lawyer in
orderly transfer of case
Lawyers withdrawal or discharge shall be
without prejudice to his attorneys lien
Purpose of Rule 22.02 (lawyer entitled to

retaining lien) and Rule 16.03 (lawyer
entitled to retaining and charging lien) is to
insure payment of lawyers professional fees
and the reimbursement of his lawful
disbursements in keeping with his dignity as
Kinds of Liens
1.
Retaining Lien (general lien)
2.
Charging Lien (special lien)

108
Retaining Lien
Nature
Passive lien. It cannot
be actively enforced. It
is a general lien.
Basis
Lawful possession of
funds,
papers,
documents,
property
belonging to client
Coverage
Covers
only
funds,
papers,
documents,
and property in the
lawful possession of
the attorney by reason
of
his
professional
employment
Effectivity
As soon as the lawyer
gets possession of the
funds,
papers,
documents, property
Notice
Client need not be
notified to make it
effective
Applicability
May
be
exercised
before judgment or
execution,
or
irregardless thereof
Passive right and cannot be actively

enforced; amounts to a mere right to retain
funds, documents and papers as against the
client until the attorney is fully paid his fees.
However, lawyer may apply so much of
clients funds in his possession to satisfy his
lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice
promptly thereafter to his client.
Reason and essence of lien: inconvenience

or disadvantage caused to the client because
of exercise of such lien may induce client to
pay the lawyer his fees and disbursements.
Charging Lien
Active lien. It can be
enforced by execution.
It is a special lien.
Securing of a favorable
money judgment for
client
Covers all judgments
for the payment of
money and executions
issued in pursuance of
such judgment
As soon as the claim

for attorneys fees had
been entered into the
records of the case
Client
and
adverse
party need to notified
to make it effective
Generally,
it
is
exercisable only when
the
attorney
had
already
secured
a
favorable judgment for
his client
* Sourced from Pinedas Annotations.
Requisites for validity (of retaining lien)

1. attorney-client relationship
2. lawful possession by lawyer of the clients
funds, documents and papers in his
professional capacity
3. unsatisfied claim for attorneys fees or
disbursements
Presence of all requirements makes counsels
right to retain funds and muniments of title of
the client in his possession until payment of his
fees incontestable. Attorney cannot be compelled
to surrender them without proof of payment or,
in appropriate cases, without requiring that client
put up an adequate security for their satisfaction.
Property to which lien attaches
All property, papers, books, documents or

securities of the client that lawfully come to
the lawyer professionally or in the course of
his professional employment, not necessarily
in connection with a particular case but any
case or matter handled for the client
Clients money which comes into his

possession by way of a writ of execution
ordered by the court or funds collected by
the attorney for his client in the course of his
employment, whether or not upon a
judgment or award.
Element constitutive of retaining lien: that

funds, documents and papers of client come
into lawyers possession in his professional
capacity (as a lawyer)
Does not attach to: funds, documents and

papers which come into lawyers possession
in some other capacity; funds, documents
and papers of clients principal; subject
matter of the action which court adjudged in
favor of clients adversary; documents
introduced as exhibits in court
Retaining Lien
A retaining lien is the right of an attorney to

retain the funds, documents and papers of
his client which have lawfully come into his
possession until his lawful fees and
disbursements have been paid and to apply
such funds to the satisfaction thereof.
It is a general lien for the balance of the
account due to the attorney from client for
services rendered in all matters he may have
handled for the client, regardless of
outcome.
It is dependent upon and takes effect from
time of lawful possession and does not
require notice thereof upon client and the
adverse party to be effective.
When lien attaches

109
Retaining lien attaches from the moment the

attorney lawfully obtains and retains
possession of the funds, documents and
papers of the client and does not depend on
notice being entered in the record of the
case and copy served on adverse party.
That client transfers property evidenced or

covered by the document or title in the
lawful possession of the clients attorney
does not defeat the retaining lien. Lawyers
position is similar to that of creditor who
holds lien over the property and the clientdebtor must discharge the lien before he can
dispose of the property to third persons.
Retaining lien not affected by existence of

dispute as to the amount of attorneys fees.
final adjudication of such action. Otherwise,

he may be liable for misappropriation of
funds.
Charging Lien
A charging lien is a right which the attorney

has upon all judgments for the payment of
money and executions issued in pursuance
thereof, secured in favor of his client. Covers
only services rendered by attorney in the
action in which the judgment was obtained
and takes effect only after a statement of
claim has been entered upon record of the
particular action with written notice to his
client and adverse party.
A charging lien is a special lien in a particular

case and presupposes favorable judgment
secured for the client in that particular case.
Gives attorney who secured or contributed
some effort to secure favorable judgment
same right and power as his client over such
judgments and executions to enforce lien
and
secure
payment
of
fees
and
disbursements.
Bond for return of documents
General
rule:
attorney
retaining
lien
unconstestable once it has lawfully attached
to funds, documents and papers of the
client, hence, court may not compel lawyer
to surrender such without prior proof of
satisfaction of fees
Exception: court may require surrender of

such funds, documents and papers but only
after client posts adequate bond or security
to guarantee payment of lawyers fees.
Otherwise: grave abuse of discretion or
authority
because it is courts duty to
protect, not destroy, attorneys lien
Extinguishment of retaining lien
Retaining lien expires when possession

lawfully ends, as when the lawyer voluntarily
parts with funds, documents or papers of
client or offers them in evidence in court.
If such were improperly or illegally taken

from custody of attorney, his lien is not lost
unless by his act or omission he waives his
right. Mandamus
will lie to restore
possession.
Satisfaction of lien
If client does not dispute claim and amount

for attys fees: lawyer need not file action to
enforce retaining lien; he may lawfully apply
clients funds in satisfaction of his claim for
attys fees; he only needs to send client
accounting and remitting the balance, if any,
to the client.
If client questions right and amount to attys

fees: lawyer should file necessary action or
motion to fix the amount of fees and can
apply clients fund to pay his fees only after
Nature and essence of charging lien
A charging lien is an abstract but potential

right made active and operative by recording
a statement of claim in the case and serving
notice thereof upon the client and the
adverse party. It gives lawyer same right
and power as client over such judgment and
is based on equity.
It does not depend upon possession of

judgment recovered nor is it of a nature
which attaches to the property in litigation.
It is at most a personal claim enforceable by
a writ of execution.
It is limited only to money judgments and

presupposes that attorney secured favorable
money judgment for his client.
[drama] It is a device invented by law for

the protection of attorneys against the
knaveries of their clients by disabling them
from receiving the fruits of recoveries
without paying for the valuable services by
which the recoveries were obtained.
Requisites for validity of charging lien

1. attorney-client relationship
2. attorney has rendered services
3. money judgment favorable to the client has
been secured in the action
4. attorney has a claim for attorneys fees or

110
5.
advances
statement of his claim has been duly
recorded in the case with notice thereof
served upon the client and adverse party
Lawyer asserting claim need not be the one
that concluded the action; it is enough that
he has rendered some services at any stage
of the proceeding.
That the amount of attorney lien is
unliquidated does not militate against its
establishment as it is not necessary to the
existence of the lien that the amount due the
lawyer be fixed.
Recordal and notice of charging lien
Attorneys charging lien takes effect from

and after the time the attorney has caused a
notice of his lien to be duly entered in the
records of the case. For the recordal to be
valid, it should be made while the court still
has jurisdiction over case and before full
satisfaction of judgment. Recordal may be
entered before judgment is made but it
could only be enforced after a judgment is
rendered. Lawyer may record his claim
before rendition of judgment (to establish his
right to lien), as opposed to enforcement
which takes place only after a judgment is
secured in favor of client.
A copy of the statement of claim is served

upon client to give him the opportunity to
object to the lien or to the amount of
attorneys fees claimed by lawyer. In case of
dispute, the court shall hear the parties and
determine the lawyers right to the charging
lien and the amount. A copy is also served to
the adverse party so that the charging lien
shall bind him.
Notice of lien on all parties interested confers

upon the court jurisdiction to determine lien.
Purpose of notice to adverse party: to bind

adverse party/judgment debtor since the
latter is a stranger to the contract for
professional fees between judgment creditor
and his lawyer. Adverse party who should be
notified of the claim for attys fees is one
whose interest is adverse to the claim
presented or the judgment debtor against
whom the client secures a favorable
judgment. Adverse party cannot raise lack
of or defective notice to client as a defense;
neither can he contest the validity of the
lien.
To what charging lien attaches
Charging lien attaches to the judgment for

the payment of money and the executions
issued in pursuance of such judgment (i.e.
money judgments).
The lien does not comprise sums of money

which according to the same judgment, must
be applied to satisfy a legitimate debt of the
client. A lawyer cannot have preference over
and better right than the judgment creditor
(his client) in the payment of professional
fees.
The lien does not extend to property of client

in the hands of an officer of court.
Effects of charging lien
Similar to collateral security or a lien on real

or personal property, the charging lien gives
the lawyer the right to collect, in payment of
his professional fees and disbursements, a
certain amount from out of the judgment or
award rendered in favor of client. He has
same right and power as his client to enforce
his lien and secure payment.
Charging lien follows proceeds of the

judgment obtained for the client in the case
wherever they may be and whoever received
them. Exception: purchaser in good faith.
Judgment debtor who, in disregard of

charging lien, satisfies judgment debt
without reserving funds to pay attorneys
fees may be liable for full value of the lien.
A lawyers duly recorded charging lien enjoys

preference of credit over that of a creditor
who subsequently recorded it. Conversely, a
third party who obtains a jugment against
attys client before the attys lien comes into
being has preference over the lawyer.
Lien survives death of client and need not be

enforced in the settlement of the clients
estate.
Extinguishment of charging lien
Charging lien extinguished when client loses

action. Remedy: file separate civil action
Client cannot defeat attorneys right to

charging lien by dismissing case, terminating
services of counsel, waiving his cause or
interest
in
favor
of
adverse
party,
compromising his action, or assigning the
subject matter thereof, except: (1) when
lawyer waives his right by acts or omissions,

111
and (2) when termination or dismissal is

upon instance of adverse party.
Assignment of charging lien
General rule: attorneys charging lien may be

assigned or transferred without preference
being
extinguished.
Exception:
when
assignment carries breach of attorneys
duties to preserve clients confidence
inviolate. Assignee steps into shoes of lawyer
and enjoys all rights of the latter in the
charging lien.
Satisfaction of judgment
Satisfaction judgment in favor of client does

not by itself extinguish the attorneys
charging lien. If satisfaction was made in
disregard of attorneys right when notice had
been previously given to judgment debtor,
the court may, upon motion of the attorney,
vacate such satisfaction and enforce the lien
by issuing a writ of execution for the full
amount against judgment debtor.
Satisfaction of judgment will extinguish

charging lien when lawyer waives right
thereto either by active conduct or by
passive omission.
Enforcement
Lawyer may have his charging lien

established, declared and enforced by the
court which has jurisdiction of the case by
filing proper motion before judgment for
client is satisfied.
Attorney need not be a party to the action

but in a proper case, he may be permitted to
intervene. In such a case, it is proper for
lawyer to file petition in his own name
against both plaintiff and defendant setting
the particulars of his claim and lien. Notice of
charging lien or petition filed for its
registration in the record of the case that
confers jurisdiction upon court.
Without a valid written contract fixing the

amount of professional fees, lawyer must
both allege and prove that the amount
claimed is unpaid and that it is reasonable
and just with notice served upon client and
adverse party/judgment debtor.
When client contests attorneys right to

receive compensation or the amount thereof,
court must first resolve that question in full
dress trial before it should order registration
of charging lien. At all events, exact amount
of attorneys fees should be determined
before enforcing lien.
112
Client who fails to contest will be bound by

attorneys claim even though it may appear
unjust.
Charging lien may be enforced, upon proper

motion, by execution against (1) client who
receives proceeds of judgment without
paying his lawyer, and (2) judgment debtor
who, for disregarding charging lien properly
served on him, becomes liable to the extent
of lawyers claim.
NEW CODE OF
JUDICIAL CONDUCT
CANON 1
INDEPENDENCE
Canon 1.
Judicial independence is
a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a
fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge
shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial
independence in both its individual and
institutional aspects.
Sec. 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial
function independently on the basis of their
assessment of the facts and in accordance with a
conscientious understanding of the law, free of
any extraneous influence, inducement, pressure,
threat or interference, direct or indirect, from
any quarter or for any reason.
Sec. 2. In performing judicial duties, Judges
shall be independent from judicial colleagues in
respect of decisions which the judge is obliged to
make independently.
Sec. 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in
any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute
pending before another court or administrative
agency.
Sec. 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or
other relationships to influence judicial conduct
or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall
not be used or lent to advance the private

interests of others, nor convey or permit others

to convey the impression that they are in a
special position to influence the judge.
Sec. 5. Judges shall not only be free from
inappropriate connections with, and influence by,
the executive and legislative branches of
government, but must also appear to be free
therefrom to a reasonable observer.
Sec. 6. Judges shall be independent in relation
to society in general and in relation to the
particular parties to a dispute which he or she
has to adjudicate.
Sec. 7
Judges shall encourage and uphold
safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties in
order to maintain and enhance the institutional
and operational independence of the judiciary.
Sec. 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high
standards of judicial conduct in order to reinforce
public confidence in the judiciary which is
fundamental to the maintenance of judicial
independence.
RE:
SEC 1.
EXERCISE
JUDICIAL
INDEPENDENTLY
FUNCTION
People v. Veneracion (1995)

F:
Judge Veneracion finding the defendants
Henry Lagarto and Ernesto Cordero guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape
with Homicide and sentenced both accused with
the "penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the
accessories provided for by law." Disagreeing
with the sentence imposed, the City Prosecutor
of Manila filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
praying that the Decision be "modified in that the
penalty
of
death
be
imposed"
against
respondents Lagarto and Cordero, in place of the
original penalty (reclusion perpetua). The SC
found that the respondent judge acted with
grave abuse of discretion and in excess of
jurisdiction when he failed and/or refused to
impose the mandatory penalty of death under
R.A. 7659, after finding the accused guilty of the
crime of Rape with Homicide.
H:
Obedience to the rule of law forms the
bedrock of our system of justice. If judges,
under the guise of religious or political beliefs
were allowed to roam unrestricted beyond
boundaries within which they are required by law
to exercise the duties of their office, then law
becomes meaningless. A government of laws,
not of men excludes the exercise of broad

discretionary powers by those acting under its
authority. In the case at bench, respondent
judge, after weighing the evidence of the
prosecution and the defendant at trial found the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Rape with Homicide. Since the law in
force at the time of the commission of the crime
for which respondent judge found the accused
guilty was Republic Act No. 7659, he was bound
by its provisions. The law plainly and
unequivocably provides that "[w]hen by reason
or on the occasion of rape, a homicide is
committed, the penalty shall be death." We are
aware of the trial judge's misgivings in imposing
the death sentence because of his religious
convictions. While this Court sympathizes with
his predicament, it is its bounden duty to
emphasize that a court of law is no place for a
protracted debate on the morality or propriety of
the sentence, where the law itself provides for
the sentence of death as a penalty in specific and
well-defined instances.
Tahil v. Eisma (1975)

F:
Respondent Municipal Judge Carlito A.
Eisma is charged by complainant Hadjirul Tahil
with dishonesty in not reporting regularly to his
office, contrary to the recitals of his daily time
record. According to the findings of the
investigating judge: the filing of this complaint is
motivated by hatred, anger and revenge on the
part of the complainant. Complainants anger
stems from the disapproval of the bail bond he
brought for his nephew. But this disapproval is
warranted due to the non-appearance of
bondsmen. His anger is because he expected the
judge to approve the bail bond simply because
they are friends. It appears however that
respondent admitted having granted bail to an
accused upon the request of a congressman,
despite his belief that the evidence of guilt
against the accused was strong. The SC found
that the respondents act of granting bail upon
the request of a congressman was reprehensible.
The SC thus admonished him.
H:
The discretion of the court to grant bail
must be based upon the Courts determination as
to WON the evidence of guilt is strong. This
discretion may only be exercised after the
evidence is submitted at the summary hearing
conducted pursuant to Sec 7 of Rule 114 of the
Rules. Respondents admission that he granted
bail to an accused upon the request of a
congressman, despite his belief that the evidence
of guilt against the accused was strong is indeed
reprehensible. But it is not clear WON a
summary hearing was conducted by respondent

113
Judge for the purpose of bail and, on the basis of

the evidence submitted, granted bail to the
accused.
Moreover,
respondent
was
not
specifically charged and investigated in this
regard, and in the absence of any specific finding
that respondent gravely abused his discretion in
granting bail to the accused, this court has no
basis to impose a fine upon respondent.
RE:
SEC 3.
REFRAIN FROM INFLUENCING OUTCOME OF
LITIGATION OR PROCEEDING
OCA v. deGuzman (1997)

F:
Judge Cosico denied a partys motion to
cancel notice of lis pendens. When case was reraffled due to Cosicos retirement, the annotation
of lis pendens was eventually cancelled by Judge
de Guzman. Upon investigation, Cosico said that
while he was hearing the case, Judge de Guzman
approached him and asked him to grant motion
to lift notice of lis pendens. When motion was
denied, Judge de Guzman was said to have come
back to Cosicos office asking him (Cosico) to
reconsider order of denial. The Court found that
Judge de Guzman tried to influence the outcome
of the case.
H:
YES. Judge de Guzman approached
Judge Cosico at least twice asking him to cancel
the notice of lis pendens, thereby, trying to
influence the course of the litigation in the case
in violation of Code of Judicial Conduct. Being the
dispensers of justice, judges should not act in a
way that would suspicion in order to preserve
faith in the administration of justice. Act of
interference by Judge de Guzman with the
subject case pending in the sala of Judge Cosico
clearly tarnishes the integrity and independence
of the judiciary and subverts the peoples faith in
the judicial process.
Contreras v. Solis (1996)

F:
One Rufino Mamangon was charged for
the murder of complainant's brother. The RTC
dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The
accused Mamangon however was not released
and so a petition for habeas corpus was filed.
Respondent presided over the petition. He
initially dismissed it and a motion for
reconsideration was filed. Later, respondent
ordered the release of the accused upon posting
of a P25000 cash bond. He subsequently
canceled the bond and ordered the re-arrest of
the accused after the public prosecutor filed a

motion for reconsideration. Thereupon, the
complainant filed this administrative complaint.
According to the assigned investigating officer,
after the accused filed his motion for
reconsideration
on
the
denied
petition,
complainant had a meeting with respondent
inside the latter's office at around 7 am (at this
hour, court employees are not yet in for work).
Respondent informed complainant of the motion
for reconsideration filed by the accused and his
willingness to pay P25000 as bail bond. It
appeared to complainant that what the
respondent was actually saying was that if the
former was willing to pay the same amount, the
accused would not be released. Respondent
insists that the purpose of such meeting was to
inform the complainant of the motion for
reconsideration so he could participate. He did
not ask any money from the complainant and the
latter admits that he did not give any. The
amount that the respondent mentioned was what
the complainant was going to spend for a lawyer.
The investigating officer however was not
convinced. Respondent could have informed
complainant
about
the
habeas
corpus
proceedings at an earlier stage by simply
furnishing him a copy of the first order. Why did
he wait at the last working hour on a Friday to
schedule a meeting on 7 am Monday? The acts of
the respondent, according to the investigating
officer lends to suspicions of dishonesty. She
recommends that respondent be advised to avoid
such occasions. As to the order issued by the
judge to release the accused upon bail and the
subsequent cancellation of the bail and re-arrest,
the investigating officer found that the
respondent committed errors. The SC agreed
with the findings of the investigating officer.
H:
As to the alleged extortion: The
respondent's seemingly benign conduct of
meeting with the complainant to advise him of a
pending case is puzzling since the records do not
show any reason that would justify respondent's
special interest/concern over the complainant. A
reasonable
person
would
deduce
that
respondent's mention of the potency of the
accused's motion for reconsideration and the
amount that the complainant would spend for an
attorney means that the respondent is actually
suggesting that complainant should just give the
money to respondent for a favorable decision. A
proposal to pay the judge need not only be
stated expressly. This can also be implied.
Respondent's pretended innocence of the
message
perceived
by
complainant
is
unconvincing considering the fact that he has
been in the practice of law for years. As a judicial
officer he should avoid the slightest hint of
anomaly and corruption. He should conduct

114
himself in a manner to avoid any suspicion of

irregularity.
Whatever
may
have
been
respondent's motive in meeting with the
complainant, such action certainly gave rise to
questions of honesty.
With regard to the erroneous orders, it appears
that the legal basis used by the judge were
incorrectly applied. A bond was not necessary
since the accused, after the dismissal of the
criminal case, was supposed to have been set
free. However, an erroneous decision cannot be
the sole basis for disciplining a judge. It must be
clearly shown that such judgment was unjust as
being contrary to law and the judge rendered it
with conscious and deliberate intent to do
injustice. The respondent cannot be held liable
for an erroneous order. Issuing it was an official
act and is presumed to have been done in good
faith. The court is unable to find a clear and
definite connection between the attempt at
extortion and the subsequent issuance of the
erroneous orders. It would be unjust to presume
wrong intentions on the part of the respondent.
RE: SEC 4.
REFRAIN FROM BEING INFLUENCED BY
FAMILY,
SOCIAL
OR
OTHER
RELATIONSHIPS
Padilla v. Zantua (1994)

F:
Mayor Padilla charged Judge Zantua,
with serious irregularities and grave misconduct
in the performance of his official duties for: (1)
failure to decide cases within the prescribed
period; (2) unreasonable delay in the disposition
of cases which have been prejudicial to litigants;
(3) manifest partiality in favor of a litigant and
(4) fraternizing with lawyers who have pending
cases in his sala. Mayor Padilla complains that
these cases have been pending since, 1991,
some have not even been tried and because of
delays in the disposition of these cases and the
perceived partiality of respondent Judge for Atty.
Schneider, the people's confidence in the
judiciary is being eroded. Respondent Judge
denies that he is fraternizing with lawyers with
pending cases in his sala, explaining that in the
case of Atty. Schneider, he is the only lawyer in
the Municipality and it is but natural for
respondent Judge to be friendly with him but
maintains that their friendship has never been a
hindrance to the proper disposition of the cases
in his sala as his impartially is known not only in
the Municipality of Jose Panganiban, but also in
the province of Camarines Norte. The SC held
that the respondent judge was guilty of serious
irregularities and grave misconduct in the
performance of his official duties for manifest
partiality in favor of a litigant and fraternizing

with lawyers who have pending cases in his sala.
H:
Respondent Judge does not deny his
close friendship and association with Atty.
Augusto Schneider. Constant company with a
lawyer tends to breed intimacy and camaraderie
to the point that favors in the future may be
asked from respondent judge which he may find
hard to resist. The actuation of respondent Judge
of eating and drinking in public places with a
lawyer who has pending cases in his sala may
well arouse suspicion in the public mind, thus
tending to erode the trust of the litigants in the
impartiality of the judge. This eventuality may
undermine
the
people's
faith
in
the
administration of justice. It is of no moment that
Atty. Augusto Schneider is the only lawyer in the
locality. A judge should behave at all times as to
inspire public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary. The prestige of
judicial office shall not be used or lent to
advance the private interests of others, nor
convey or permit others to convey the
impression that they are in a special position to
influence the judge. We find this case an occasion
to remind members of the Judiciary to so
conduct themselves as to be beyond reproach
and suspicion, and be free from any appearance
of impropriety in their personal behavior not only
in the discharge of their official duties but also in
their everyday life. Public confidence in the
Judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper
conduct of judges. A judge must avoid all
impropriety and the appearance thereof. Being
the subject of constant public scrutiny, a judge
should freely and willingly accept restrictions on
conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by
the ordinary citizen.
RE: SEC. 5
INDEPENDENCE FROM
EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE
In re Cunan (1954)
RA 972 (the bar flunkers act) has for its object to
admit to the Bar, those candidates who suffered
from insufficiency of reading materials and
inadequate
preparation.
By
its
declared
objective, the law is contrary to public interest
because it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who
confessedly had inadequate preparation for the
practice of the profession, as was exactly found
by this Tribunal in the aforesaid examinations. An
adequate legal preparation is one of the vital
requisites for the practice of law that should be
developed constantly and maintained firmly. To
the legal profession is entrusted the protection of

115
property, life, honor and civil liberties. It is

obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to
grant license for the practice of law belongs
exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by
Congress on the matter is of permissive
character, or as other authorities say, merely to
fix the minimum conditions for the license. Laws
are unconstitutional on the following grounds:
first, because they are not within the legislative
powers of Congress to enact, or Congress has
exceeded its powers; second, because they
create or establish arbitrary methods or forms
that infringe constitutional principles; and third,
because their purposes or effects violate the
Constitution or its basic principles. As has
already been seen, the contested law suffers
from these fatal defects. Summarizing, we are of
the opinion and hereby declare that RA. 972 is
unconstitutional and therefore, void, and without
any force nor effect for the following reasons, to
wit:
1. Because its declared purpose is to admit 810
candidates
who
failed
in
the
bar
examinations of 1946-1952, and who, it
admits, are certainly inadequately prepared
to practice law, as was exactly found by this
Court in the aforesaid years.
2.
3.
4.
Because it is, in effect, a judgment revoking

the resolution of this Court on the petitions
of these 810 candidates, without having
examined their respective examination
papers, and although it is admitted that this
Tribunal may reconsider said resolution at
any time for justifiable reasons, only this
Court and no other may revise and alter
them. In attempting to do it directly RA 972
violated the Constitution.
By the disputed law, Congress has exceeded
its legislative power to repeal, alter and
supplement the rules on admission to the
Bar.
The reason advanced for the pretended
classification of candidates, which the law
makes, is contrary to facts which are of
general knowledge and does not justify the
admission to the Bar of law students
inadequately
prepared.
The
pretended
classification is arbitrary. It is undoubtedly a
class legislation.
RE: SEC 8
PROMOTE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE
Macalintal v. Teh (1997)
F:
Atty. Macalintal related to the Court in a
letter the actuations of Judge Teh, relative to
Election Case No. R-95-001. Judge Teh issued a
resolution adverse to the client of complainant.
He questioned the resolution via certiorari with
the COMELEC. While case was pending in the
COMELEC, Teh actively participated in the
proceedings by filing his comment on the
petition, as well as an urgent manifestation.
Complainant filed a motion for inhibition but
instead, Teh hired his own lawyer and filed
answer before the court with prayer. The SC
found that Judge Tehs actuations eroded public
confidence in the administration of justice.
H:
Evidently, the active participation of the
respondent judge, being merely a nominal or
formal party in the certiorari proceedings is not
called for. xxx Under Sec 5 of Rule 65 of the
ROC, a judge whose order is challenged in an
appellate court does not have to file any answer
or take active part in the proceeding unless
expressly directed by order of this court. It is the
duty of respondent to appeal and defend, both in
his/her behalf and in behalf of the Court or judge
whose order or decision is at issue. xxx
Respondents folly did not stop there. When
complainant filed for respondents inhibition, he
hired his own lawyer. Respondent judge should
be reminded that decisions of courts need not
only be just but must be perceived to be just and
completely free from suspicion or doubt both in
its fairness and integrity.
CANON 2
INTEGRITY
Canon 1. Integrity is essential not only

to the proper discharge of the judicial office but
also to the personal demeanor of judges.
Sec. 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their
conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived
to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.
Sec. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges
must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity
of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done
but must also be seen to be done.
Sec. 3. Judges should take or initiate
appropriate
disciplinary
measures
against
lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional
conduct of which the judge may have become
aware.

116
RE: SEC. 1.
CONDUCT ABOVE REPROACH
Alfonso v. Juanson (1993)

F:
Dr. Alfonso filed this complaint for
immorality and violation of the Code of Judicial
Ethics against Judge Juanson. Alfonso alleges
that Juanson has been maintaining an illicit affair
with Alfonsos wife, Sol. The SC, however, did not
dismiss Judge Juanson.
H:
There is no doubt in the Courts mind
that there is a very special relationship between
Sol and Modesto. Though it started as relations
before Sols marriage, it developed into an extramarital affair. It must, however, be stressed that
Juanson is not charged with immorality or
misconduct committed before he was appointed
to the judiciary. As to the post-appointment
period, the court finds the evidence for Norbert
insufficient to prove that Juanson and Sol
continued their extra-marital affair. Since
Norberts narration was only treated as narration
and not put into evidence, they are considered
as proof that Sol made statements, but not proof
that the facts revealed are true. As such, the
acts of sexual intercourse admitted by Sol cannot
be deemed proven. There is no direct and
competent evidence against Juanson that he had
illicit sex with Sol. The imputation of illicit sexual
acts upon the incumbent judge must be proven
by substantial evidence, which is the quantum of
proof required in administrative cases.
Also, it may be that Juanson has undergone
moral reformation after his appointment, or his
appointment could have completely transformed
him upon the solemn realisation that a public
office is a public trust. Nevertheless, considering
their prior relationship, Juanson and Sols
meetings could reasonably incite suspicion of
either its continuance or revival and the
concomitant intimacies expressive of such
relationship. Juanson became indiscreet, he
encumbered to the sweet memories of the past
and he was unable to disappoint Sol when she
asked for his legal advice. Such indiscretions
indubitably cast upon his conduct as appearance
of impropriety.
Romero v. Valle (1987)

F:
All this started over an argument on
whether to label an evidence as exhibit F or
exhibit G. The facts are stated by the
investigating officer assigned. Complainant was
one of the two lawyers in a civil case tried by the
respondent judge. During a hearing, complainant

asked that an evidence be marked exhibit F.
Respondent interrupted and said that there was
already an exhibit F so the evidence should be
marked exhibit G. Complainant in a loud voice
insisted that his proposed marking was correct.
This irritated the respondent and he admonished
the complainant that the latter should come to
court
prepared.
Respondent
also
told
complainant that he should not bring his passion
to the court and if complainant does not respect
the judge, he should respect the court.
Complainant continued insisting in a loud voice
that the evidence be marked exhibit F. The
respondent banged his gavel, left the rostrum
and went to his chamber. Complainant's version
states that the respondent unceremoniously
removed his coat and challenged complainant to
step out and they will settle the matter.
Respondent's version states that when the
respondent left the rostrum all he said was five
minute recess. One of complainant's own
witness, which the investigating officer found to
be the most impartial, said that respondent did
not remove his coat and that all the witness
heard from him was, step out. Respondent, after
coming out of his chamber, holding his revolver
inside its holster with his right hand, looked at
the courtroom where the lawyers were. The gun
was not really pointed at anyone but he did look
at the people inside the courtroom. Respondent
had a permit for carrying a licensed gun because
of death threats he had received from the NPA.
The complainant now charges respondent with
grave misconduct and oppression. The SC
dismissed the Judge from the service but also
required the complainant to show why
disciplinary proceedings should not be taken
against him.
H: The relations between judge and counsel
should be based on mutual respect and a deep
appreciation by one of the duties of the other.
Both are expected to maintain the high esteem
for the courts. Counsel should observe respect
due to the court, to opposing counsel and to
judicial officers.
In our culture, raising one's voice is a sign of
disrespect, improper to one whose investiture
into the legal profession places upon his
shoulders no burden more basic, more exacting
and more imperative than that of respectful
behavior. towards the courts. Complainant, as an
active law practitioner and leader of several law
organizations in the community should provide
an example of proper decorum to his brothers in
the profession. He should have observed humility
and accepted mistakes graciously.

117
Respondent judge was also at fault for his

shortness of temper and impatience, contrary to
the duties and restriction imposed upon him by
reason of his office. He failed to observe the
proper decorum expected of judicial officers.
Judicial officers are given contempt powers so
that they can remind counsels of their duties in
court without being arbitrary, unreasonable or
unjust. Respondent should have cited the
complainant in contempt of court instead of
throwing tantrums by banging his gavel loudly
and unceremoniously walking out of the
courtroom. Although respondent had a valid
explanation for carrying a gun, his act of carrying
it in plain view of the lawyers (including the
complainant)
and
considering
what
just
happened, cannot be taken as an innocent
gesture. It was calculated to instill fear and
intimidate
the
complainant.
Respondent's
behavior constitutes grave misconduct. A judge's
conduct should be free from the appearance of
impropriety not only in his official duties but in
his everyday life. One who lives by the precept
that might is right: is unworthy to be a judicial
officer.
RE: SEC. 2
REAFFIRM PEOPLES FAITH
Castillo v. Calanog (1991)

F:
In a sworn letter complaint, Castillo
alleged that Judge Calanog and her have an
affair and that she was convinced by the judge to
be his mistress due to promises of giving her a
condominium to live in and financial support for
her daughters. Castillo further alleged that when
she conceived their son, the judge suddenly left
her and failed to provide financial support
despite several pleadings. After Judge denied
allegations, Castillo also sent formal affidavit of
Desistance denying her initial allegations.
H:
Calanog established an intimate, albeit
immoral, relationship with Castillo although
Calanog is a married man. Calanog behaved in a
manner not becoming of his robes and as a
model of rectitude, betrayed the peoples high
expectations, and diminished the esteem in
which they hold the judiciary in general. The
circumstances show a lack of circumspection and
delicadeza on the part of Calanog by failing to
avoid situations that make him suspect to
committing immorality and worse, having that
suspicion confirmed.
A judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety
not only with respect to his performance of his
judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside
his sala and as a private individual. There is no
dichotomy of morality: a public official is also

judged by his private morals.
Calanog also committed a grave injustice when
he took advantage of Castillos state of material
deprivation and helplessness when he persuaded
her to be his mistress. He used the brute force of
his position of power and authority.
CANON 3
IMPARTIALITY
Canon 1.
Impartiality is essential
to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It
applies not only to the decision itself but also to
the process by which the decision is made.
Sec. 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties
without favor, bias or prejudice.
Sec. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her
conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and
enhances the confidence of the public, the legal
profession and litigants in the impartiality of the
judge and of the judiciary.
Sec. 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so
conduct themselves as to minimize the occasions
on which it will be necessary for them to be
disqualified from hearing or deciding cases.
Sec. 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a
proceeding is before, or could come before, them
make any comment that might reasonably be
expected to affect the outcome of such
proceeding or impair the manifest fairness of the
process. Nor shall judges make any comment in
public or otherwise that might affect the fair trial
of any person or issue.
Sec. 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from
participating in any proceedings in which they
are unable to decide the matter impartially or in
which it may appear to a reasonable observer
that they are unable to decide the matter
impartially. Such proceedings include, but are
not limited to, instances where
(a)
The judge has actual bias or prejudice
concerning a party or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceedings;
(b)
The judge previously served as a lawyer
or was a material witness in the matter in
controversy;
(c)
The judge, or a member of his or her
family, has an economic interest in the
outcome of the matter in controversy;
(d)
The
judge
served
as
executor,
administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in
the case or matter in controversy, or a

118
former associate of the judge served as

counsel during their association, or the judge
or lawyer was a material witness therein;
(e)
The judge's ruling in a lower court is the
subject of review;
(f)
The judge is related by consanguinity or
affinity to a party litigant within the sixth
civil degree or to counsel within the fourth
civil degree; or
(g)
The judge knows that his or her spouse
or child has a financial interest, as heir,
legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in
the subject matter in controversy or in a
party to the proceeding, or any other
interest that could be substantially affected
by the outcome of the proceedings;
run the judiciary, particularly judges and justices,

must not only be proficient in both the
substantive and procedural aspects of the law,
but more importantly, they must possess the
highest integrity, probity, and unquestionable
moral uprightness, both in their public and
private lives. Only then can the people be
reassured that the wheels of justice in this
country run with fairness and equity, thus
creating confidence in the judicial system. With
the avowed objective of promoting confidence in
the Judiciary, we have the following provisions of
the Code of Judicial Conduct: Rule 2.01: A judge
should so behave at all times as to promote
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality
of the judiciary.
Sec. 6. A judge disqualified as stated above

may,
instead
of
withdrawing
from
the
proceeding, disclose on the records the basis of
disqualification. If, based on such disclosure, the
parties and lawyers independently of the judge's
participation, all agree in writing that the reason
for the inhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial,
the judge may then participate in the
proceeding. The agreement, signed by all parties
and lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record
of the proceedings.
The Court has adhered and set forth the exacting

standards of morality and decency which every
member of the judiciary must observe.
A
magistrate is judged not only by his official acts
but also by his private morals, to the extent that
such private morals are externalized. He should
not only possess proficiency in law but should
likewise possess moral integrity for the people
look up to him as a virtuous and upright man.
Being the subject of constant public scrutiny, a
judge should freely and willingly accept
restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as
burdensome by the ordinary citizen. A judge
should personify integrity and exemplify honest
public service. The personal behavior of a judge,
both in the performance of his official duties and
in private life should be above suspicion.
Respondent has failed to measure up to these
exacting standards. He has behaved in a
manner unbecoming of a judge and as model of
moral uprightness. He has betrayed the people's
high expectations and diminished the esteem in
which they hold the judiciary in general. We need
not repeat the narration of lewd and lustful acts
committed by respondent judge in order to
conclude that he is indeed unworthy to remain in
office. The audacity under which the same were
committed and the seeming impunity with which
they were perpetrated shock our sense of
morality. All roads lead us to the conclusion that
respondent judge has failed to behave in a
manner that will promote confidence in the
judiciary. His actuations, if condoned, would
damage the integrity of the judiciary, fomenting
distrust in the system. Hence, his acts deserve
no less than the severest form of disciplinary
sanction of dismissal from the service. The
actuations of respondent are aggravated by the
fact that complainant is one of his subordinates
over whom he exercises control and supervision,
he being the executive judge.
He took
advantage of his position and power in order to
carry out his lustful and lascivious desires.
Instead of he being in loco parentis over his
RE: SEC. 2
PROMTE CONFIDENCE AND IIMPARTIALITY
Talens-Dabon v. Arceo (1996)

F:
Talens-Dabon, Clerk of Court of the RTC
of San Fernando Pampanga, charged Judge
Hermin E. Arceo, the Executive Judge thereat
with
gross
misconduct
and
immorality.
Respondent Judge had a reputation in the office
as being "bastos" and "maniakis". There were
instances were the judge talked in a loud voice
and shouted and used offensive words such as
walang isip and tanga; told green jokes;
made bodily contact ("chancing") with her and
certain female employees; kissed complainant on
the
cheeks;
respondent
summoned
the
stenographer to his chamber and she found him
clad only in briefs. Judge gave the complainant a
poem, locked her in his chambers and tried to
take advantage of her. The SC found the
respondent judge guilty of gross misconduct
H:
The integrity of the Judiciary rests not
only upon the fact that it is able to administer
justice but also upon the perception and
confidence of the community that the people
who run the system have done justice. Hence, in
order to create such confidence, the people who

119
subordinate employees, respondent was the one

who preyed on them, taking advantage of his
superior position.
RE: SEC. 5
DISQUALIFICATIONS
Masadao v. Elizaga (1987)

F:
On May 4, 1987, Judge Masadao
rendered a decision finding the accused, Jaime
Tadeo, guilty of estafa. Justice JBL Reyes entered
his appearance for the accused. Judge Masadao
issued an order inhibiting himself from further
sitting in the case on the ground that retired
Justice Reyes has been among those who had
recommended him to the bench. A raffle was
conducted and the case was assigned to Judge
Elizaga Judge Elizaga returned the records with a
letter stating his refusal to act and assailing the
re-raffling of the case as uncalled for and
impractical.
H:
It is clear from the reading of the law
that intimacy or friendship between a judge and
an attorney of record of one of the parties to a
suit is no ground for disqualification. To allow it
would unnecessarily burden other trial judges to
whom the cases would be transferred.
In fact, this is one rare opportunity for Masadao
to show that JBL Reyes did not err in
recommending him for his competence and
known probity;that he has conducted himself
with the cold impartiality of an impartial judge;
that no one can sway his judgment whoever he
may be
However, men of the Bench are not without
imperfections. A judge experiences the tug and
pull of purely personal preferences and
prejudices which he shares with the rest of his
fellow mortals. Especially for Filipinos whose
sense of gratitude in one trait which invariably
reigns supreme over any and all considerations
in matters upon which such tender sentiment
may
somehow
inexorably
impinge.
The
circumstances before judge Masadao are not
ordinary ones. Thus, this is one certain
circumstance where a case could well be heard
by another judge and where a voluntary
inhibition may prove to be the better course of
action. Judge Masadaos actuations are within
par 2 sec 1 rule 137.
Lorenzo v. Marquez (1988)

F:
Lorenzo, with an indorsement by the
NBI, executed a sworn statement against Judge
Marquez charged him with violation of Sec Rule

137 ROC in deciding KBP v. Balid. Marquez was a
member of the board of directors of the plaintiff
in said case and served as counsel. When
Marquez took over the case, he set the case for
hearing and rendered a decision favourable to
the plaintiff. He proceeded to decide on the case
since there was no objection from the parties.
The SC found that indeed, Judge Marquez was
not impartial and should have been disqualified
in the case
H:
The judgment in this case was rendered
in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendant. Clearly, according to Sec. 1 Rule 137
of the ROC, no judge or official shall sit is any
case in which he, or his wife, or child is
pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or
otherwise, or in which he is related to either
party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or
affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree
computed according to the rules of civil law, or in
which he has been executor, administrator,
guardian, trustee or counsel From the
foregoing provision, a judge cannot sit in any
case in which he was a counsel without the
written consent of all parties. The rule is explicit
that he must secure the written consent of all
parties, not a mere verbal consent much less a
tacit acquiescence. The written consent must be
signed by them and entered upon the record.
The failure of the respondent to observe these
elementary rules of conduct betrays his unusual
personal interest in the case which prevailed
over and above his sworn duty to administer the
law impartially.
CANON 4
PROPRIETY
Canon 4.
Propriety
and
the
appearance of propriety are essential to the
performance of all the activities of a. judge.
Sec. 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of their
activities.
Sec. 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny,
judges must accept personal restrictions that
might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary
citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In
particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a
way that is consistent with the dignity of the
judicial office.

120
121
Sec. 3. Judges shall, in their personal relations

with individual members of the legal profession
who practice regularly in their court, avoid
situations which might reasonably give rise to
the suspicion or appearance of favoritism or
partiality.
Sec. 12.
Judges may form or join
associations of judges or participate in other
organizations representing the interests of
judges.
Sec. 4. Judges shall not participate in the

determination of a case in which any member of
their family represents a litigant or is associated
in any manner with the case.
Sec. 13.
Judges and members of their
families shall neither ask for, nor accept, any gift,
bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything
done or to be done or omitted to be done by him
or her in connection with the performance of
judicial duties.
Sec. 5. Judges shall not allow the use of their

residence by a member of the legal profession to
receive clients of the latter or of other members
Sec. 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are
entitled to freedom of expression, belief,
association and assembly, but in exercising such
rights, they shall always conduct themselves in
such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the
judicial
office
and
the
impartiality
and
Sec. 7. Judges shall inform themselves about
their personal fiduciary financial interests and
shall make reasonable efforts to be informed
about the financial interests of members of their
family.
Sec. 8. Judges shall not use or lend the prestige
of the judicial office to advance their private
interests, or those of a member of their family or
of anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit
others to convey the impression that anyone is in
a special position improperly to influence them in
the performance of judicial duties.
Sec. 9. Confidential information acquired by
judges in their judicial capacity shall not be used
or disclosed by for any other purpose related to
their judicial duties.
Sec. 10.
Subject
to
the
proper
performance of judicial duties, judges may
(a) Write, lecture, teach and participate in
activities concerning the law, the legal
system, the administration of justice or
related matters;
(b) Appear at a public hearing before an official
body concerned with matters relating to the
law, the legal system, the administration of
justice or related matters;
(c) Engage in other activities if such activities do
not detract from the dignity of the judicial
office or otherwise interfere with the
performance of judicial duties.
Sec. 11.
Judges shall not practice law
whilst the holder of judicial office.
Sec. 14.
Judges shall not knowingly
permit court staff or others subject to their
influence, direction or authority, to ask for, or
accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in
relation to anything done or to be done or
omitted to be done in connection with their
duties or functions.
Sec. 15.
Subject to law and to any legal
requirements of public disclosure, judges may
receive a token gift, award or benefit as
appropriate to the occasion on which it is made
provided that such gift, award or benefit might
not reasonably be perceived as intended to
influence the judge in the performance of judicial
duties or otherwise give rise to an appearance of
partiality.
RE: SEC. 1
AVOIDANCE OF IMPROPRIETY
Lao v. Abelita (1998)

F:
Two administrative cases were filed
against respondent Judge. The first complaint
accused respondent judge of abuse of authority,
grave misconduct, oppression and harassment.
The second complaint charged him with serious
misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a judge.
In the first case, the complainant alleged that
respondent judge forcibly entered and gained
entrance without his knowledge in his office,
residence and bodega, and that he removed the
padlock to the residence-bodega and replaced it,
depriving complainant of access, possession and
use of residence and bodega. In the second case,
during the pendency of the first case, respondent
ordered some people to (a) enter the nursery
compound, one of the properties subject matter
in the first case, build a shanty to take
possession of property; (b) cut off electric power
of the water pump to deprive water supply and
(c) respondent ordered his man, Agao, to shoot,
with a shotgun, the workers of the complainant
who were about to install water pipes in the
nursery resulting in the injury of his nephew,
William Lao. The S

H:
Respondent judged failed to measure
up to what could well be expected of him as an
officer of the judiciary. It was shown that (a)
Respondent
Judge
took
possession,
by
destroying the lock to the door, of the bodega
then being used and occupied by complainant.
After celebrating his party, respondent Judge
closed the place using a new padlock and
effectively evicting complainant from the
premises.
(b)
respondent
judge
ordered
Policronio Agao to fire his shotgun, hitting
William Lao in the process. (c) although the
shotgun used in the shooting incident was a
licensed firearm, respondent had no authority,
however, to bring that gun outside residence. (d)
Instead of acceding to the request of
Superintendent Doria to forthwith go with him to
the police headquarters to shed light on the
shooting incident, respondent judge sped away
from them. (e) finally, when police officers
caught up with respondent judge and his wife, he
was found to be in possession of an unlicensed .
45 caliber handgun. As the court held in
Saburnido vs. Madrono, it was highly improper
for a judge to have wielded a high-powered
firearm in public and besieged the house of a
perceived defamer of character and honor in
warlike fashion and berated the object of his ire,
with his firearm aimed at the victim
Arban v. Borja (1989)

F:
Ponciano A. Arban, the then District
Engineer for Camarines Sur, Ministry of Public
Works and Highways, filed an administrative case
for grave misconduct against Judge Melecio B.
Borja, on that ground that in the presence of
people taking their lunch and others, the said
respondent, without any justification whatever,
hit with the pistol he was carrying the herein
petitioner on the left side of his head, sending
him sprawling to the floor and rendering him
momentarily unconscious. The SC found that the
respondent Judge commited an act of serious
misconduct, one which degrades the integrity of
the judicial office and serves as a demoralizing
example to the public.
H:
The complainant's avowal that his
'personal interests' have been 'already satisfied,'
is not all there is to this case. There is the matter
of the public interest involved in the case. The
respondent is not just an ordinary citizen, but a
highly visible member of the judicial branch of
the Government, particularly, an incumbent
judge of the RTC stationed in Naga City. The
complainant is, himself, an official of the
government an engineer of the Ministry of
Public Works and Highways. The fact that the
incident was accorded with widest possible
publicity in both regional and national newspaper
attests to the very sensitive position occupied by
the respondent. There is, thus, not only the

complainant's private interests involved, but also
the public interest involved in the act of an
official whom position carries with it great
responsibility and which position demanded the
highest norm of conduct from the incumbent
both in his public and private capacities, whether
in court or out of it. There is no doubt in the
mind of the Court from the records of this case,
inspite of the cover-ups and the sudden loss of
interest of the complainant to vigorously pursue
his complaint, that the physical injuries inflicted
on Mr. Arban were caused by a pistol-whipping.
Whatever the motive may have been, the violent
action of the respondent in a public place
constitutes serious misconduct and the resultant
outrage of the community in Naga City is a blow
to the image of the entire judiciary. Judge Borja
violated the established norm for judicial
behavior that "a judge's official conduct should
be free from appearance of impropriety, and his
personal behavior not only upon the bench and
in the performance of judicial duties, but also in
his everyday life, should be beyond reproach
(Sec. 3, Cannon of Judicial Ethics)
This Court ruled in De la Paz v. Inutan (64 SCRA
540),
that:
The
judge
is
the
visible
representation of the law and, more importantly,
of justice. From him, the people draw their win
and awareness to obey the law. They see in him
an intermediary of justice between two
conflicting interests, specially in the station of
municipal judges, like respondent Judge, who
have that close and direct contact with the
people before anybody else in the judiciary.
Thus, for the judge to return that regard, he
must be the first to abide by the law and weave
an example for the others to follow. He should be
studiously careful to avoid even the slightest
infraction of the law.
RE: SEC. 6
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Vistan v. Nicolas (1991)

F:
Vistan filed administrative cases against
Judge Nicolas for gross ignorance of the law and
grave abuse of discretion (Judge acquitted
accused in a criminal case despite not having
ruled yet on accuseds written offer of evidence),
for maintaining an illicit relationship and for
having violated election laws when he sent out
letters showing intent to run for Congress prior
to date given by COMELEC. The SC dismissed
Vistan from office.

122
H:
Judge Nicolas also violated Rule 5.10,
Canon 5, of the Code of Judicial Conduct which
states: ...to avoid suspicion of political
partisanship, a judge shall not...participate in
other partisan political activities. Judge took
advantage of his position to boost his candidacy,
demeaned stature of his office and must be
pronounced guilty of gross misconduct.
A Judges official conduct should be free from
impropriety or any appearance thereof. His
personal behavior in the performance of official
duty, as well as everyday life, should be beyond
reproach. High ethical principles and a sense of
propriety should be maintained, without which
the faith of the people in the judiciary so
indispensable in an orderly society cannot be
preserved. Moral integrity is more than a virtue;
it is a necessity in the Judiciary.
RE: SEC. 8
INFLUENCE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT
Aquino v. Luntok (1990)

F:
Petitioners, of the Provincial Auditors
office of Camarines Sur, conducted an audit of
the Municipal Treasurer of Libmanan, Camarines
Sur and found a cash shortage. Pursuant to BP
337, they seized the treasurers cash, books,
papers and accounts. He was also suspended
from office. The Treasurer filed a petition with
the trial court, presided over by respondent
judge, for prohibition with injunction and with a
prayer for a restraining order and damages.
Judge Luntok issued a TRO, extended its
effectivity twice, and finally granted an
application for a writ of preliminary injunction.
Petitioners argue that the writ is void for being in
reality a fourth restraining order issued beyond
the 20-day effectivity of the preceeding TRO. The
SC upheld the writ of preliminary injunction but
reprimanded the Judge.
H:
Except for delay in the resolution of the
application for and the subsequent issuance of
the writ, the other requisites provided by the
rules for the grant thereof have been observed,
hence, grant of writ must be upheld. Present
state of law which allows court to do by
indirection what should not be done directly
should be remedied by amendment of the rule if
intent is to nullify a writ of preliminary injunction
belatedly issued. Dubious orders of judge and
other circumstances show that he violated Rule
3.01 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct,
which calls for a judge to be faithful to the law
and maintain professional competence, and Rule
3.05 which admonishes all judges to dispose of
the court's business promptly and decide cases
within the required periods.
123
RE: SEC. 9
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Umale v. Villaluz (1973)

F:
Leon Umale filed a robbery case against
16 accused before the Circuit Criminal Court in
Pasig, Rizal presided by Judge Onofre Villaluz.
Judge Villaluz had issued several orders
regarding the case from Jan. 19 to April 12,
1971 when, on April 15, 1971, he voluntarily
inhibited himself without any party moving for it.
His reason: before filing of the case, he already
had personal knowledge of it. Judge Villaluz then
directed immediate forwarding of records of case
to Exec Judge of CFI Pasig, Rizal for proper
disposition. Petitioner Umale opposed inhibition
but his motions for reconsideration, for
deferment of raffling of case, and for return of
case to Circuit Criminal Court were denied. He
filed case before SC.
The SC held that Judge Villaluz could voluntarily
inhibit himself without any motion by the parties.
H:
Personal knowledge of the case pending
before him is not one of the causes for the
disqualification of a judge under the first
paragraph of Sec. 1 of Rule 137 of the Revised
Rules of Court (took effect Jan. 1, 1964). But
paragraph 2 of said section authorizes the judge,
in the exercise of his sound discretion, to
disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just
or valid reason other than those mentioned in
par. 1. Before 1964, a judge could not just
voluntarily inhibit himself from a case. But in
cases decided in 1961 and 1962, a judge was
allowed to inhibit for fear that an opinion
expressed by him in a letter as counsel might
influence his decision and for being related to a
counsel within 4th civil degree. In 1967, a judge
was allowed to voluntarily disqualify himself on
grounds other than those mentioned in par. 1 of
cited section. Pimentel v. Salanga: Judge should
make a careful self-examination whether to
disqualify himself or not in a case before him. He
should exercise his discretion in a way that
peoples faith in the courts of justice is not
impaired. A salutary norm is that he reflect on
the probability that a losing party might nurture
at the back of his mind the thought that the
judge had unmeritoriously titled the scales of
justice against him. Judge should be commended
for heeding SC ruling in Geotina v. Gonzales: A
judge, sitting on a case must at all times be fully
free, disinterested, impartial and independent.
Elementary due process requires a hearing
before an impartial and disinterested tribunal. A
judge has both the duties of rendering a just
decision and of doing it in a manner completely

free from suspicion as to his fairness and as to

his integrity. Mater, Jr. v. Hon. Onofre Villaluz:
Outside of pecuniary interest, relationship or
previous participation in the matter that calls for
adjudication, there may be other causes that
could conceivably erode trait of objectivity, thus
calling for inhibition. If such causes appear and
prove difficult to resist, it is better for judge to
disqualify himself. That way, his reputation for
probity and objectivity is preserved; even more
important, ideal of an administration of justice is
lived up to.
RE: SEC. 11
PRACTICE OF PROFESSION
Tuzon v. Cloribel (2001)

F:
Victor G. Tuzon filed with the CA a
petition for certiorari assailing the order of Judge
Loreto Cloribel-Purugganan,
which denied
Tuzons motion to allow cross-examination of his
witness and directed that the case be submitted
for resolution. Respondent judge went further
and filed the comment for the Raymundo Catral
and herself, and affixed her name and signature
on the comment. Tuzon also averred that
respondent judge antedated her decision in the
Civil decision and alleged that complainant failed
to present any evidence to support such
accusation. The SC found that the respondent
Judge is guilty of illegal practice of law.
H:
The Court has reminded judges of the
lower courts that a judge whose order is
challenged in an appellate court need not file any
answer, or take an active part in the proceedings
unless expressly directed by order of the Court.
In the case at bar, it is undisputed that
respondent judge filed a comment on behalf of
the respondent Raymundo E. Catral in the case
on review with the CA. Respondent judge signed
the pleading herself and submitted it to the court
notwithstanding that it was her decision that was
the subject of the petition in the said court. A
judge must maintain a detached attitude from
the case and shall not waste his time by taking
an active part in a proceeding that relates to
official actuations in a case. He is merely a
nominal party and has no personal interest or
personality therein. Further, respondent judge, in
signing and filing a comment with the court on
behalf of one of the parties, engaged in the
private practice of law. The practice of law is not
limited to the conduct of cases in court or
participation in court proceedings but includes
preparation of pleadings or papers in anticipation
of litigation. Under Section 35, Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court, and Rule 5.07 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are prohibited
from engaging in the private practice of law. This

is based on public policy because the rights,
duties, privileges and functions of the office of an
attorney-at-law are inherently incompatible with
the high official functions, duties, powers,
discretion and privileges of a judge.
RE: SEC. 13
GIFTS, REQUESTS, LOANS
Ompoc v. Torre (1989)

F:
A sworn letter of complaint was filed by
Atty. Ompoc against Judge Torres. According to
Atty. Ompoc, Judge Torres invited him and his
client to the judges house while their case was
being tried in Judge Torress sala. The judge gave
them a guide of what evidence to present to be
able to win the case. In exchange, Judge Torres
asked Atty. Ompocs client to install an air-con
unit in the latters lite-ace. The Investigating
judge found the complainants stories valid and
true. The SC dismissed him from the service.
R:
Receiving money from a party litigant is
the kind of gross and flaunting misconduct on
the part of the judge, who is charged with the
responsibility of administering the law and
rendering justice. Members of the judiciary
should display not only the highest integrity but
must, at all times, conduct themselves in such
manner as to be beyond reproach and suspicion.
CANON 5
EQUALITY
Canon 5.
Ensuring equality of
treatment to all before the courts is essential to
the due performance of the judicial office.
Sec. 1. Judges
shall
be
aware
of,
and
understand, diversity in society and differences
arising from various sources, including but not
limited to race, color, sex, religion, national
origin, caste, disability, age, marital status,
sexual orientation, social and economic status
and other like causes.
Sec. 2. Judges shall not, in the performance of
judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest
bias or prejudice towards any person or group on
irrelevant grounds.
Sec. 3. Judges shall carry out judicial duties
with appropriate consideration for all persons,

124
such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court

staff
and
judicial
colleagues,
without
differentiation
on
any
irrelevant
ground,
immaterial to the proper performance of such
duties.
over his sworn duty to administer the law

impartially without any fear or favor.
RE: SEC. 5
ATTITUDE PARTIES APPEARING IN COURT

Sec. 4. Judges shall not knowingly permit court
staff or others subject to his or her influence,
direction or control to differentiate between
persons concerned, in a matter before the judge,
on any irrelevant ground.
Sec. 5. Judges
shall
require
lawyers
in
proceedings before the court to refrain from
manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or
prejudice based on irrelevant grounds, except
such as are legally relevant to an issue in
proceedings and may be the subject of legitimate
advocacy.
RE: SEC. 2
BIAS OR PREJUDICE
In re Judge Rojas (1998)

F:
This case refers to the inhibition which
Respondent Judge Rojas of the RTC issued, in
Crim Case entitled People vs. Tauro. Initially, the
case was tried in the RTC, with Judge Rojas as
public prosecutor. While the case was pending,
Rojas was appointed judge. The original counsel
for the accused did not interpose any objection,
so Judge Rojas tried the case. On April 13,
1998, he decided to inhibit himself. In his
explanation, he said that to avoid legal
implications, he has to voluntarily inhibit himself.
The Court found that it was impropert for Judge
Rojas to have heard the criminal case at all.
H:
No. Rule 137 1 of the Rules of Court
expressly states that no judge shall sit in any
case which he has been counsel (for a party)
without the written consent of all parties in
interest, signed by them and entered upon the
record. Blacks Law Dictionary defines to sit in
a case means to hold court; to do any act of
judicial nature. To hold a session, as of a court,
grand jury, legislative body, etc. The prohibition
is not limited to cases in which a judge hears the
evidence but includes as well cases where he
acts by resolving motions, issuing orders and the
like as Judge Rojas has done in the criminal
case.F or almost one and a half years, he issued
various orders resetting the dates of the hearing
and of the reception of additional evidence for
the
prosecution
and
for
the
defense.
Undoubtedly, these acts, he sat and acted on the
case. The failure of Judge Rojas to observe these
elementary rules of judicial conduct betrays his
interest in the case which he allowed to prevail
In re Aguas (1901)
F:
While on witness stand, Atty Aguas
witness was allegedly seized by the Judge after
the witness failed to heed the Judges warning he
should look at Judge instead of at Atty. Aguas
while testifying. In view of this, Aguas allegedly
protested with a voice and body trembling. The
Judge held him Atty. Aguas in contempt. The SC
found that the Judge had acted improperly
towards Aguas witness.
H:
The action of the judge in seizing the
witness, Alberto Angel, by the shoulder and
turning him about was unwarranted and an
interference with that freedom from unlawful
personal violence to which every witness is
entitled while giving testimony in a court of
justice. Against such conduct the appellant had
the right to protest and to demand that the
incident be made a matter of record. That he did
so was not contempt, providing protest and
demand were respectfully made and with due
regard for the dignity of the court.
CANON 6
Canon. 6.
Competence
diligence
are
prerequisites
to
the
performance of judicial office.
and
due
Sec. 1. The judicial duties of a judge take

precedence over all other activities.
Sec. 2. Judges shall devote their professional
activity to judicial duties, which include not only
the performance of judicial functions and
responsibilities in court and the making of
decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the
judicial office or the court's operations.
Sec. 3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to
maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills and
personal qualities necessary for the proper
performance of judicial duties, taking advantage
for this purpose of the training and other

125
facilities which should be made available, under

judicial control, to judges.
Sec. 4. Judges shall keep themselves informed
about relevant developments of international
law, including international conventions and
other instruments establishing human rights
norms.
Sec. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties,
including the delivery of reserved decisions,
efficiently,
fairly
and
with
reasonable
promptness.
Sec. 6. Judges
shall
maintain
order
and
decorum in all proceedings before the court and
be patient, dignified and courteous in relation to
litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with
whom the judge deals in an official capacity.
Judges shall require similar conduct of legal
representatives, court staff and others subject to
their influence, direction or control.
Sec. 7. Judges shall not engage in conduct
incompatible with the diligent discharge of
judicial duties.
RE: SEC. 2
ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES
Longboan v. Polig (1990)

F:
A letter-complaint was addressed to the
Court Administrator charging Judge Polig with
gross negligence of duty or abuse of authority for
his failure to apprise complainant of the status of
Civil Case No. 641 despite the former's
registered
letters
requesting
the
status.
Meanwhile, Longbuan had sent five registered
letters inquiring about the status of Civil Case
No. 641. Due to respondent Judge's failure to
make any reply as requested, the Office of the
Court Administrator sent respondent judge three
tracers in relation to the records of Civil Case No.
641. Still, the respondent judge made no reply.
The SC found the respondent judge guilty of
gross negligence of duty and dismissed him from
the service.
H:
Respondent judge's continued silence as
to the status of Civil Case No. 641 despite
repeated written queries from one of the parties,
his failure to reply to the tracers of the Office of
the Court Administrator, and his willful
disobedience and disregard to our show-cause
resolutions constituted grave and serious
misconduct affecting his fitness and the
worthiness of the honor and integrity attached to
his office. Once again, we hold with great
emphasis that: ...The Judge is the visible
representation of the law of justice. From him,

the people draw their will and awareness to obey
the law ..." How can the respondent judge
expect others to respect the law when he himself
cannot obey orders as simple as the show cause
resolution? Moreover, it is not enough that the
complaining litigant was eventually appeased by
the turn of circumstances. What is more
important is whether or not in the course of the
judicial process, judicial norms have been
maintained. It is with this end in view that we
stress diligence and efficiency attendant to the
discharge of a judge's function in the present
Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 3, Rule 3.08, of
the said Code provides that: A judge should
diligently
discharge
administrative
responsibilities,
maintain
professional
competence in court management and facilitate
the performance of the administrative functions
of other judges and court personnel. In the
instant case, respondent judge even impeded the
speedy disposition of cases by his successor on
account of missing records of cases. This fact
reflects an inefficient and disorderly system in
the recording of cases assigned to his sala.
Proper and efficient court management is as
much the judge's responsibility for the Court
personnel are not the guardians of a Judge's
responsibilities. With respect to the inventoried 4
criminal cases without prisoners and four 4 civil
cases missing, we find no justification for the
failure to present them to the Deputy Court
Administrator when required and their absence
from the place where court records are stored. A
judge is expected to ensure that the records of
cases assigned to his sala are intact. There is no
justification for missing records save fortuitous
events. The loss of not one but eight records is
indicative of gross misconduct and inexcusable
negligence unbecoming of a judge. For true
professionalism in the bench to exist, judges
whose acts demoralize the ethical standards of a
judicial office and whose acts demonstrate
unfitness and unworthiness of the prestige and
prerequisites attached to said office must be
weeded out. Lastly, the report on the physical
inventory of the records of the cases in RTC,
Branch 14, Lagawe, Ifugao, which was
respondent judge's last assignment before his
suspension revealed that a total of 35 cases
submitted for decision have remained unresolved
beyond the 90-day reglementary period. We
have consistently held that failure to decide a
case within the required period is not excusable
and constitutes gross inefficiency.
RE: SEC. 3
MAINTAIN PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE

126

In re Judge Baltazar Dizon (1989)
F:
This is a motion for reconsideration filed
by respondent Judge Dizon praying that the
resolution, finding him guilty of rendering an
erroneous decision, be reconsidered. Dizon ruled
that the state must first prove criminal intent to
find the accused, Lo Chi Fai, guilty of a violation
of a Central Bank Circular. He also ordered the
return of the seized foreign currency from the
accused. This Court pointed out that in offenses
punished by special laws, proof of malice or
deliberate intent is not necessary. Respondent
manifestly disregarded and failed to apply this
plain
and
fundamental
basic
principle.
Respondent admits that his decision is erroneous
but pleads that his mistaken judgment
proceeded from good faith and not from
deliberate desire to pervert his position. The fact
that the penalty prescribed by the circular was
taken from the RPC led him to believe that
malice was an essential element Respondent also
stated that the overloaded dockets of Metro
Manila trial judges caused unceasing strain.
H:
In a court resolution, the SC stated that
no judge can be held to account for an erroneous
decision rendered by him in good faith. However,
his act remains unjustified. While the court does
not require perfection and infallibility, it
reasonably expects a faithful and intelligent
discharge of duty by those who are selected to
fill the positions of administrators of justice.
Respondent judge has sincerely evinced a
humble
repentance
and
prays
for
a
reconsideration of the resolution. Thus, we feel
that he has been sufficiently punished for his
administrative infraction.
Abad v. Bleza (1986)

F:
The administrative case arose out of a
case that Bleza decided, where complainant Col.
Gregorio Abad and a certain Potenciano Ponce
were petitioners and defendants in a criminal
case. Based on testimonies and evidence, Judge
Bleza acquitted Ponce for attempted homicide,
and charged Sabater guilty of Frustrated
Homicide. According to the investigation of the
IAC, they found that Bleza has not committed
any wrongdoing to evoke disciplinary action. The
acquittal was based on insufficiency of evidence.
The SC held that Judge Bleza was not
incompetent in deciding the cases before him.
H:
Judge Bleza appreciated as mitigating
circumstance the lack of intent to kill in favor of
Sabater is palpably out of place. Presumably,
what respondent had in mid was to consider the
mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed
under Art. 13 of the RPCthis is different from
lack of intent to kill. As a matter of public policy,

in the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or
corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial
capacity are not subject to disciplinary action,
even though such acts are erroneous. Yet it is
highly
imperative
that
they
should
be
controverted with basic legal principles. They are
called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory
acquaintance with statutes and to keep
themselves abreast of the latest laws, rulings,
jurisprudence affecting their jurisdiction. Even in
the remaining years of his stay in the judiciary,
he should keep abreast with the changes in the
law and with the latest decisions and precedents.
Although a judge is nearing retirement, he
should not relax in his study of the law and court
decisions. The records fail to show malice, ill-will
or even bias on part of the respondent judge. A
judicial officer cannot be called to account in a
civil action for acts done by him in the exercise
of his judicial function, however erroneous.
RE: SEC. 5
PROMPT DECISION MAKING
Aquino v. Lontok (1990)

supra at Canon 3, Sec. 8
ANNEXED CODES OF
ETHICS
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
(June 21, 1988)
CHAPTER I
THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY
CANON 1

127
A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the

laws of the land and promote respect for law and
legal processes.
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct
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 mans cause.
Rule 1.04. A lawyer shall encourage his clients to
avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit
of a fair settlement.
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 the
oppressed.
Rule 2.02. In such cases, even if the lawyer doe
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 latters
rights.
Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be
done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business.
Rule 2.04. A lawyer shall not charge rates lower
than those customarily prescribed unless the
circumstances so warrant.
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.
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.
CANON 4
A lawyer shall participate in the development of
the legal system by initiating or supporting
efforts in law reform and in the improvement of
the administration of justice.
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.
CANON 6
These canons shall apply to lawyers in

government service in the discharge of their
official tasks.
A lawyer in making known his legal services shall

use only true, honest, fair, dignifies and objective
information or statement of facts.
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
highly reprehensible and is cause of disciplinary
action.
Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the

use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
statement of claim regarding his qualifications of
legal services.
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.
CANON 3
Rule 3.02. In the choice of a firm name, no false,

misleading or assumed name shall be used. The

128
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 in said service.
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)
CHAPTER II
THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION
CANON 7
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession and support
the activities of the integrated bar.
Rule 7.01. A lawyer shall be answerable for
knowingly making a false statement or
suppressing a material fact, in connection with
his application for admission to the bar.
Rule 7.02. A lawyer shall not support the
attribute.
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
CANON 8
A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,
fairness and candor toward his professional
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics
against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.
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 advise and assistance to those seeking
relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
CANON 9
A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in
the unauthorized practice of law.
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.
b)
c)
Where there is a pre-existing agreement

with a partner or associate that, upon the
latters death, money shall be paid over a
reasonable period of time to his estate or to
the persons specified in the agreement; or
Where a lawyer undertakes to complete
unfinished legal business of a deceased
lawyer; or
Where a lawyer or law firm includes nonlawyer employees in a retirement plan, even
if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a
profit-sharing agreement.
CANON 10
A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to
the court
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 mislead
by any artifice.
Rule 10.02. A lawyer shall not knowingly
misquote or misrepresent the contents of a
paper, the language or the argument of opposing
counsel, of 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.
Rule 10.03. A lawyer shall observe the rules of
procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat
the ends of justice.
CANON 11
A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect
due to the courts and to judicial officers and
should insist on similar conduce by others.
Rule 11.01. A lawyer shall appear in court
property attired.
Rule 11.02. A lawyer shall punctually appear at
court hearings.
Rule 11.03. A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.
Rule 11.04. A lawyer shall not attribute to a
Judge motives not supported by the record or
have no materiality to the case.

129
Rule 11.05. A lawyer shall submit grievances

against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
CANON 12
A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it
his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
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
well adduce and the order of its profference. He
should also be ready with the original documents
for comparison with the copies.
Rule 12.02. A lawyer shall not file multiple
actions arising from the same cause.
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.
Rule 12.04. A lawyer shall not unduly delay a
case, impede the execution of a judgement or
misuse Court processes.
Rule 12.05. A lawyer shall refrain from talking to
this witness during a break or recess in the trial,
while the witness is still under examination.
Rule 12.06. A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a
witness
to
misrepresent
himself
or
to
Rule 12.07. A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat
or harass a witness nor needlessly inconvenience
him.
Rule 12.08. A lawyer shall avoid testifying in
behalf of his client, except:
a) on formal matters, such as the mailing,
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
another counsel.
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.
Rule 13.01. A lawyer shall not extend

extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek
opportunity for, cultivating familiarity with
Judges.
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.
Rule 13.03. A lawyer shall not brook or invite
interference by another branch or agency of the
government in the normal course of judicial
proceedings.
CHAPTER IV
THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT
CANON 14
A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the
needy.
Rule 14.01. A lawyer shall not decline to
represent a person solely on account of the
latters race, sex, creed or status of life, or
said person
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 IBP or any of its chapters for
rendition of free legal aid.
Rule 14.03. A lawyer may not refuse to accept
representation of an indigent unless:
a) he is in no position to carry out the work
effectively or competently
b) he labours under a conflict of interest
client
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.
CANON 15
A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with
his clients.
Rule 15.01. A lawyer, in conferring with a
prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as

130

client.
all judgements and executions he has secured

for his client as provided in the RoC.
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.
Rule 16.04. A lawyer shall not borrow money

from his client unless the clients 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.
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.
Rule 15.04. A lawyer may, with the written
consent of all concerned, act as a mediator,
Rule 15.05. A lawyer, when advising his client
shall give a candid and honest opinion on the
merits and probable results of the clients case,
neither
overstating
nor
understating
the
Rule 15.06. A lawyer shall not state or imply that
he is able to influence any public official, tribunal
or legislative body.
Rule 15.07. A lawyer shall impress upon his
client compliance with the laws and the principles
of fairness.
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.
CANON 16
A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come to his
possession.
Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money
or property collected or received for or from the
client.
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.
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
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 18.01. 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.
Rule 18.02. A lawyer shall not handle any legal
matter without adequate preparation.
Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the client's
request for information.
CANON 19
A lawyer shall keep represent his client with zeal
within the bounds of the law.
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.
Rule 19.02. A
lawyer who has received
information that his client has, in the course of
the representation, perpetrated 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.

131
Rule 19.03. A lawyer shall not allow his client to

dictate the procedure in handling the case.
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 service
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
g) The amount involved in the controversy and
service;
h) The
contingency
or
certainty
of
compensation;
i) The character of the employment, whether
j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
Rule 20.02. A lawyer shall, in case of referral,
with the consent of the client, be entitled to a
division of fees in proportion to the work
performed and responsibility assumed.
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.
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.
CANON 21
A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and
secrets of his client even after the attorneyclient 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
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 21.02. A lawyer shall not, to the

disadvantage of his client, use information
he use the same to his own advantage or that of
a third person, unless the client with full
thereto.
Rule 21.03. A lawyer shall not, without the
written consent of his client, give information
from his files to an outside agency seeking such
information for auditing, statistical, bookkeeping,
accounting, data processing, or any similar
purpose.
Rule 21.04. A lawyer may disclose the affairs of
a client of the firm to partners or associates
thereof unless prohibited by the client.
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 confidences or secrets of the clients.
Rule 21.06. A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet
conversation about a client's affairs even with
members of his family.
Rule 21.07. A lawyer shall not reveal that he has
been consulted about a particular case except to
avoid possible conflict of interest.
CANON 22
A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for a
good cause and upon notice appropriate in the
circumstances.
Rule 22.01. A lawyer may withdraw his services
in any of the following case:
b) When the client insists that the lawyer
rules;
c) When his inability to work with co-counsel
client;
d) When the mental or physical condition of the

132
e)
f)
g)
When the client deliberately fails to pay the

When the lawyer is elected or appointed to
public office; and
Other similar cases.
Rule 22.02. A lawyer who withdraws or is

discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien,
which the client is entitled, and shall cooperative
A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC

ADOPTING THE NEW CODE OF
JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR THE PHIL.
JUDICIARY
(June 1, 2004)
WHEREAS, at the Round Table Meeting of Chief

Justices held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on
25-26 November 2002, at which the Philippine
Supreme Court was represented by the Chief
Justice and Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno,
the Bangalore Draft of the Code of Judicial
Conduct adopted by the Judicial Group on
Strengthening Judicial Integrity was deliberated
upon and approved after incorporating therein
several amendments;
WHEREAS, the Bangalore Draft, as amended, is
intended to be the Universal Declaration of
Judicial Standards applicable in all judiciaries;
WHEREAS, the Bangalore Draft is founded upon
a universal recognition that a competent,
independent and impartial judiciary is essential if
the courts are to fulfill their role in upholding
constitutionalism and the rule of law; that public
confidence in the judicial system and in the
moral authority and integrity of the judiciary is of
utmost importance in a modern democratic
society; and that it is essential that judges,
individually and collectively, respect and honor
judicial office as a public trust and strive to
enhance and maintain confidence in the judicial
system;
WHEREAS, the adoption of the universal
declaration of standards for ethical conduct of
judges embodied in the Bangalore Draft as
revised at the Round Table Conference of Chief
Justices at The Hague is imperative not only to
update and correlate the Code of Judicial

Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics
adopted for the Philippines, but also to stress the
Philippines' solidarity with the universal clamor
for a universal code of judicial ethics.
Now, THEREFORE, the Court hereby adopts this
New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary:
CANON 1
INDEPENDENCE
Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the
rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair
trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and
exemplify judicial independence in both its
individual and institutional aspects.
Sec. 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial function
independently on the basis of their assessment
of the facts and in accordance with a
conscientious understanding of the law, free of
any extraneous influence, inducement, pressure,
threat or interference, direct or indirect, from
any quarter or for any reason.
Sec. 2. In performing judicial duties, Judges shall
be independent from judicial colleagues in
respect of decisions which the judge is obliged to
make independently.
Sec. 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in
any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute
pending before another court or administrative
agency.
Sec. 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or
other relationships to influence judicial conduct
or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall
not be used or lent to advance the private
interests of others, nor convey or permit others
to convey the impression that they are in a
special position to influence the judge.
Sec. 5. Judges shall not only be free from
inappropriate connections with, and influence by,
the executive and legislative branches of
government, but must also appear to be free
therefrom to a reasonable observer. .
Sec. 6. Judges shall be independent in relation to
society in general and in relation to the particular
parties to a dispute which he or she has to
adjudicate.
Sec. 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold
safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties in
order to maintain and enhance the institutional
and operational independence of the judiciary.

133
Sec. 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high

standards of judicial conduct in order to reinforce
public confidence in the judiciary which is
fundamental to the maintenance of judicial
independence.
CANON 2
INTEGRITY
Integrity is essential not only to the proper
discharge of the judicial office but also to the
personal demeanor of judges.
Sec. 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their
conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived
to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.
Sec. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must
reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the
judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but
must also be seen to be done.
Sec. 3. Judges should take or initiate appropriate
disciplinary measures against lawyers or court
personnel for unprofessional conduct of which
the judge may have become aware.
CANON 3
IMPARTIALITY
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge
of the judicial office. It applies not only to the
decision itself but also to the process by which
the decision is made.
Sec. 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties
without favor, bias or prejudice.
Sec. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her
conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and
enhances the confidence of the public, the legal
profession and litigants in the impartiality of the
judge and of the judiciary.
Sec. 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so
conduct themselves as to minimize the occasions
on which it will be necessary for them to be
disqualified from hearing or deciding cases.
Sec. 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a
proceeding is before, or could come before, them
make any comment that might reasonably be
expected to affect the outcome of such
proceeding or impair the manifest fairness of the
process. Nor shall judges make any comment in
public or otherwise that might affect the fair trial
of any person or issue.
Sec. 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from
participating in any proceedings in which they
are unable to decide the matter impartially or in
which it may appear to a reasonable observer

that they are unable to decide the matter
impartially. Such proceedings include, but are
not limited to, instances where
(h)
The judge has actual bias or prejudice
concerning a party or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceedings;
(i)
The judge previously served as a lawyer
or was a material witness in the matter in
controversy;
(j)
The judge, or a member of his or her
family, has an economic interest in the outcome
of the matter in controversy;
(k)
The
judge
served
as
executor,
administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the
case or matter in controversy, or a former
associate of the judge served as counsel during
their association, or the judge or lawyer was a
material witness therein;
(l)
The judge's ruling in a lower court is the
subject of review;
(m)
The judge is related by consanguinity or
affinity to a party litigant within the sixth civil
degree or to counsel within the fourth civil
degree; or
(n)
The judge knows that his or her spouse
or child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee,
creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject
matter in controversy or in a party to the
proceeding, or any other interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the
proceedings;
Sec. 6. A judge disqualified as stated above may,
instead of withdrawing from the proceeding,
disclose
on
the
records
the
basis
of
disqualification. If, based on such disclosure, the
parties and lawyers independently of the judge's
participation, all agree in writing that the reason
for the inhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial,
the judge may then participate in the
proceeding. The agreement, signed by all parties
and lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record
of the proceedings.
CANON 4
PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are
essential to the performance of all the activities
of a. judge.
Sec. 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of their
activities.
Sec. 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny,
judges must accept personal restrictions that
might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary
citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In

134
particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a

way that is consistent with the dignity of the
judicial office.
Sec. 3. Judges shall, in their personal relations
with individual members of the legal profession
who practice regularly in their court, avoid
situations which might reasonably give rise to
the suspicion or appearance of favoritism or
partiality.
Sec. 4. Judges shall not participate in the
determination of a case in which any member of
their family represents a litigant or is associated
in any manner with the case.
Sec. 5. Judges shall not allow the use of their
residence by a member of the legal profession to
receive clients of the latter or of other members
Sec. 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled
to freedom of expression, belief, association and
assembly, but in exercising such rights, they
shall always conduct themselves in such a
manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial
office and the impartiality and independence of
the judiciary.
Sec. 7. Judges shall inform themselves about
their personal fiduciary financial interests and
shall make reasonable efforts to be informed
about the financial interests of members of their
family.
Sec. 8. Judges shall not use or lend the prestige
of the judicial office to advance their private
interests, or those of a member of their family or
of anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit
others to convey the impression that anyone is in
a special position improperly to influence them in
the performance of judicial duties.
Sec. 9. Confidential information acquired by
judges in their judicial capacity shall not be used
or disclosed by for any other purpose related to
their judicial duties.
Sec. 10. Subject to the proper performance of
judicial duties, judges may
(d) Write, lecture, teach and participate in
activities concerning the law, the legal system,
the administration of justice or related matters;
(e) Appear at a public hearing before an official
body concerned with matters relating to the law,
the legal system, the administration of justice or
related matters;
(f) Engage in other activities if such activities do
not detract from the dignity of the judicial office
or otherwise interfere with the performance of
judicial duties.
135
Sec. 11. Judges shall not practice law whilst the
holder of judicial office.
Sec. 12. Judges may form or join associations of
judges or participate in other organizations
representing the interests of judges.
Sec. 13. Judges and members of their families
shall neither ask for, nor accept, any gift,
bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything
done or to be done or omitted to be done by him
or her in connection with the performance of
judicial duties.
staff or others subject to their influence,
direction or authority, to ask for, or accept, any
gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything
done or to be done or omitted to be done in
connection with their duties or functions.
Sec. 15. Subject to law and to any legal
requirements of public disclosure, judges may
receive a token gift, award or benefit as
appropriate to the occasion on which it is made
provided that such gift, award or benefit might
not reasonably be perceived as intended to
influence the judge in the performance of judicial
duties or otherwise give rise to an appearance of
partiality.
CANON 5
EQUALITY
Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the
courts is essential to the due performance of the
judicial office.
Sec. 1. Judges shall be aware of, and understand,
diversity in society and differences arising from
various sources, including but not limited to race,
color, sex, religion, national origin, caste,
disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation,
social and economic status and other like causes.
Sec. 2. Judges shall not, in the performance of
judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest
bias or prejudice towards any person or group on
irrelevant grounds.
Sec. 3. Judges shall carry out judicial duties with
appropriate consideration for all persons, such as
the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff and
judicial colleagues, without differentiation on any
irrelevant ground, immaterial to the proper
performance of such duties.
staff or others subject to his or her influence,
direction or control to differentiate between

persons concerned, in a matter before the judge,

on any irrelevant ground.
Sec. 5. Judges shall require lawyers in
proceedings before the court to refrain from
manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or
prejudice based on irrelevant grounds, except
such as are legally relevant to an issue in
proceedings and may be the subject of legitimate
advocacy.
CANON 6
Competence and diligence are prerequisites to
the due performance of judicial office.
Sec. 1. The judicial duties of a judge take
precedence over all other activities.
Sec. 2. Judges shall devote their professional
activity to judicial duties, which include not only
the performance of judicial functions and
responsibilities in court and the making of
decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the
judicial office or the court's operations.
Sec. 3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to
maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills and
personal qualities necessary for the proper
performance of judicial duties, taking advantage
for this purpose of the training and other
facilities which should be made available, under
judicial control, to judges.
Sec. 4. Judges shall keep themselves informed
about relevant developments of international
law, including international conventions and
other instruments establishing human rights
norms.
In this Code, unless the context otherwise

permits or requires, the following meanings shall
be attributed to the words used:
"Court staff" includes the personal staff of the
judge including law clerks.
"Judge" means any person exercising judicial
power, however designated.
"Judge's family" includes a judge's spouse, son,
daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, and any
other relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the sixth civil degree, or person who is a
companion or employee of the judge and who
lives in the judge's household.
This Code, which shall hereafter be referred to as
the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary, supersedes the Canons of
Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct
heretofore applied in the Philippines to the extent
that the provisions or concepts therein are
embodied in this Code: Provided, however, that
in case of deficiency or absence of specific
provisions in this New Code, the Canons of
Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct
shall be applicable in a suppletory character.
This New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary shall take effect on the first
day of June 2004, following its publication not
later than 15 May 2004 in two newspapers of
large circulation in the Philippines to ensure its
widest publicity.
Promulgated this 27th day of April 2004.
Sec. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties,

including the delivery of reserved decisions,
efficiently,
fairly
and
with
reasonable
promptness.
Sec. 6. Judges shall maintain order and decorum
in all proceedings before the court and be
patient, dignified and courteous in relation to
litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with
whom the judge deals in an official capacity.
Judges shall require similar conduct of legal
representatives, court staff and others subject to
their influence, direction or control.
Sec. 7. Judges shall not engage in conduct
incompatible with the diligent discharge of
judicial duties.
DEFINITIONS

136
ANNEXED RULES OF
COURT
RULE 138
ATTORNEYS AND ADMISSION TO BAR
[As amended by SC Resolutions dated May 20,

1968 and February 13, 1992.]
Sec 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 3. Requirements for lawyers who are
citizens of the United States of America.
Citizens of the USA 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 my

knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as
well 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."
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 7. Time for filing proof of qualifications.All
applicants for admission shall file with the clerk
of the Supreme Court the evidence required by

137
section 2 of this rule at least 15 days before the

beginning of the examination. If not embraced
within sections 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.
Sec. 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 10 days before the beginning of the
examination.
Sec. 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 Pleading and Conveyancing).
Sec. 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 examiners 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.
Sec. 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 designated by the
chairman of the committee on bar examiners.
The subjects shall be distributed as follows:
1st day:
Political
and
International
Law
(morning) and Labor and Social
Legislation (afternoon);
2nd day: Civil Law (morning) and Taxation
(afternoon);
3rd day: Mercantile Law (morning) and Criminal
Law (afternoon);
4th day: Remedial Law (morning) and Legal
Ethics
and
Practical
Exercises
(afternoon).
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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
provision, 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.
Sec. 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 % in all
subjects, without falling below 50 % in any
subject. In determining the average, the subjects
in the examination shall be given the following
relative weights: Civil Law, 15 %; Labor and
Social Legislation, 10 %; Mercantile Law, 15 %;
Criminal Law; 10 %; Political and International
Law, 15 %; Taxation, 10 %; Remedial Law, 20
%; Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises, 5 %.
Sec. 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 reports on the result of such examination. The
examination papers and notes of the committee
shall be fixed with the clerk and may there be
examined by the parties in interest, after the
court has approved the report.

138
Sec. 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 to 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 18. Certificate.The SC shall thereupon
admit the applicant as a member of the bar for
all the 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.
Sec. 19. Attorneys' roll. - The clerk of the SC
shall keep a roll of all attorneys admitted to
practice, which roll shall be signed by the person
admitted when he receives his certificate.
Sec. 20. Duties of attorneys.--It is the duty of an
attorney:
j) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and to support the Constitution
and obey the laws of the Philippines;
k) To observe and maintain the respect due to
the courts of justice and judicial officers;
l) 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;
m) 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;
n) 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
o) To abstain from all offensive personality and
to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or
p)
q)
r)
reputation of a party or witness, unless

required by the justice of the cause with
which he is charged;
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;
Never to reject, for any consideration
personal to himself, the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed;
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.
Sec. 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 attorney wilfully appearing 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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

139
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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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
adverse 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.
Sec. 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 admission to
practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly
or wilfully 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 29. Upon suspension by 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 or 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 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 32. Compensation for attorneys de oficio.
Subject to availability of funds as may be
provided by law the court may, in its discretion,
order an attorney employed as counsel de oficio
to be compensated in such sum as the court may
fix in accordance with section 24 of this rule.
Whenever such compensation is allowed, it shall
not be less than thirty pesos (P30.00) in any
case, nor more than the following amounts: (1)

140
Fifty pesos (P50.00) in light felonies; (2) One

hundred pesos (P100.00) in less grave felonies;
(3) Two hundred pesos (P200.00) in grave
felonies other than capital offenses; (4) Five
hundred pesos (P500.00) in capital offenses.
Sec. 33. Standing in court of persons 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.
Sec. 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 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 36. Amicus curiae.The court may, in
special cases, and upon proper application,
permit the appearance, as amici curiae, of those
lawyers who in its opinion can help in the
disposition of the matter before it; or it may, on
its own initiative, invite prominent attorneys to
appear as amici curiae in such special cases.
Sec. 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.
RULE 138-A
LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE
(Dec. 18, 1986)
Sec 1. Conditions for student practice.A law

student who has successfully complete his 3rd
year of the regular 4 year prescribed law
curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law
schools
clinical
legal
education
program
approved by the SC, 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 IBP duly accredited by the law school.
Any 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.
Sec 3. Privileged Communication.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.
Sec 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.
RULE 139-B
DISBARMENT & DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEYS
(June 1, 1988)
[Outlined]

141
A.
HOW INSTITUTED AND BY WHOM
Sec 1. How instituted. - Proceedings for

disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys
may be taken by the SC motu proprio, or by the
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 SC 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 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.
B. GROUNDS
See Rule 138 Sec. 27 supra
C.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE IBP

1.
Assignment to Investigator
Sec. 2. National Grievance Investigator. - The

Board of Governors shall appoint from among
IBP members an Investigator or, when special
circumstances so warrant, a panel of 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
within
the
4th
degree
of
consanguinity 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. Any Investigator may
also be removed for cause, after due hearing, by
the vote of at least 6 members of the IBP Board
Governors. The decision of the Board of
Governors in all cases of disqualification or
removal shall be final.
Sec. 3. Duties of the National Grievance
Investigator.
The
National
Grievance
Investigators shall investigate all complaint
against members of the Integrated Bar referred
to them by the IBP Board of Governors.
Sec. 4. Chapter assistance to complainant. - The
proper
IBP
Chapter
may
assist
the
complainant(s) in the preparation and filing of
his complaint(s).
2.
Service on Respondent
Sec. 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 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 SC which may
review the case motu proprio or upon timely
appeal of the complainant filed within 15 days
from notice of the dismissal of the complainant.
No investigation shall be interrupted or
terminated by reason of the (1) desistance, (2)
settlement, (3) compromise, (4) restitution, (5)
withdrawal of the charges, or (6) failure of the
complainant to prosecute the same.
3.
Answer
Sec. 6. Verification and service of answer. - The

answer shall be verified. The original and 5
legible copies of the answer shall be filed with
the Investigator, with proof of service of a copy
thereof on the complainant or his counsel.
4.
Investigation Proper

142
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
The Investigator shall terminate the investigation
within 3 months from the date of its
commencement unless extended for good cause
by the Board of Governors upon prior
application.
Willfull 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
contemptor 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 this
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 like period fifteen (15)
days issue a resolution setting forth its findings
and recommendations, which `shall forthwith be
transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action
and if warranted, the imposition of penalty.
Sec. 9. Depositions. - Depositions may be taken
in accordance with the Rules of Court with leave
of the investigator(s).
Within 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 members 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.
5.
Report
Sec. 10. Report of Investigator. - Not later than

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
transcripts 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 reproduce substantially
from the Investigator's personal notes any
relevant and pertinent testimonies.
Sec. 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 such remedial action as the
circumstance may warrant, including invalidation
of the entire proceedings.
6
Decision or Review
Sec. 12. View 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 of the case, shall forthwith be
transmitted to the SC for final action.
c. If the respondent is exonerated by the Board
or the disciplinary sanction imposed by it is
less than suspension or disbarment (such as
admonition, [warning,] 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
filed with the Supreme Court within 15 days

143
d.
from notice of the Boards resolution, the

Supreme Court orders otherwise.
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.
D. PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT

Sec. 13. Supreme Court Investigators. - In
proceedings initiated motu proprio by the SC in
other proceedings when the interest of justice so
requires, the SC may refer the case for
investigation to the Solicitor General or to any
officer of the SC 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 report of the
investigation shall be conducted directly by the
Supreme Court.
Sec. 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 SC shall submit to the SC a resolution
containing
his
findings
of
fact
and
recommendations together the record and all the
evidence presented in the investigation for the
final action of the SC.
E.
full investigation of the case and may revoke,

shorten or extend the suspension, or disbar the
attorney as the facts may warrant.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 19. Expenses. - All reasonable and
necessary expenses incurred in relation to
disciplinary and disbarment proceedings are
lawful charges forthwith the parties may be
taxed as costs.
EFFECTIVITY
Sec. 20. Effectivity and Transitory Provision. This Rule shall take effect on June 1, 1988 and
shall supersede the present Rule 139 entitled
"DISBARMENT
OR
SUSPENSION
OF
ATTORNEYS". 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.
EFFECTS
Sec. 15. Suspension of attorneys by Supreme

Court. - After receipt of respondent's answer or
lapse of the period therefor, the Supreme Court,
motu proprio, or at the instance of the IBP Board
of Governors upon the recommendation of the
Investigator, may suspend an attorney from the
practice of his profession for any of the causes
specified in Rule 138, Section 27, during the
pendency of the investigation until such
suspension is lifted by the Supreme Court.
Sec. 16. Suspension of attorney by the Court of
Appeals or 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.
Sec. 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
RULE 140
CHARGES AGAINST JUDGES OF
INSTANCE
(as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10 SC)
(Oct. 1. 2001)
FIRST
Sec. 1. How Instituted.Proceedings for the

discipline of Judges of regular and special courts
and Justices of the CA and the Sandiganbayan
may be instituted (1) motu propio by the SC or
(2) upon a verified complaint, supported by
affidavits of persons who have personal
knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by
documents
which
may
substantiate
said
allegations or (3) upon an anonymous complaint,
supported by public records of indubitable
integrity.
The complaint shall be in writing and shall state
clearly and concisely the acts and omissions
constituting violations of standards of conduct
prescribed for Judges by law, the RoC, or the
Code of Judicial Conduct.

144
Sec. 2. Action on complaint.If the complaint is

sufficient in form and substance, a copy thereof
shall be served upon the respondent and he shall
be required to comment within 10 days from the
date of service. Otherwise, the same shall be
dismissed.
Sec. 3. By whom complaint investigated.Upon
the filing of respondents comment, or upon the
expiration of the time for filing the same and
unless other pleading or documents are required,
the Court shall (1) refer the matter to the Office
of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report
and recommendation or (2) assign the case for
investigation, report and recommendation to a
retired member of the SC, if the respondent is a
Justice of the CA and the Sandiganbayan, or (3)
to a Justice of the CA if the respondent is a
Judge of a RTC or of a special court of equivalent
rank, or (4) to a Judge of the RTC if the
respondent is a Judge of an inferior court.
Sec. 4. Hearing. The investigating Justice or
Judge shall set a day for the hearing and send
notice thereof to both parties. At such hearing,
the parties may present oral and documentary
evidence. If after due notice, the respondent
fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed ex
parte.
Investigating Justice of Judge shall terminate the
investigation within 90 days from the date of its
commencement or within an extension as the SC
may grant.
Sec. 5. Report.
Within 30 days from the
termination of the investigation, the investigating
Justice or Judge shall submit to the SC a report
containing
the
findings
of
fact
and
recommendation.
The
report
shall
be
accompanied by the record containing the
evidence and the pleadings filed by the parties.
The report shall be confidential and shall be for
the exclusive se for the Court.
Sec. 6. ActionThe Court shall take such notice
on the report as the facts and the law may
warrant.
Sec. 7. Classification of Charges. Administrative
charges are classified as serious, less serious or
light.
Sec. 8. Serious Charges.
Serious charges
include:
1. Bribery, direct of indirect;
2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Law (RA 3019);
3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of
the Code of Judicial Conduct
4.
Knowingly rendering an unjust judgement or

order as determined by a competent court in
an appropriate proceeding;
5. Conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude;
6. Willful failure to pay a just debt;
7. Borrowing money or property from lawyers
and litigants in a case pending before the
court;
8. Immorality;
9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;
10. Partisan political activities; and
11. Alcoholism and / or vicious habits.
Sec. 9. Less Serious ChargesLess serious
charges include:
1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order,
or in transmitting the records of a case;
2. Frequent and unjustified absences without
leave or habitual tardiness;
3. Unauthorized practice of law;
4. Violations of SC rules, directives and
circulars;
5. Receiving additional or double compensation,
unless specifically authorized by law;
6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of
service; and
7. Simple misconduct.
Sec. 10 Light ChargesLight charges include:
1. Vulgar and unbecoming conduct;
2. Gambling in public;
3. Fraternizing with lawyers and litigants with
pending case / cases in his court; and
4. Undue delay in the submission of monthly
reports.
Sec. 11 Sanctions
A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious
charge, any of the following sanctions may
be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of
all or part of the benefits as the Court
may determine, and disqualifications
from reinstatement or appointment to
any public office, including governmentowned
or
controlled
corporations.
Provided, however, that the forfeiture of
benefits shall in no case include accrued
leave credits;
2. Suspension form office without salary
and other benefits for more than 3 but
not exceeding 6 months, or
3. A fine of more than P20,000 but not
exceeding P40,000
B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious
charge, any of the following sanctions shall
be imposed.

145
1.
C.
Suspension form office without salary

and other benefits for not less than 1
month not more than 3 months; or
2. A fine of more than P10,000 but not
exceeding P20,000
If the respondent is guilty of a light charge,
any of the following sanctions shall be
imposed.
1. A fine of not less than P1,000 but not
exceeding 10,000 and / or
2. Censure;
3. Reprimand;
4. Admonition with warning.
Sec. 12. Confidentiality of Proceedings.

Proceedings against Judges of regular and
special courts and Justices of the CA and the
Sandiganbayan shall be private and confidential,
but a copy of the decision or resolution of the
Court shall be attached to the record of the
respondent in the Office of the Court
Administrator.
Code of Professional Responsibility, and the

Canons of Professional Ethics, or for such other
forms or breaches of conduct that have been
traditionally recognized as grounds for discipline
of lawyers.
In any of the foregoing instances, the
administrative case shall also be considered a
disciplinary action against the respondent
Justice, judge or court official concerned as a
member of the Bar.
The respondent may
forthwith be required to comment on the
complaint and show cause why he should not
also be suspended, disbarred or otherwise
disciplinarily sanctioned as a member of the Bar.
Judgement in both respects may be incorporated
in one decision or resolution.
This resolution shall supplement Rule 140 of the
RoC and shall take effect on the first day of Oct.
2002.
It shall apply to administrative cases
already filed where the respondents have not yt
been required to comment on the complaints.
This resolution shall be published in a newspaper
of general circulation in the Philippines.
These amendments to Rule 140 shall take effect

on Oct. 1, 2001 following their publication in 2
newspapers of general circulation on or before
Sept. 15, 2001.
ANNEXED ETC.
SUPREME COURT
ISSUANCES
2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE

(Aug. 1, 2004)
RULE I
IMPLEMENTATION
A.M. No. 02-9-02
Sec. 1. Title. - These Rules shall be known as the

2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
A.M. No. 02-9-02 Re: Automatic conversion of

some administrative cases against Justices of the
CA and the Sandiganbyan; Judges of Regular and
Special Courts; and court officials who are
lawyers as disciplinary proceedings against them
both as such officials and as Members of the
Philippine Bar.
Sec. 2. 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.
Some administrative cases against Justices of

the CA and the Sandiganbayan; judges of regular
and special courts; and court officials who are
lawyers are based on grounds which are likewise
grounds for the disciplinary action of members of
the Bar for violation of the Lawyers Oath, the
Sec. 3. Interpretation. - Unless the context of

these Rules otherwise indicates, words in the
singular include the plural, and words in the
plural include the singular.
RULE II

146
DEFINITIONS
Sec. 1. Acknowledgment. - "Acknowledgment"
refers to an act in which an individual on a single
occasion:
a.
appears in person before the notary
public and presents an integrally complete
instrument or document;
b.
is attested to be personally known to the
notary public or identified by the notary
public through competent evidence of
identity as defined by these Rules; and
c.
represents to the notary public that the
signature on the instrument or document
was voluntarily affixed by him for the
purposes stated in the instrument or
document, declares that he has executed the
instrument or document as his free and
voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a
particular representative capacity, that he
has the authority to sign in that capacity.
Sec. 2. Affirmation or Oath. - The term
"Affirmation" or "Oath" refers to an act in which
an individual on a single occasion:
a.
public;
b.
is personally known to the notary public
or identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by
these Rules; and
c.
avows under penalty of law to the whole
truth of the contents of the instrument or
document.
Sec. 3. Commission. - "Commission" refers to
the grant of authority to perform notarial acts
and to the written evidence of the authority.
Sec. 4. Copy Certification. - "Copy Certification"
refers to a notarial act in which a notary public:
a.
is presented with an instrument or
document that is neither a vital record, a
public record, nor publicly recordable;
b.
copies or supervises the copying of the
instrument or document;
c.
compares the instrument or document
with the copy; and
d.
determines that the copy is accurate and
complete.
Sec. 5. Notarial Register. - "Notarial Register"
refers to a permanently bound book with
numbered pages containing a chronological
record of notarial acts performed by a notary
public.
Sec. 6. Jurat. - "Jurat" refers to an act in which
an individual on a single occasion:
a.
b.
c.
d.

public and presents an instrument or
document;
these Rules;
signs the instrument or document in the
presence of the notary; and
takes an oath or affirmation before the
notary public as to such instrument or
document.
Sec. 7. Notarial Act and Notarization. - "Notarial

Act" and "Notarization" refer to any act that a
notary public is empowered to perform under
these Rules.
Sec.
8.
Notarial
Certificate.
"Notarial
Certificate" refers to the part of, or attachment
to, a notarized instrument or document that is
completed by the notary public, bears the
notary's signature and seal, and states the facts
attested to by the notary public in a particular
notarization as provided for by these Rules.
Sec. 9. Notary Public and Notaty. - "Notary
Public" and "Notary" refer to any person
commissioned to perform official acts under
these Rules.
Sec. 10. Principal. - "Principal" refers to a person
appearing before the notary public whose act is
the subject of notarization.
Sec. 11. Regular Place of Work or Business. The term "regular place of work or business"
refers to a stationary office in the city or
province wherein the notary public renders legal
and notarial services.
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; or
b.
the oath or affirmation of one credible
witness not privy to the instrument,
document or transaction who is personally
known to the notary public and who
personally knows the individual, or of two
credible witnesses neither of whom is privy
to the instrument, document or transaction
who each personally knows the individual
and shows to the notary public documentary
identification.
Sec. 13. Official Seal or Seal. - "Official seal" or
"Seal" refers to a device for affixing a mark,

147
image or impression on all papers officially

signed by the notary public conforming the
requisites prescribed by these Rules.
Sec. 14. Signature Witnessing. -The term
"signature witnessing" refers to a notarial act in
which an individual on a single occasion:
a.
public and presents an instrument or
document;
b.
these Rules; and
c.
signs the instrument or document in the
presence of the notary public.
Sec. 15. Court. - "Court" refers to the Supreme
Court of the Philippines.
Sec. 16. Petitioner. - "Petitioner" refers to a
person who applies for a notarial commission.
Sec. 17. Office of the Court Administrator. "Office of the Court Administrator" refers to the
Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme
Court.
Sec. 18. Executive Judge. - "Executive Judge"
refers to the Executive Judge of the Regional
Trial Court of a city or province who issues a
notarial commission.
Sec. 19. Vendor - "Vendor" under these Rules
refers to a seller of a notarial seal and shall
include a wholesaler or retailer.
Sec. 20. Manufacturer. - "Manufacturer" under
these Rules refers to one who produces a
notarial seal and shall include an engraver and
seal maker.
RULE III
COMMISSIONING OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Sec. 1. 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
5.
Court and the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines; and
must not have been convicted in the first
instance of any crime involving moral
turpitude.
Sec. 2. Form of the Petition and Supporting

Documents. - Every petition for a notarial
commission shall be in writing, verified, and shall
include the following:
a) a statement containing the petitioner's
personal
qualifications,
including
the
petitioner's
date
of
birth,
residence,
telephone number, professional tax receipt,
roll
of
attorney's
number
and
IBP
membership number; ,
b) certification of good moral character of the
petitioner by at least two (2) executive
officers of the local chapter of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines where he is applying
for commission;
c) proof of payment for the filing of the petition
as required by these Rules; and
d) three (3) passport-size color photographs
with light background taken within thirty
(30) days of the application. The photograph
should not be retouched. The petitioner shall
sign his name at the bottom part of the
photographs.
Sec. 3. Application Fee. - Every petitioner for a
notarial commission shall pay the application fee
as prescribed in the Rules of Court.
Sec. 4. Summary Hearing on the Petition. - The
Executive Judge shall conduct a summary
hearing on the petition and shall grant the same
if:
a) the petition is sufficient in form and
substance;
b) the
petitioner
proves
the
allegations
contained in the petition; and
c) the petitioner establishes to the satisfaction
of the Executive Judge that he has read and
fully understood these Rules.
The Executive Judge shall forthwith issue a
commission and a Certificate of Authorization to
Purchase a Notarial Seal in favor of the
petitioner.
Sec. 5. Notice of Summary Hearing.
a) The notice of summary hearing shall be
published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city or province where the
hearing shall be conducted and posted in a
conspicuous place in the offices of the
Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court.
The cost of the publication shall be borne by
the petitioner. The notice may include more
than one petitioner.

148
b)
The notice shall be substantially in the

following form;
NOTICE OF HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a summary hearing
on the petition for notarial commission of (name
of petitioner) shall be held on (date) at (place) at
(time). Any person who has any cause or reason
to object to the grant of the petition may file a
verified written opposition thereto, received by
the undersigned before the date of the summary
hearing.
______________
Executive Judge
Sec. 6. Opposition to Petition. - Any person who
has any cause or reason to object to the grant of
the petition may file a verified written opposition
thereto. The opposition must be received by the
Executive Judge before the date of the summary
hearing.
Sec. 7. Form of Notarial Commission. - The
commissioning of a notary public shall be in a
formal order signed by the Executive Judge
substantially in the following form:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ______________
This is to certify that (name of notary public) of
(regular place of work or business) in (city or
province) was on this (date) day of (month) two
thousand and (year) commissioned by the
undersigned as a notary public, within and for
the said jurisdiction, for a term ending the thirtyfirst day of December (year)
_______________
Executive Judge
Sec. 8. Period Of Validity of Certificate of
Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal. - The
Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial
Seal shall be valid for a period of three (3)
months from date of issue, unless extended by
the Executive Judge.
A mark, image or impression of the seal that
may be purchased by the notary public pursuant
to the Certificate shall be presented to the
Executive Judge for approval prior to use.
Sec. 9. Form of Certificate of Authorization to
Purchase a Notarial Seal. -The Certificate of
Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal shall
substantially be in the following form:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF_____________
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE
A NOTARIAL SEAL
This is to authorize (name of notary public) of
(city or province) who was commissioned by the
undersigned as a notary public, within and for
the said jurisdiction, for a term ending, the
thirty-first of December (year) to purchase a

notarial seal.
Issued this (day) of (month) (year).
_______________
Executive Judge
Sec. 10. Official Seal of Notary Public. - Every
person commissioned as notary public shall have
only one official seal of office in accordance with
these Rules.
Sec. 11. Jurisdiction and Term. - 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.
Sec. 12. Register of Notaries Public. - The
Executive Judge shall keep and maintain a
Register of Notaries Public in his jurisdiction
which shall contain, among others, the dates of
issuance or revocation or suspension of notarial
commissions, and the resignation or death of
notaries public. The Executive Judge shall furnish
the Office of the Court Administrator information
and data recorded in the register of notaries
public. The Office of the Court Administrator shall
keep a permanent, complete and updated
database of such records.
Sec. 13. Renewal of Commission. - A notary
public may file a written application with the
Executive Judge for the renewal of his
commission within forty-five (45) days before the
expiration thereof. A mark, image or impression
of the seal of the notary public shall be attached
to the application.
Failure to file said application will result in the
deletion of the name of the notary public in the
register of notaries public.
The notary public thus removed from the
Register of Notaries Public may only be
reinstated therein after he is issued a new
commission in accordance with these Rules.
Sec. 14. Action on Application for Renewal of
Commission. - The Executive Judge shall, upon
payment of the application fee mentioned in
Section 3 above of this Rule, act on an
application for the renewal of a commission
within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof. If
the application is denied, the Executive Judge
shall state the reasons therefor.
RULE IV
POWERS
PUBLIC
AND
LIMITATIONS
OF
NOTARIES

149
Sec. 1. Powers.
a) A notary public is empowered to perform the
following notarial acts:
1) acknowledgments;
2) oaths and affirmations;
3) jurats;
4) signature witnessings;
5) copy certifications; and
6) any other act authorized by these Rules.
b) A notary public is authorized to certify the
affixing of a signature by thumb or other
mark on an instrument or document
presented for notarization if:
1) 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;
2) both witnesses sign their own names in
addition to the thumb or other mark;
3) 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
4) the notary public notarizes the signature
by thumb or other mark through an
acknowledgment, jurat, or signature
witnessing.
c) A notary public is authorized to sign on
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)"; and
5) the notary public notarizes his signature
by acknowledgment or jurat.
Sec. 2. Prohibitions.
a) 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:
(1) public offices, convention halls, and
similar places where oaths of office may
be administered;
b)
(2) public function areas in hotels and

similar places for the signing of
instruments or documents requiring
notarization;
(3) hospitals and other medical institutions
where a party to an instrument or
document is confined for treatment; and
(4) any place where a party to an
instrument
or
document
requiring
notarization is under detention.
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.
Sec. 3. Disqualifications. - A notary public is

disqualified from performing a notarial act if he:
(a) is a party to the instrument or document
that is to be notarized;
(b) 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; or
(c) 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:
(a) the notary knows or has good reason to
believe that the notarial act or transaction is
unlawful or immoral;
(b) 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 a notarial act; and
(c) in the notary's judgment, the signatory is
not acting of his or her own free will.
Sec. 5. False or Incomplete Certificate. - A
notary public shall not:
(a) execute a certificate containing information
known or believed by the notary to be false.
(b) affix an official signature or seal on a notarial
certificate that is incomplete.
Sec. 6. Improper Instruments or Documents. - A
notary public shall not notarize:

150
(a) a blank or incomplete instrument or

document; or
(b) an
instrument
or
document
without
appropriate notarial certification.
RULE V
FEES OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Sec. 1. Imposition and Waiver of Fees. - For
performing a notarial act, a notary public may
charge the maximum fee as prescribed by the
Supreme Court unless he waives the fee in whole
or in part.
Sec. 2. Travel Fees and Expenses. - A notary
public may charge travel fees and expenses
separate and apart from the notarial fees
prescribed in the preceding section when
traveling to perform a notarial act if the notary
public and the person requesting the notarial act
agree prior to the travel.
Sec. 3. Prohibited Fees. - No fee or
compensation of any kind, except those
expressly prescribed and allowed herein, shall be
collected or received for any notarial service.
Sec. 4. Payment or Refund of Fees. - A notary
public shall not require payment of any fees
specified herein prior to the performance of a
notarial act unless otherwise agreed upon.
Any travel fees and expenses paid to a notary
public prior to the performance of a notarial act
are not subject to refund if the notary public had
already traveled but failed to complete in whole
or in part the notarial act for reasons beyond his
control and without negligence on his part.
Sec. 5. Notice of Fees. - A notary public who
charges a fee for notarial services shall issue a
receipt registered with the Bureau of Internal
Revenue and keep a journal of notarial fees. He
shall enter in the journal all fees charged for
services rendered.
A notary public shall post in a conspicuous place
in his office a complete schedule of chargeable
notarial fees.
RULE VI
NOTARIAL REGISTER
Sec. 1. Form of Notarial Register.
(a) A notary public shall keep, maintain, protect
and provide for lawful inspection as provided
in these Rules, a chronological official
notarial register of notarial acts consisting of
a permanently bound book with numbered
pages.
The register shall be kept in books to be
furnished by the Solicitor 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,
the Solicitor General shall certify the number
of pages of which the book consists.
For
purposes
of
this
provision,
a
Memorandum
of
Agreement
or
Understanding may be entered into by the
Office of the Solicitor General and the Office
of the Court Administrator.
(b) A notary/ public shall keep only one active
notarial register at any given time.
Sec. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register.
(a) For every notarial act, the notary shall
record in the notarial register at the time of
notarization the following:
(1) the entry number and page number;
(2) the date and time of day of the notarial
act;
(3) the type of notarial act;
(4) the title or description of the instrument,
document or proceeding;
(5) the name and address of each principal;
(6) the competent evidence of identity as
defined by these Rules if the signatory is
not personally known to the notary;
(7) the name and address of each credible
witness swearing to or affirming the
person's identity;
(8) the fee charged for the notarial act;
(9) the address where the notarization was
performed if not in the notary's regular
place of work or business; and
(10)
any
other
circumstance the notary public may
deem of significance or relevance.
(b) A notary public shall record in the notarial
register the reasons and circumstances for
not completing a notarial act.
(c) A notary public shall record in the notarial
register the circumstances of any request to
inspect or copy an entry in the notarial
register, including the requester's name,
address, signature, thumbmark or other
recognized identifier, and evidence of
identity. The reasons for refusal to allow
inspection or copying of a journal entry shall
also be recorded.
(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 said records a brief description
of the substance thereof and shall give to
each entry a consecutive number, beginning
with number one in each calendar year. He
shall also retain a duplicate original copy for
the Clerk of Court.
(e) The notary public shall give to each
instrument or document executed, sworn to,
or acknowledged before him a number
corresponding to the one in his register, and

151
shall also state on the instrument or

document the page/s of his register on which
the same is recorded. No blank line shall be
left between entries.
(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 demand for the
sum of money was made, by whom, when,
and where; whether he presented such
draft, bill or note; whether notices were
given, to whom and in what manner; where
the same was made, when and to whom and
where directed; and of every other fact
touching the same.
(g) At the end of each week, the notary public
shall certify in his notarial register the
number of instruments or documents
executed, sworn to, acknowledged, or
protested before him; or if none, this
certificate shall show this fact.
(h) A certified copy of each month's entries and
a duplicate original copy of any instrument
acknowledged before the notary public shall,
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
officer. If there is no entry to certify for the
month, the notary shall forward a statement
to this effect in lieu of certified copies herein
required.
Sec. 3. Signatures and Thumbmarks. - At the
time of notarization, the notary's notarial register
shall be signed or a thumb or other mark affixed
by each:
(a) principal;
(b) credible witness swearing or affirming to the
identity of a principal; and
(c) witness to a signature by thumb or other
mark, or to a signing by the notary public on
behalf of a person physically unable to sign.
Sec. 4. Inspection, Copying and Disposal.
(a) In the notary's presence, any person may
inspect an entry in the notarial register,
during regular business hours, provided;
(1) the person's identity is personally known
to the notary public or proven through
competent evidence of identity as
defined in these Rules;
(2) the person affixes a signature and
thumb
or
other
mark
or
other
recognized identifier, in the notarial
.register in a separate, dated entry;
(3) the person specifies the month, year,
type of instrument or document, and
name of the principal in the notarial act
or acts sought; and
(4) the person is shown only the entry or

entries specified by him.
(b) The notarial register may be examined by a
law enforcement officer in the course of an
official investigation or by virtue of a court
order.
(c) If the notary public has a reasonable ground
to believe that a person has a criminal intent
or wrongful motive in requesting information
from the notarial register, the notary shall
deny access to any entry or entries therein.
Sec. 5. Loss, Destruction or Damage of Notarial
Register.
(a) In case the notarial register is stolen, lost,
destroyed, damaged, or otherwise rendered
unusable or illegible as a record of notarial
acts, the notary public shall, within ten (10)
days after informing the appropriate law
enforcement agency in the case of theft or
vandalism, notify the Executive Judge by any
means providing a proper receipt or
acknowledgment, including registered mail
and also provide a copy or number of any
pertinent police report.
(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.
Sec. 6. Issuance of Certified True Copies. - The
notary public shall supply a certified true copy of
the notarial record, or any part thereof, to any
person applying for such copy upon payment of
the legal fees.
RULE VII
SIGNATURE AND SEAL OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Sec. 1. Official Signature. - In notarizing a paper
instrument or document, a notary public shall:
(a) sign by hand on the notarial certificate only
the name indicated and as appearing on the
notary's commission;
(b) not sign using a facsimile stamp or printing
device; and
(c) affix his official signature only at the time
the notarial act is performed.
Sec. 2. Official Seal.
(a) Every person commissioned as notary public
shall have a seal of office, to be procured at
his own expense, which shall not be
possessed or owned by any other person. It
shall be of metal, circular in shape, two
inches in diameter, and shall have the name
of the city or province and the word
"Philippines" and his own name on the
margin and the roll of attorney's number on
the face thereof, with the words "notary

152
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
public" across the center. A mark, image or

impression of such seal shall be made
directly on the paper or parchment on which
the writing appears.
The official seal shall be affixed only at the
time the notarial act is performed and shall
be clearly impressed by the notary public on
every page of the instrument or document
notarized.
When not in use, the official seal shall be
kept safe and secure and shall be accessible
only to the notary public or the person duly
authorized by him.
Within five (5) days after the official seal of a
notary public is stolen, lost, damaged or
other otherwise rendered unserviceable in
affixing a legible image, the notary public,
after
informing
the
appropriate
law
enforcement agency, shall notify the
Executive Judge in writing, providing proper
receipt
or
acknowledgment,
including
registered mail, and in the event of a crime
committed, provide a copy or entry number
of the appropriate police record. Upon
receipt of such notice, if found in order by
the Executive Judge, the latter shall order
the notary public to cause notice of such loss
or damage to be published, once a week for
three (3) consecutive weeks, in a newspaper
of general circulation in the city or province
where the notary public is commissioned.
Thereafter, the Executive Judge shall issue to
the notary public a new Certificate of
Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal.
Within five (5) days after the death or
resignation of the notary public, or the
revocation or expiration of a notarial
commission, the official seal shall be
surrendered to the Executive Judge and shall
be destroyed or defaced in public during
office hours. In the event that the missing,
lost or damaged seal is later found or
surrendered, it shall be delivered by the
notary public to the Executive Judge to be
disposed of in accordance with this section.
Failure to effect such surrender shall
constitute contempt of court. In the event of
death of the notary public, the person in
possession of the official seal shall have the
duty to surrender it to the Executive Judge.
Sec. 3. Seal Image. - The notary public shall

affix a single, clear, legible, permanent, and
photographically reproducible mark, image or
impression of the official seal beside his
signature on the notarial certificate of a paper
instrument or document.
(a) A vendor or manufacturer of notarial seals

may not sell said product without a written
authorization from the Executive Judge.
(b) Upon written application and after payment
of the application fee, the Executive Judge
may issue an authorization to sell to a
vendor or manufacturer of notarial seals
after verification and investigation of the
latter's qualifications. The Executive Judge
shall charge an authorization fee in the
amount of Php 4,000 for the vendor and Php
8,000
for
the
manufacturer.
If
a
manufacturer is also a vendor, he shall only
pay the manufacturer's authorization fee.
(c) The authorization shall be in effect for a
period of four (4) years from the date of its
issuance and may be renewed by the
Executive Judge for a similar period upon
payment of the authorization fee mentioned
in the preceding paragraph.
(d) A vendor or manufacturer shall not sell a
seal to a buyer except upon submission of a
certified copy of the commission and the
Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a
Notarial Seal issued by the Executive Judge.
A notary public obtaining a new seal as a
result of change of name shall present to the
vendor or manufacturer a certified copy of
the Confirmation of the Change of Name
issued by the Executive Judge.
(e) Only one seal may be sold by a vendor or
manufacturer
for
each
Certificate
of
Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal,
(f) After the sale, the vendor or manufacturer
shall affix a mark, image or impression of
the seal to the Certificate of Authorization to
Purchase a Notarial Seal and submit the
completed Certificate to the Executive Judge.
Copies of the Certificate of Authorization to
Purchase a Notarial Seal and the buyer's
commission shall be kept in the files of the
vendor or manufacturer for four (4) years
after the sale.
(g) A notary public obtaining a new seal as a
result of change of name shall present to the
vendor a certified copy of the order
confirming the change of name issued by the
Executive Judge.
RULE VIII
NOTARIAL CERTIFICATES
Sec. 1. Form of Notarial Certificate. - The
notarial form used for any notarial instrument or
document shall conform to all the requisites
prescribed herein, the Rules of Court and all
other provisions of issuances by the Supreme
Court and in applicable laws.
Sec. 4. Obtaining and Providing Seal.

153
Sec. 2. Contents of the Concluding Part of the

Notarial Certificate. - The notarial certificate shall
include the following:
(a) the name of the notary public as exactly
indicated in the commission;
(b) the serial number of the commission of the
notary public;
(c) the words "Notary Public" and the province
or city where the notary public is
commissioned, the expiration date of the
commission, the office address of the notary
public; and
(d) the
roll
of
attorney's
number,
the
professional tax receipt number and the
place and date of issuance thereof, and the
IBP membership number.
RULE IX
CERTIFICATE
PUBLIC
OF
AUTHORITY
OF
NOTARIES
Sec. 1. Certificate of Authority for a Notarial Act.

- A certificate of authority evidencing the
authenticity of the official seal and signature of a
notary public shall be issued by the Executive
Judge upon request in substantially the following
form:
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY FOR A NOTARIAL
ACT
I, (name, title, jurisdiction of the Executive
Judge), certify that (name of notary public), the
person named in the seal and signature on the
attached document, is a Notary Public in and for
the (City/Municipality/Province) of the Republic
of the Philippines and authorized to act as such
at the time of the document's notarization.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed below my
signature and seal of this office this (date) day of
(month) (year).
_________________
(official signature)
(seal of Executive Judge)
RULE X
CHANGES OF STATUS OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Sec. 1. Change of Name and Address.
Within ten (10) days after the change of name of
the notary public by court order or by marriage,
or after ceasing to maintain the regular place of
work or business, the notary public shall submit
a signed and dated notice of such fact to the
Executive Judge.
The notary public shall not notarize until:
(a) he receives from the Executive Judge a
confirmation of the new name of the notary
public and/or change of regular place of
work or business; and
(b) a new seal bearing the new name has been
obtained.
The
foregoing
notwithstanding,
until
the
aforementioned steps have been completed, the
notary public may continue to use the former
name or regular place of work or business in
performing notarial acts for three (3) months
from the date of the change, which may be
extended once for valid and just cause by the
Executive Judge for another period not exceeding
three (3) months.
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.
Sec. 3. Publication of Resignation. - The
Executive Judge shall immediately order the
Clerk of Court to 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 resigned their notarial commissions and the
effective dates of their resignation.
RULE XI
REVOCATION
OF
COMMISSION
DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS
AND
Sec. 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;
(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;

154
(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).
Sec. 2. Supervision and Monitoring of Notaries
Public. - The Executive Judge shall at all times
exercise supervision over notaries public and
shall closely monitor their activities.
Sec. 3. Publication of Revocations and
Administrative Sanctions. - The Executive Judge
shall immediately order the Clerk of Court to
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
commissions have been revoked.
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 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.
Sec. 2. Reports to the Supreme Court. - The
Executive
Judge
concerned
shall
submit
semestral reports to the Supreme Court on
discipline and prosecution of notaries public.
RULE XIII
REPEALING AND EFFECTIVITY PROVISIONS
Sec. 1. Repeal. - All rules and parts of rules,
including issuances of the Supreme Court
inconsistent herewith, are hereby repealed or
accordingly modified.
Sec. 2. Effective Date. - These Rules shall take
effect on the first day of August 2004, and shall
be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines which provides
sufficiently wide circulation.
Promulgated this 6th day of July, 2004.
B.M. No. 850 August 22, 2000

MANDATORY
CONTINUING
LEGAL
EDUCATION (MCLE)
ADOPTING THE RULES ON MANDATORY
CONTINUING
LEGAL
EDUCATION
FOR
MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES
EN BANC
RESOLUTION
Sec. 4. Death of Notary Public. - If a notary

public dies before fulfilling the obligations in
Section 4(e), Rule VI and Section 2(e), Rule VII,
the Executive Judge, upon being notified of such
death, shall forthwith cause compliance with the
provisions of these sections.
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 XII
RULE 1

155
PURPOSE
Sec. 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
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
(g)
The remaining six (6) hours shall be
devoted to such subjects as may be
prescribed by the MCLE Committee.
RULE 3
COMPLIANCE PERIOD
Sec. 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.
Sec. 2. Compliance Group 1. Members in the
National Capital Region (NCR) or Metro Manila
shall be permanently assigned to Compliance
Group 1.
Sec. 3. Compliance Group 2. Members in Luzon

outside NCR shall be permanently assigned to
Compliance Group 2.
Sec. 4. Compliance Group 3. Members in Visayas
and Mindanao shall be permanently assigned to
Compliance Group 3.
Sec. 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
Sec. 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, ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS
BY APPROVED PROVIDERS UNDER RULE 7
AND OTHER RELATED RULES
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

156
2.
3.
RESOURCE 3 CU PER HOUR PHOTOCOPY

OF PLAQUE OR SPONSOR'S SPEAKER
CERTIFICATION
ASSIGNED
2
CU
PER
HOUR
CERTIFICATION
FROM SPONSORING
PENALIST/
ORGANIZATION
REACTOR/COMMENTATOR
MODERATOR/
2
CU
PER
HOUR
CERTIFICATION
FROM SPONSORING
COORDINATOR/
ORGANIZATION
FACILITATOR
AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND REVIEW
RESEARCH/ 5-10 CREDIT UNITS DULY
CERTIFIED/PUBLISHED
INNOVATIVE
TECHNICAL
REPORT/PAPER
PROGRAM/CREATIVE PROJECT
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
BOOK EDITOR 1/2 OF THE CU OF
PUBLISHED
BOOK
WITH
PROOF
AUTHORSHIP AS EDITOR CATEGORY
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
LEGAL 3-6 CU PER ISSUE PUBLISHED
NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL
NEWSLETTER/LAW JOURNAL EDITOR
PROFESSIONAL 6 CU PER CHAIR
CERTIFICATION OF LAW DEAN CHAIR/BAR 1
CU PER LECTURE OR BAR REVIEW
DIRECTOR REVIEW/ HOUR LECTURE/LAW
TEACHING
Sec. 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
Sec. 1. Classes of credits The credits are either
participatory or non-participatory.
Sec.
2.
Claim
for
participatory
credit.
Participatory credit may be claimed for:
(a)
Attending approved education activities
like seminars, conferences, symposia, inhouse 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.
157
Sec. 3. Claim for non-participatory credit Nonparticipatory 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
Sec. 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
Sec. 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,
incumbent members of the Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education Committee,
incumbent court lawyers who have availed of
the Philippine Judicial Academy program of
continuing judicial education; (as amended
by July 14, 2004 Resolution of the SC en
banc)
(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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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
ACTIVITIES
FOR APPROVAL
OF
EDUCATION
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
RULE 9
APPROVAL OF PROVIDERS
Sec 1. Approval of providers. Approval of
providers shall be done by the MCLE Committee.
Sec. 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;
Sec. 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

158
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
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.
The provider shall issue a record or
certificate to all participants identifying the
time, date, location, subject matter and
length of the activity.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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
Sec. 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
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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
Sec. 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.
Sec. 2. Non-compliance notice and 60-day
period to attain 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.

159
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.
RULE 13
CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE
Sec. 1. Non-compliance fee. A member who, for
whatever reason, is in non-compliance at the end
of the compliance period shall pay a noncompliance fee.
Sec. 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
Sec. 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 noncompliance 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 noncompliance in excess of the number needed to
satisfy the prior compliance period requirement
may be counted toward meeting the current
compliance period requirement.
The members of the Committee shall be of

proven probity and 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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
Sec 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.

160
161
ANNEXED
LEGISLATIVE AND
EXECUTIVE ISSUANCES
R.A. 6033 (1969)
AN
ACT
REQUIRING
COURTS
TO
GIVE
PREFERENCE TO CRIMINAL CASES WHERE THE
PARTY OR PARTIES INVOLVE ARE INDIGENTS.
Sec. 1. Any provision of existing law to be
contrary notwithstanding and with the exception
of habeas corpus and election cases and cases
involving detention prisoners, and persons
covered by Republic Act Numbered Four
thousand nine hundred eight, all courts shall give
preference to the hearing and/or disposition of
criminal cases where an indigent is involved
either as the offended party or accused. The trial
in these cases shall commence within three days
from date of arraignment and no postponement
of the hearings shall be granted except on the
ground of illness of the accused or other similar
justifiable grounds. City and provincial fiscals and
courts shall forthwith conduct the preliminary
investigation of a criminal case involving an
indigent within three days after its filing and
shall terminate the same within two weeks.
Sec. 2. As used in this Act, the term "indigent"
shall refer to a person who has no visible means
of income or whose income is insufficient for the
subsistence of his family, to be determined by
the fiscal or judge, taking into account the
members of his family dependent upon him for
subsistence.
Sec. 3. An indigent who is the offended party,
respondent or an accused in a criminal case and
who desires to avail of the preference granted
under this Act shall file a sworn statement of the
fact of his being indigent and the said sworn
statement shall be sufficient basis for the court
or fiscal to give preference to the trial and
disposition of such criminal case.
Sec. 4. Any wilful or malicious refusal on the part
of any fiscal or judge to carry out the provisions
of this Act shall constitute sufficient ground for
disciplinary action which may include suspension
or removal.
Sec. 5. This
approval.
Act
shall
take
effect
upon
its
Approved: August 4, 1969
RA 6034 (1969)
AN ACT PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION AND

OTHER ALLOWANCES FOR INDIGENT LITIGANTS.
Sec. 1. Any provision of existing law to the
contrary notwithstanding, any indigent litigant
may, upon motion, ask the Court for adequate
travel allowance to enable him and his indigent
witnesses to attendant the hearing of a criminal
case commenced by his complaint or filed
against him. The allowance shall cover actual
transportation expenses by the cheapest means
from his place of residence to the court and
back. When the hearing of the case requires the
presence of the indigent litigant and/or his
indigent witnesses in court the whole day or for
two or more consecutive days, allowances may,
in the discretion of the Court, also cover
reasonable expenses for meal and lodging.
For the purpose of this Act, indigent litigants
shall include anyone who has no visible means of
income or whose income is insufficient for his
family as determined by the Court under Section
2, hereof.
Sec. 2. If the court determines that the petition
for transportation allowance is meritorious, said
court shall immediately issue an order directing
the provincial, city or municipal treasurer to pay
the indigent litigant the travel allowance out of
any funds in his possession and proceed without
delay to the trial of the case. The provincial, city
or municipal treasurer shall hold any such
payments as cash items until reimbursed by the
national government.
Sec. 3. All payments of travel allowances made
by provincial, city and municipal treasurer under
this Act as of October 31 each year, shall be
transmitted to the Commissioner of the Budget
not later than November 30 each year for
inclusion in the annual General Appropriations
Act. The necessary sum is hereby authorized to
be appropriated out of the funds in the National
Treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Sec. 4. This Act shall take effect upon its
approval.

Approved: August 4, 1969

d.
RA 6035 (1969)
AN ACT REQUIRING STENOGRAPHERS TO GIVE

FREE TRANSCRIPT OF NOTES TO INDIGENT AND
LOW INCOME LITIGANTS AND PROVIDING A
PENALTY FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF.
Sec. 1. A stenographer who has attended a
hearing before an investigating fiscal or trial
judge or hearing commissioner of any quasijudicial body or administrative tribunal and has
officially taken notes of the proceeding thereof
shall, upon written request of an indigent or low
income litigant, his counsel or duly authorized
representative in the case concerned, give within
a reasonable period to be determined by the
fiscal, judge, commissioner or tribunal hearing
the case, a free certified transcript of notes take
by him on the case.
Sec. 2. A litigant who desires to avail himself of
the privilege granted under Section one hereof
shall, at the investigation, hearing, or trial,
establish his status as an indigent or low income
litigant and the investigating fiscal or judge or
commissioner or tribunal hearing the case shall
resolve the same in the same proceeding.
For the purpose of this Act, an "indigent or low
income litigant" shall include anyone who has no
visible means of support or whose income does
not exceed P300 per month or whose income
even in excess of P300 per month is insufficient
for the subsistence of his family, which fact shall
be determined by the investigating fiscal or trial
judge or commissioner or tribunal hearing the
case taking into account the number of the
members of his family dependent upon him for
subsistence.
Sec. 3. Any stenographer who, after due hearing
in accordance with the pertinent provisions of
R.A. 2260, as amended, has been found to have
violated the provisions of Section one of this Act
or has unreasonable delayed the giving of a free
certified transcript of notes to an indigent or low
income litigant shall be subject to the following
disciplinary actions:
b.
suspension from office for a
period not exceeding thirty (30) days upon
finding of guilt for the first time;
c.
(b) suspension from office for
not less than thirty (30) days and not more
than sixty (60) days upon finding of guilt for

the second time; and
removal from office upon finding
of guilt for the third time.
Sec. 4. This Act shall apply to all indigent or low

income litigants who, at the time of its approval,
have pending cases in any fiscal office, court, or
quasi-judicial body or administrative tribunal.
Sec. 5. The Department of Justice shall prescribe
such rules and regulations as may be necessary
to carry out the purposes of this Act, and the
Department Head concerned shall provide the
necessary supplies and authorize the use of
government equipment by the stenographers
concerned.
Sec. 6. This Act shall take effect upon its
approval.
Approved: August 4, 1969.
P.D. 543 (1974)
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
WHEREAS, under existing law, Municipal Judges
and other lawyers in the government service are
prohibited from practicing law;
WHEREAS, there are some places where there
are no available legal practitioners, as a result of
which the trial of cases in court is delayed to the
prejudice particularly of detention prisoners;
WHEREAS, for the protection of the rights of the
accused who cannot afford to hire lawyers from
other places and to prevent miscarriage of
justice, it is necessary that they be provided with
counsel;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS,
President of the Philippines, by virtue of the
powers in me vested by the Constitution as
commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, and pursuant to Proclamation No.
1081, dated September 21, 1972, and General
Order No. 1, dated September 22, 1972, as
amended, do hereby order and decree as
follows:

162
Sec. 1. Designation of Municipal Judges and

lawyers in any branch of the government service,
as counsel de oficio. In places where there are
no available practicing lawyers, the District Judge
or Circuit Criminal Court Judge shall designate a
municipal judge or a lawyer employed in any
branch, subdivision or instrumentality of the
government within the province, as counsel de
oficio for an indigent person who is facing a
criminal charge before his court, and the services
of such counsel de oficio shall be duly
compensated by the Government in accordance
with Section thirty-two, Rule One Hundred Thirty
Eight of the Rules of Court.
If the criminal case wherein the services of a
counsel de oficio are needed is pending before a
City or municipal court, the city or municipal
judge concerned shall immediately recommend
to the nearest District Judge the appointment of
a counsel de oficio, and the District Judge shall
forthwith appoint one in accordance with the
preceding paragraph.
For purposes of this Decree an indigent person is
anyone who has no visible means of support or
whose income does not exceed P300 per month
or whose income even in excess of P300 is
insufficient for the subsistence of his family,
which fact shall be determined by the Judge in
whose court the case is pending, taking into
account the number of the members of his family
dependent upon him for subsistence.
Sec. 2. Repealing Clause. All laws and decrees
inconsistent with this Decree are hereby
repealed.
Section 3. Effectivity. This Decree shall take
effect immediately.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 21st day of
August, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen
hundred and seventy-four.
P.D. 1829. (1981)
PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION

AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS
WHEREAS, crime and violence continue to
proliferate despite the sustained vigorous efforts
of the government to effectively contain them;
WHEREAS, to discourage public indifference or
apathy
towards
the
apprehension
and
prosecution of criminal offenders, it is necessary
to penalize acts which obstruct or frustrate or
tend to obstruct or frustrate the successful

apprehension and prosecution of criminal
offenders;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND, E. MARCOS,
President of the Philippines, by virtue of the
powers vested in me by law do hereby decree
and order the following:
Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in
its maximum period, or a fine ranging from
1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed
upon any person who knowingly or willfully
obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the
apprehension of suspects and the investigation
and prosecution of criminal cases by committing
any of the following acts:
(a)
preventing witnesses from testifying in
any criminal proceeding or from reporting
the commission of any offense or the identity
of any offender/s by means of bribery,
misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force
or threats;
(b)
altering, destroying, suppressing or
concealing any paper, record, document, or
object, with intent to impair its verity,
authenticity,
legibility,
availability,
or
admissibility as evidence in any investigation
of or official proceedings in, criminal cases,
or to be used in the investigation of, or
official proceedings in, criminal cases;
(c)
harboring or concealing, or facilitating
the escape of, any person he knows, or has
reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has
committed any offense under existing penal
laws in order to prevent his arrest
prosecution and conviction;
(d)
publicly using a fictitious name for the
purpose of concealing a crime, evading
prosecution or the execution of a judgment,
or concealing his true name and other
personal circumstances for the same
purpose or purposes;
(e)
delaying the prosecution of criminal
cases by obstructing the service of process
or court orders or disturbing proceedings in
the fiscal's offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the
courts;
(f)
making, presenting or using any record,
document, paper or object with knowledge
of its falsity and with intent to affect the
course or outcome of the investigation of, or
official proceedings in, criminal cases;
(g)
soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to
accept any benefit in consideration of
abstaining from, discounting, or impeding
the prosecution of a criminal offender;
(h)
threatening directly or indirectly another
with the infliction of any wrong upon his
person, honor or property or that of any
immediate member or members of his family

163
in order to prevent such person from

appearing in the investigation of, or official
proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a
condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in
order to prevent a person from appearing in
the investigation of or in official proceedings
in, criminal cases;
(i)
giving of false or fabricated information
to mislead or prevent the law enforcement
agencies from apprehending the offender or
from protecting the life or property of the
victim; or fabricating information from the
data gathered in confidence by investigating
authorities for purposes of background
information and not for publication and
publishing or disseminating the same to
mislead the investigator or to the court.
If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized
by any other law with a higher penalty, the
higher penalty shall be imposed.
Sec. 2. If any of the foregoing acts is committed
by a public official or employee, he shall in
addition to the penalties provided thereunder,
suffer perpetual disqualification from holding
public office.
Sec. 3. This Decree shall take effect immediately.
Done in the City of Manila, this 16th day of
January, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen
hundred and eighty-one.

164

Ethics Up Reviewer

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ethics Up Reviewer

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

THE LEGAL

WHAT CONSTITUTES THE PRACTICE OF LAW

Practice of law: legal advice and

Cayetano v Monsod (Padilla dissent):

The practice of law is a mere privilege.

Not practice of law: writing law books/

Const art. VIII, sec. 5(5).

Const art. XII, sec. 14.

In the Matter of the IBP (1973)

Ulep v Legal Clinic, Inc (1993)

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

understood to be representing the legal clinic as

Cayetano v. Monsod (1991)

service of his livelihood or in consideration of his

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION

Rule 138, sec. 2.

Rule 138, sec. 6.

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

recognized university or college, requiring for

In re Telesforo Diao (1963)

citizen of the US in 1993. Likewise, his petition to

Rule 138, sec. 5.

Const. art. XII, sec. 14.

In re Arturo Castillo Reyes (1993)

Rule 138, Sec. 7.

Rule 138, sec. 8.

Rule 138, sec. 9.

Rule 138, sec. 10.

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

same for all examinees and a copy thereof, in

Rule 138, sec. 11.

Rule 138, Sec. 12.

Rule 138, Sec. 13.

Rule 138, Sec. 14.

Rule 138, sec. 15.

Rule 138, Sec. 16.

In re Adriano Hernandez (1993)

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

study law in a local school and follow the

ANY CRIMINAL CASE

an applicant must show that no charges

the concealment or withholding from the

a lawyers name may not be stricken off

GOOD MORAL CHARACTER

No definition and criteria in law for good

Moral character is what a person really is

Not enough that conduct merely enables a

Justice Felix Frankfurter: moral character =

Good moral character is the absence of a

No charges involving moral turpitude are filed

Question of moral turpitude is for SC to

Applicant assumes burden of proof to

That the bar examination committee has

Lawyers name may not be stricken off the

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

Al Argosino passed the 1993 bar examination.

WHO ELSE MAY PRACTICE LAW

General Rule: Only Members of the Bar

Rule 138, Sec 1. Who may practice

Metropolitan/ Municipal Trial Court: one may

no attorney-client relationship exists; not

Supreme Court can validly authorise

Question: Can legislature can permit by law