LEGAL PROFESSION

PRACTICE OF LAW
CONCEPT: It is a privilege. It is a profession, not a business

Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of
the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage
any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.

LAWYERS OATH
I,__________________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance
to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its constitution and obey the
laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I
will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not
willingly nor wittingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit,
or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or
malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my
knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the court as to my
clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligations without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God. (Form 28,
RRC)
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION (MCLE)
BAR MATTER 850: MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
(MCLE) (Adopting the Rules on the Continuing Legal Education for
Members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines) August 8, 2000
Purpose: 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.
Requirements of Completion of MCLE Members of the IBP, unless
exempted under Rule 7, shall complete every three (3) years at least 36
hours of continuing legal education activities.
The 36 hours shall be divided as follows:
a)
6 hours legal Ethics
b)
4 hours trial and pretrial skills
c)
5 hours alternative dispute resolution
d)
9 hours updates on substantive and procedural laws and
jurisprudence
e)
4 hours writing and oral advocacy
f)
2 hours international law and international conventions
g)
6 hours such other subjects as may be prescribed by the
Committee on MCLE

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 latter's 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.
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 partner accepts public office, he shall withdrawal from
the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law
allows him to practice law currently.
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.

Parties Exempted from the MCLE

1.
The President, Vice-President, and the Secretaries and
Undersecretaries of executive departments;
2.
Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
3.
The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the SC, incumbent and
retired justices of the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial
and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the
Philippine Judicial Academy Program of continuing legal education;
4.
The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant
Secretaries of the Department of Justice;
5.
The Solicitor-General and the Assistant Solicitor-General;
6.
The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant
Government Corporate Counsel;
7.
The Chairman and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
8.
The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy
Ombudsman and the Special
a.
Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
9.
Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
10. Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have
teaching experience for at least 10 years in accredited law schools;
11. The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of
Professional Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
Governors and Mayors

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 THE LAW AND
JURISPRUDENCE.

Other Exempted Parties

1.
Those who are not in law practice, private or public
2.
Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP
Board of Governors

CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

(Promulgated June 21, 1988)
CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY
THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF
AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.

CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN

GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is
not to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the
concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the
accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.
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.
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service.

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 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.

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY,

FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS 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 advice 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.
Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal
services with persons not licensed to practice law,
(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that,
upon the latter's death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of
time to his estate or to persons specified in the agreement; or
(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a
deceased lawyer; or
(c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a
retirement plan even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit
sharing agreement.
THE LAW AND SOCIETY (CANONS 1-6)
Canon 1: Promote and Respect the Law and Legal Process
Canon 2: Provide Efficient And Convenient Legal Services
Canon 3: Information On Legal Services That Is True, Honest, Fair And
Dignified
Canon 4: Support For Legal Reforms And Administration Of Justice
Canon 5: Participate In Legal Education
Canon 6:Canons Apply to Lawyers in Government Service
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. 1, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court]
CAYETANO V. MONSOD
(G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991)
(201 SCRA 210)
FACTS: Christian Monsod was nominated by the then President Corazon
C. Aquino asChairman of the COMELEC. Renato Cayetano opposed the
nomination alleging that Monsod does not possess the constitutional
requirement of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years. Monsod maintained that he is a member of the Philippine bar and
has practiced the law in various sectors.
ISSUE: Whether or not Christian Monsod possesses the constitutional
requirement for appointment of having been engaged in the practice of law.
HELD: YES. Practice of law has been defined as any activity, in or out of
court, which requires the application of law, legal principle, practice or
procedure, and calls for legal knowledge, training and experience. "To
engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are
characteristics of the profession. Atty. Monsod's past work experiences as
a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a
lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and
the poor - verily satisfy the constitutional requirement that he has been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence

by Alawi and proceeded to expound using acerbic language. Alauya also
wrote the NHMFC repudiating as void his contract with Villarosa and asking
for cancellation of his loan. Finally, Alauya wrote 3 other letters to officers of
the SC to stop deductions from his salary regarding the loan from NHMFC.
NHMFC also wrote the SC requesting it to stop said deductions. Learning of
the letters, Alawi filed a complaint alleging that Alauya committed malicious
and libellous charges and usurped the title of attorney.
ISSUE: Whether or not Alauya being a member of SHARIA BAR can use
the title ATTORNEY.
HELD: NO. The title ATTORNEY is reserved only for those who have
been admitted as members of the Integrated Bar. Court has already had an
occasion to declare that persons who pass the Sharia Bar are not fullfledged members of the Philippine Bar and may practice law only before
Sharia courts Alauyas wish of not using counsellor because of confusion
with councilor is immaterial because disinclination to use said title does
not warrant his use of the title attorney.
RE: PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE THE LAWYERS OATH
(Lawyers Oath)
(G.R. No. 712, March 19, 1997)
(270 SCRA 26)
FACTS: In 1991, Al Caparros Argosino was convicted for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide where he was sentenced with two years
imprisonment. He was later granted by the court with 2-years probation. In
1993, Argosino passed the bar examinations. The Court however deferred
his oath-taking due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Homicide.
ISSUE: Whether or not Argosino be allowed to take the lawyers oath.
HELD: The lawyer's oath is NOT a mere ceremony or formality for
practicing law. Every lawyer should at ALL TIMES weigh his actions
according to the sworn promises he makes when taking the lawyer's oath. If
all lawyers conducted themselves strictly according to the lawyer's oath and
the Code of Professional Responsibility, the administration of justice will
undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier for everyone concerned. The Court
however, allow Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys
and practice the legal profession give him the benefit of the doubt, taking
judicial notice of the youths tendency to be rash and uncalculating.
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)
Canon 3 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.
FACTS: Two separate Petitions were filed by the surviving partners of Atty.
Alexander Sycip and that of Atty. Herminio Ozaeta who died, praying that
they be allowed to continue using, in the names of their firms, the names of
partners who had passed away. They contended that the continued use of
the name of a deceased or former partner when permissible by local
custom, is not unethical but care should be taken that no imposition or
deception is practiced through this use. They further contended that no
local custom prohibits the continued use of a deceased partner's name in a
professional firm's name.

ALAWI V. ALAUYA

HELD: Surviving partners cannot continue to use the names of the

deceased partners. 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.

FACTS: Sophia Alawi is a sales representative of E. B. Villarosa & Partners

Co., Ltd. of Davao City, a real estate and housing company. Ashari M.
Alauya is the incumbent executive clerk of court of the 4th Judicial Shari'a
District in Marawi City. They were classmates, and used to be friends.
Through Alawis agency, a contract was executed for the purchase on
instalments by Alauya of a housing unit. A housing loan was also granted to
Alauya by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC).
Subsequently, Alauya wrote a letter to the Presidentof Villarosa advising
termination of his contract on the grounds that his consent was vitiated by

Note: This ruling has been abandoned by a new ruling in the latest
jurisprudence decided by the Supreme Court. It is said that 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. The
reason for allowing the continued use of the name of the deceased partner
is that all of the partners by their joint efforts over a period of years
contributed to the goodwill attached to the firm name, and this goodwill is
disturbed by a change in firm name every time a partner dies. The name of
a law firm may not necessarily identify the individual members of the firm,

and consequently, the continued use of the firm name after the death of one
or more partners is not a deception.
TAN V. SABANDAL
Canon 7 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 thediscredit of the legal
profession.
(B.M. No. 44, February 24, 1992)
(206 SCRA 493)
FACTS: Sabandal passed the 1987 Bar Examination. He was not allowed
to take his oath by the Supreme Court, in view of the finding by the latter of
that he is guilty of unauthorized practice of law. In his application for
admission, Sabandal claimed that there is no pending case against him. It
was later found out that he has a pending civil case in his court for
cancellation/reversion proceedings when the same was still working as
Investigator in the Bureau of Lands, wherein he was able to secure a free
patent and later a Certificate of Title over a swampland, which was later
mortgaged to a bank and was foreclosed, although, the case was amicably
settled.
ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent can still be admitted to the Practice of
Law?
HELD: No. Time and again, it has been held that the practice of law is not a
matter of right but is a privilege bestowed upon those who are not only
leaned in the law but also those who possess good moral character. The
acts of the respondent when he was still working with the Bureau of Land is
a manifestation of gross dishonesty while in the public service which cannot
be erased by the dismissal of the case. His failure to reveal the pendency of
the said case in his petitions reveals his lack of candor and truthfulness.
The term good moral character admits broad definitions, including even
common dishonesty.
Gross immorality reflective of unfitness to practice.
A grossly immoral act is one that is as corrupt and false as to constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a
high degree.
IN RE: PETITION TO TAKE THE LAWYER'S OATH BY ARTHUR M.
CUEVAS, JR.
The deliberate participation of Cuevas in the senseless beating of a
helpless neophyte which resulted to his death indicates that petitioner does
not possess the moral fitness required for admission to the Bar. However,
petitioner was discharged from probation without any infraction thereafter of
the conditions of the probation and the various certifications attesting to his
righteous, peaceful and civic-oriented character prove that he has taken
decisive steps to purge himself of his deficiency in moral character and
atone for the unfortunate death of Camaligan. The Court then decides to
give petitioner a chance in the same manner that it allowed AL ARGOSINO,
petitioners co-accused to take the lawyers oath.
PATERNO CANLAS V. CA, ET.AL.
For obvious reasons, Atty. Canlas placed his interests over and above
those of his client, in opposition to his oath to "conduct himself as a lawyer
... with all good fidelity ... to [his] clients." The Court finds the occasion fit
to stress that lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers
are not merchants, a fundamental standard that has, as a matter of
judicial notice, eluded not a few law advocates. The petitioner's efforts
partaking of a shakedown" of his own client are not becoming of a lawyer
and certainly, do not speak well of his fealty to his oath to "delay no man for
money."
IN RE CUNANAN
FACTS: Congress passed Republic Act Number 972, known as the Bar
Flunkers Act of 1953. By virtue of the said law, the Supreme Court then
passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an
average of 72 per cent by raising it to 75 percent. Many of the unsuccessful
post war candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking the
provision of the said law. To avoid injustice to individual petitioners and to
clear the doubts have been expressed as to its validity for being contrary to
public interest, the court resolved to review the validity of the said Act in
question.

ISSUE: Whether or not RA No. 972 is contrary to public interest.

HELD: RA No. 972 is contrary to public interest. The public interest
demands of legal profession adequate preparation and efficiency especially
because the legal problems evolved by the times become more difficult. An
adequate legal preparation is one of the vital requisites for the practice of
law that should be maintained firmly. To the legal profession is entrusted
the protection of property, life, honor and civil liberties. To approve officially
of those inadequately prepared individuals to dedicate themselves to such a
delicate mission is to create a serious social danger. By its declared
objective, the law in question is contrary to public interest because it
qualifies law graduates who confessedly had inadequate preparation for the
practice of the profession.
IN RE LETTER--COMPLAINT OF ATTY. ARIEL SAMSON O. CAYETUNA
ET.AL., ALL EMPLOYEES OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MICHAEL P.
ELBINAS AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MICHAEL P. ELBINAS, CA
MINDANAO STATION
There are three ways by which administrative proceedings against judges
may be instituted: (1) motu proprio by the Supreme Court; (2) upon
verified complaint with affidavits of persons having 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.
IN RE ALLEGATIONS MADE UNDER OATH AT THE SENATE BLUE
RIBBON COMMITTEE HEARING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2013
AGAINST
ASSOCIATE
JUSTICE
GREGORY
S.
ONG,
SANDIGANBAYAN
The court held that respondent is guilty of impropriety.
SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all of their activities.
A judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial and
that fraternizing with litigants tarnishes this appearance. 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.
Judges must, at all times, be beyond reproach and should avoid even the
mere suggestion of partiality and impropriety. Canon 4 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct states that "propriety and the appearance of propriety are
essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge."
Section 2 further provides:
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.
IN RE DECISION DATED 17 MARCH 2011 IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. SB-28362 ENTITLED, "PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JOSELITO C.
BARROZO", FORMER ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR JOSELITO C.
BARROZO, EN BANC
Joselito was then charged and convicted for Direct Bribery under paragraph
2 of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code before the Sandiganbayan.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, one of the grounds for
the suspension or disbarment of a lawyer is his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude. And with the finality of respondents conviction for
direct bribery, the next question that needs to be answered is whether direct
bribery is a crime that involves moral turpitude.
To consider a crime as one involving moral turpitude, the act
constituting the same must have been done contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals.
THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION (CANONS 7-9)
Canon 7: Uphold Dignity And Integrity In The Profession
Canon 8: Courtesy, Fairness, Candor Towards Professional Colleagues
Canon 9: Unauthorized Practice Of Law

1987 Philippine Constitution, Article XII, Section 14 (2) xxx The practice
of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save
in cases prescribed by law.
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES (1973)
FACTS: In 1970, convinced that there had grown a strong nationwide
sentiment in favor of Bar integration, the Court created the Commission on
Bar Integration for the purpose of ascertaining the advisability of unifying
the Philippine Bar. In September, 1971, Congress passed House Bill No.
3277 entitled "An Act Providing for the Integration of the Philippine Bar, and
Appropriating Funds Therefor." There were oppositions on the integration
on the grounds among others, of (1) its constitutionality and (2) the same
being outside the power of the Court to do so.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the integration of the Bar is unconstitutional.
2. Whether or not the Court has the power to integrate the Bar.
HELD:
1. The constitutionality of the Bar Integration hinges on its effects on the
lawyer's constitutional rights of freedom of association and freedom of
speech, and on the nature of the dues exacted from him. Integration of the
Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer population
of the Philippines. This requires membership and financial support (in
reasonable amount) of every attorney as conditions sine qua non to the
practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the
Supreme Court.
Designed to improve the position of the Bar as an instrumentality of justice
and the Rule of Law, integration fosters cohesion among lawyers, and
ensures, through their own organized action and participation, the
promotion of the objectives of the legal profession, pursuant to the principle
of maximum Bar autonomy with minimum supervision and regulation by the
Supreme Court. It does not in any manner violate the lawyers freedom of
association and freedom of speech.
2. The Court is of the view that it may integrate the Philippine Bar in the
exercise of its power, under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, "to
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,
and the admission to the practice of law."
INTEGRATION OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR (IBP)
RA 6397. The Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the
integration of the Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit in
order to raise the standards of the legal profession improve the
administration of justice and enable the bar to discharge its public
responsibility more effectively.
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES (1973)
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is
not already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he passed
the Bar examinations. All that integration actually does is to provide an
official national organization for the well-defined but unorganized and
incohesive group of which every lawyer is already a member.
The IBP is essentially a semi-governmental entity, a private organization
endowed with certain governmental attributes. While it is composed of
lawyers who are private individuals, the IBP exists to perform certain vital
public functions and to assist the government particularly in the
improvement of the administration of justice, the upgrading of the standards
of the legal profession, and its proper regulation.
General Objectives of the IBP
(1) To elevate the standards of the legal profession
(2) To improve the administration of justice
(3) To enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.
Purpose of the IBP
(1) Assist in the administration of justice;
(2) Foster and maintain on the part of its members high ideals of integrity,
learning, professional competence, public service and conduct;
(3) Safeguard the professional interest of its members;
(4) Cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood; (5)
Provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law reform,
pleading, practice and procedure, and the relations of the Bar to the Bench
and to the public, and publish information relating thereto; (6) Encourage
and foster legal education;

(7) Promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and

adjective law, and make reports and recommendations thereon.
IN RE 1989 ELECTIONS OF THE IBP (1989)
The basic postulate of the IBP is that it is non-political in character and that
there shall be neither 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
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
REQUIREMENTS TO THE ADMISSION TO PRACTICE LAW
RULE 138, RULES OF COURT, Section 2. Requirements for all applicants
for admission to the bar Every applicant for admission as a member of
the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of
age, of good moral character, and resident of the Philippines; and must
produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral
character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have
been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

must be a citizen of the Philippines;

At least 21 years of age;
of good moral character;
must be a resident of the Philippines;
Must produce before the Supreme Court a 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. 2, Rule
138, RRC);
Must have complied with the academic requirements;
Must pass the bar examinations
Take the lawyers oath; and s
Sign the Roll of Attorneys
CITIZENSHIP

1987 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. Rules
of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 2 Every applicant for admission as a member of
the bar must be a citizen of the Phils.
Rationale: Citizenship ensures allegiance to the Republic and its laws.
PETITION TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW OF BENJAMIN DACANAY,
(2007)
The loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to practice
law in the Philippines except when citizenship is lost by reason of
naturalization and reacquired through RA 9225.
CAMBALIZA V. CRISTAL-TENORIO
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.
A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to misrepresent himself
as a lawyer and to practice law is guilty of violating Canon 9 and Rule
9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
The term practice of law implies customarily or habitually holding
oneself out to the public as a lawyer for compensation as a source of
livelihood or in consideration of his services. Holding ones self out as a
lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that purpose like identifying
oneself as attorney, appearing in court in representation of a client, or
associating oneself as a partner of a law office for the general practice of
law. Such acts constitute unauthorized practice of law.
In this case, Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., is not a lawyer, but he holds
himself out as one. His wife, the respondent herein, abetted and aided
him in the unauthorized practice of the legal profession.
Atty. Cristal-Tenorio admitted that the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law
Office listed Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., Gerardo A. Panghulan, and Maricris

D. Battung as senior partners. She admitted that the first two are not
lawyers but paralegals. They are listed in the letterhead of her law
office as senior partners because they have investments in her law
office. That is a blatant misrepresentation.
The lawyers duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the
unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy.
Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those
individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The
permissive right conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited
privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of
moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the
court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of
those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary
control of the Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is
attained. Thus, the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin him not to
permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or to make
possible the unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, personal or
corporate. And, the law makes it a misbehavior on his part, subject to
disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law.
CASES OF GROSS IMMORALITY AND THE RESULTING
CONSEQUENCES
GEESLIN VS. NAVARRO AND CONRAD VS NAVARRO
Despite all these pronouncements and his awareness thereof, respondent
NAVARRO still continued to sell properties titled in the name of Ortigas &
Company and the Madrigals. Willful disobedience to any lawful order of
a superior court. DISBARRED.
ROYONG VS. OBLENA
Moral character is not a subjective term, but one which corresponds to
objective reality. Moral character is what a person really is, and not what he
or other people think he is. As former Chief Justice Moran observed: An
applicant for license to practice law is required to show good moral
character, or what he really is, as distinguished from good reputation, or
from the opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in which he is
held by the public in the place where he is known.
Seduction of a woman who is the niece of a married woman with whom
respondent lawyer had an adulterous relation.
Bigamy perpetrated by the lawyer. DISQUALIFIED FROM ADMISSION TO
THE BAR
COSMOS FOUNDRY WORKSHOP WORKER'S UNION, ET.AL. V. LO
BU, ET.AL.
The conduct of Atty. Bustamante is far from commendable. He could, of
course, be casuistic and take refuge in the fact that the paragraph of the
petition, which he denied, was, in addition to being rather poorly and
awkwardly worded, also prolix, with unnecessary matter being included
therein without due regard to logic or coherence or even rules of grammar.
He could add that his denial was to be correlated with his special defenses,
where he concentrated on points not previously admitted. That is the most
that can be said of his performance, and it is not enough. For even if such
be the case, Attorney Busmente had not exculpated himself. He was of
course expected to defend his client's cause with zeal, but not at the
disregard of the truth and in defiance of the clear purpose of labor statutes.
He ought to remember that his obligation as an officer of the court, no less
than the dignity of the profession, requires that he should not act like an
errand-boy at the beck and call of his client, ready and eager to do his
every bidding. If he fails to keep that admonition in mind, then he puts into
serious question his good standing in the bar.
DR. NORBERTO ALFONSO V. JUDGE MODESTO JUANSON
Judge Juanson maintained illicit sexual relations with Dr. Alfonsos wife Sol.
It must be stressed that the respondent is not charged with immorality or
misconduct committed before he was appointed to the judiciary. However,
judge should be held liable for becoming indiscreet. Such indiscretions
indubitably cast upon his conduct an appearance of impropriety.
Respondent and Sols meetings could incite suspicion of either the
relationships continuance or revival. He violated Canons 3 and 2
requiring judges official conduct to be free from appearance of
impropriety.
The imputation of the sexual acts upon the incumbent must be proven by
substantial evidence, which is required in admin cases. This what the
complainant failed to do.

GUEVARRA V. EALA
Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without
the benefit of marriage should be characterized as 'grossly immoral
conduct' depends on the surrounding circumstances." The case at bar
involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman
who is not his wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out
discreetly.
Furthermore, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging
in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct," and Rule 7.03
of Canon 7 of the same Code which proscribes a lawyer from
engaging in any "conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law." DISBARRED.
CORDOVA V. CORDOVA
Maintaining adulterous relationship with a married woman. SUSPENDED
INDEFINITELY
The most recent reconciliation between complainant and respondent,
assuming the same to be real, does not excuse and wipe away the
misconduct and immoral behavior of the respondent earn carried out in
public, and necessarily adversely reflecting upon him as a member of the
Bar and upon the Philippine Bar itself.
An applicant for admission to membership in the bar is required to show
that he possessed of good moral character. That requirement is not
exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar.
The lack of moral character that we here refer to as essential is not limited
to good moral character relating to the discharge of the duties and
responsibilities of an attorney at law. The moral delinquency that affects the
fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that
outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community.
MANALANG V. ANGELES
Atty Angeles should be suspended from the practice of law because
of grave misconduct related to his clients' funds. Tthere is no dispute
that complainants were awarded P6500 for unpaid overtime and separation
pay. 30% was agreed to be paid ot respondent as his attorney's fees.
Alleging difficulties in collecting te full amount awarded, respondent
compromised the award on execution and collected only P5500 from the
losing party. This compromise was allegedly without authority from his
clients. Atty Angeles failed to show any such authority.
Atty Angeles exhibited an uncaring lack of devotion to the interest of his
clients as well as want of zeal in the maintenance and defence of their
rights. SUSPENDED FOR 6 MONTHS.
WILKIE V. LIMOS
The Supreme Court (SC) has imposed the ultimate penalty of
disbarment on a lawyer who has become a repeat offender.
In a per curiam decision in AC No. 11246 (Pacao v. Atty. Limos)
promulgated on June 14, 2016, the high court also ordered the name of
Atty. Sinamar Limos stricken off the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately.
Limos violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by committing grave
misconduct and willful insubordination when she failed to neither attend the
scheduled hearings nor submit any position paper in the disbarment case
filed against her by complainant Arnold Pacao before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).
The SC noted that it was not the first time respondent Limos faced an
administrative case, stressing that she had already been twice suspended
from the practice of law, by this court, in Villaflores v. Atty. Limos and Wilkie
v. Atty. Limos.
CASTANEDA V. AGO
Canon 1 Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or
settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
FACTS: Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against the Agos to
recover certain machineries. Judgment was made in their favor. Levy was
made on Agos house and lots. Ago moved to stop the auction but the same
was dismissed. Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of preliminary injunction
to restrain sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution but his motions
were denied. Ago filed a complaint upon the judgment rendered against him
in the replevin suit saying it was his personal obligation and that his wife
share in their conjugal house could not legally be reached by the levy

made. The same was dismissed. Agos filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition to enjoin sheriff from enforcing writ of possession; SC dismissed
it. Agos filed a similar petition with the CA which also dismissed the petition.
Agos appealed to SC which dismissed the petition. Agos filed another
petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA which gave due course to
the petition and granted preliminary injunction.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Agos lawyer, encourage his clients to avoid
controversy
HELD: No. Despite the pendency in the trial court of the complaint for the
annulment of the sheriffs sale, justice demands that the petitioners, long
denied the fruits of their victory in the replevin suit, must now enjoy them,
for, the Agos abetted by their lawyer Atty. Luison, have misused legal
remedies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart the satisfaction of
the judgment, to the extended prejudice of the petitioners.
Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his exalted
position as an officer of the court, Atty. Luison has allowed himself to
become an instigator of controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a
mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, a virtuoso of
technicality in the conduct of litigation instead of a true exponent of the
primacy of truth and moral justice.
A counsels assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his clients
cause must be encouraged and is to be commended. What the SC does
not and cannot countenance is a lawyers insistence despite the patent
futility of his clients position. It is the duty of the counsel to advice his client
on the merit or lack of his case. If he finds his clients cause as defenseless,
then he is his duty to advice the latter to acquiesce and submit rather than
traverse the incontrovertible.
CATALINA ROXAS, ET.AL. V. CA
Thus, the petition to review the assailed resolutions must fail: Let this
serve as warning among members of the Philippine bar who take their
own sweet time with their cases if not purposely delay its progress for
no cogent reason. It does no credit to their standing in the profession.
More so when they do not file the required brief or pleading until their
motion is acted upon. Not only should they not presume that their
motion for extension of time will be granted by the court much less
should they expect that the extension that may be granted shall be
counted from notice. They should file their briefs or pleadings within
the extended period requested. Failing in this, they have only
themselves to blame if their appeal or case is dismissed.
IN RE LUIS B. TAGORDA
CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES
SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE
INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Section 27 of Rule 138 of Rules of Court - The practice of soliciting cases at
law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.
(53 Phil 37, March 23, 1929)
FACTS: Luis B. Tagorda, a practising attorney and a member of the
provincial board of Isabela, admits that previous to the last general
elections he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano that states
what he can do for the people as a lawyer and as a notary public. Also, he
wrote a letter to a lieutenant of his barrio asking him to inform the people in
any town meetings that he will still exercise his profession as a lawyer and
notary public despite his election as a Board member, even adding that he
will only charge three pesos for registration of their land titles.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tagorda is guilty of malpractice for soliciting
employment.
HELD: Tagorda is guilty of malpractice, for soliciting employment when he
used card that states his capabilities as a lawyer and a notary public and
writing a letter informing the people that he still exercises his profession
despite election as a board member. This violates Canon 3 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which states: "A lawyer in making
known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and
objective information or statements of facts." And Section 27 of Rule
138 which states: "The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice." Tagorda stands convicted of having solicited
cases in defiance of the law and those canons.

RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED, "RESTORING

INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE
PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF
PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT"
ISSUE: WON Dean Leonen violated Canon 10, Rules 10.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
HELD: Yes. In due consideration of Dean Leonens professed good
intentions, the Court deems it sufficient to admonish the former for failing to
observe full candor and honesty in his dealings with the Court as required
under Canon 10.
RATIO: CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
court. Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent
the contents of 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. To begin with, the Court said that live
public manifesto or not, the Statement was formally submitted to this Court
at a specific point in time and it should reflect accurately its signatories at
that point. The value of the Statement as a UP Law Faculty Statement lies
precisely in the identities of the persons who have signed it, since the
Statements persuasive authority mainly depends on the reputation and
stature of the persons who have endorsed the same.
IN RE PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS BY MICHAEL
MEDADO
Atty. Medado failed to sign in the roll of attorneys his scheduled date but
failed to because he misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys
given by the Bar Office when he went home to his province for a vacation.
Medado was made to wait for one year before being allowed to sign in the
Roll of Attorneys
Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law likewise transgresses
Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:
CANON 9 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the
unauthorized practice of law.
While a reading of Canon 9 appears to merely prohibit lawyers from
assisting in the unauthorized practice of law, the unauthorized practice of
law by the lawyer himself is subsumed under this provision, because at the
heart of Canon 9 is the lawyers duty to prevent the unauthorized practice of
law. This duty likewise applies to law students and Bar candidates. As
aspiring members of the Bar, they are bound to comport themselves in
accordance with the ethical standards of the legal profession.
IN RE JOAQUIN BORROMEO
Unauthorized practice of law is indirect contempt.
There can scarcely be any doubt of Borromeo's guilt of contempt, for abuse
of and interference with judicial rules and processes, gross disrespect to
courts and judges and improper conduct directly impeding, obstructing and
degrading the administration of justice. Joaquin Borromeo was declared
guilty of constructive contempt of court for repetitiously disrespecting the
decisions and resolutions issued by the courts, and even by issuing a
circular containing libelous and offending accusations (like whimsical
,capricious, and tyrannical) against the Supreme Court justices and its
employees.
He stubbornly litigated issues already declared to be without merit,
rendered adversely to him in many suits and proceedings, rulings which
had become final and executory, obdurately and unreasonably insisting on
the application of his own individual version of the rules, founded on
nothing more than his personal (and quite erroneous) reading of the
Constitution and the law; he has insulted the judges and court officers,
including the attorneys appearing for his adversaries, needlessly
overloaded the court dockets and sorely tried the patience of the judges
and court employees who have had to act on his repetitious and largely
unfounded complaints, pleadings and motions.
NUNEZ V. ATTY. RICAFORT
(A.C. No. 5054, May 29, 2002)
FACTS: Soledad Nunez authorized Atty. Romulo Ricafort to sell her parcels
of land. After having sold the lots, Nunez demanded from Atty. Ricafort the
proceeds of the sale but the latter failed to deliver the money. Atty. Ricafort
paid only a partial amount and issued post-dated

checks to cover the balance. Said checks however, were dishonoured

because the account against which they were drawn was closed.
Consequently, Nunez filed a motion to cite Atty. Ricafort for contempt for his
acts of misconduct and for his acts unbecoming of a lawyer.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Romulo Ricafort has committed acts of
misconduct in his dealings with Nunez.
HELD: YES. Rule 1:01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct. In the case at bar, Atty.
Ricafort gravely abused the confidence that his client has given in him and
committed dishonesty when he did not turn over the proceeds of the sale of
her property. He even closed the account against which the checks for the
payment of unpaid balance were drawn, which depicts that he never had
the intention of paying his obligation.
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT CYRIL DEL CALLAR V. JUDGE SANTOS ADIONG, RTC,
BRANCH 8, MARAWI CITY
Judge; gross ignorance of the law. Respondent Judge failed to conduct a
pre-trial conference contrary to elementary rules of procedure which he
should have known all too well considering his long years of service in the
bench. Such ignorance of a basic rule in court procedure, as failing to
conduct pre-trial, sadly amounts to gross ignorance and warrants a
corresponding penalty. As to the allegations of poor judgment and gross
ignorance of basic legal principles in granting the motions for execution
pending appeal for flimsy and unsupported reasons, the particular reasons
relied upon by respondent judge for issuing the writ of execution pending
appeal are so unreliably weak and feeble that it highlights the lack of
knowledge of respondent judge with regard tothe proper appreciation of
arguments. Dire financial conditions of the plaintiffs supported by mere selfserving statements as good reason for the issuance of a writ of
execution pending appeal does not stand on solid footing. It does not even
stand on its own.