Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

Legal Ethics

Syllabus and Course Guide

Legal Ethics course meets once a week 17 times over the course in the second semester
of SY 2017-2018 at the USJR SCHOOL OF LAW. Each 3-HOUR session consists of
oral recitations employing the Socratic Method, quizzes, lectures and case analysis, and
group activities. Unless otherwise noted, all lectures begin at 12:00 noon and ends at 3:00
p.m.

To successfully complete the course, each student must satisfactorily complete:


- at least 100 cases digested
- 3 examinations
- a maximum of 17 quizzes
- at least 5 rounds of oral recitations

PROFESSOR:
- The professor for this course is Domingo P. delos Angeles, Jr., who is a
Priest, Attorney-at-Law, Doctor in Management, Real Estate Broker, and an
Educator [BSE, Major in Physics]
- He is currently a member of the board of directors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, Cebu City Chapter, and chairs its Committee on Bar Discipline.
- He is member of the Legal Panel of the Cebu Archdiocese, and an Associate
Lawyer at the TSMLD Law Offices (Tequillo, Suson, Manuales, Lerios,
Dumaliang)
- He can be reached at dan.delosangeles@gmail.com

COURSE DESCRIPTION:

This course covers basic notions on the practice of law, and the basic principles
governing the ethical practice of law enshrined in the Code of Professional responsibility,
in the Rules of Court, in the Constitution, in Jurisprudence and the different issuances of
the Supreme Court. It will also discuss the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary.

The specific areas that this course will cover include the duties of the lawyer to the
Public, to his Colleagues, to the Court, and to his Client, the nature and definition of the
practice of law, the Persons Authorized to Practice Law and exceptions, Public Officials
Prohibited from Engaging in Practice of Law, Public Officials with Restricted Right to
Practice Law, Power to Regulate Law Practice, Nature of Power to Admit Candidates to
Legal Profession, Requirements for Bar Candidates, Requisites for Bar Admission,
Duties of the Office of a Lawyer, the Lawyer’s Oath, the Code of Professional
Responsibility for Lawyers, and the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary.

1
COURSE OBJECTIVES:

At the completion of this course, the student should be able to:

- Digest cases related to the Legal Practice, the Code of Professional Responsibility,
and the Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
- Memorize by heart the Lawyer’s Oath.
- Describe and explain the duties of the lawyer to the Public, to his Colleagues, to the
Court, and to his client.
- Identify who among the public officials who are lawyers suffer absolute prohibition
to practice law while holding public office, and those who are allowed a limited
practice.
- Demonstrate with mastery of the 22 canons of professional conduct of lawyers and
the Code of Judicial conduct.
- Enumerate the requirements for admission to the Bar and the requirements for bar
candidates.
- Demonstrate basic understanding of the Notarial Law in the Philippines.
- Apply the ethical rules to issues on the advertising of services of a lawyer.

2
READING ASSIGNMENTS:

Cases mentioned in the syllabus are required reading. In addition to the assigned cases,
students should also familiarize themselves with the various legal documents mentioned
in the lecture.

WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS:

The student is required to submit digests in handwritten format on a yellow pad of at least
10 cases per meeting. These will count for 10% of the student’s grade for the course.
Evaluation of the digests will be as follows:

• Quantity (30%) - ten cases every week


• Quality (40%)- neatness, legible handwriting, grammar and English construction
• Timeliness (30%)-
a. on or before the date due for submission – 100%
b. submitted on the following the week after due date = 85%
c. submitted on 2nd week after due date = 75%.
d. beyond two (2) weeks late-65%

ORAL RECITATIONS

There will be random oral recitations on the cases assigned. The student is expected to
have recited at least 5 times during the course. This is only the minimum, and the student
could be called more than this minimum frequency. Recitations may also involve matters
other than the cases assigned.

Oral Recitation Grading Guide

Factor 4 (Excellent) 3(Good) 2(Satisfactory) 1 (Poor) 0 (no credit)


Thoroughness Thoroughly Identified the Identified the Missed many Did not read
identified the facts, issues, facts, issues, of the facts, the case
facts, issues, ratio ratio decidendi and mixed up
ratio decidendi and and the fallo of the issues
decidendi and the fallo of the case though
the fallo of the case, issues are
the case though facts vague
are vague

Understanding The manner The manner The manner of The manner The manner
Of the of recitation of recitation recitation of recitation of recitation
Assigned case demonstrates demonstrates demonstrates a shows a high demonstrates
a thorough a sufficient vague level of lack of
understanding understanding understanding confusion understanding

3
of the issues of the case of the case about the of the case
involved in issues
the case and involved in
the legal the case
doctrine
which the
case
demonstrates
For Student has Student has Student has Student has Student has
recitations cited at least cited one cited cited not cited any
other than two legal excellent appropriate inappropriate legal basis
recitation of bases with legal basis jurisprudence legal anchor,
assigned appropriate but has missed or has poorly
cases: applications the best established
available legal the relevance
LEGAL anchor of the sources
BASIS/ invoked
CITATIONS
The work is The work is The work is The work is The work
For Essay well well focused on too poorly shows no
Assignments: organized and organized but many points so organized, reasonable
coherent with the logic is much so that it illogical, and attempt to
Organization arguments skewed is hard to badly hand- demonstrate
logically identify what is written organization
presented, its main point and logic
and with
good legible
handwriting
For Excellent Good critical Adequate Minimal Miserable
recitations critical thinking and critical critical critical
other than thinking and analysis. The thinking and thinking and thinking or
recitation of analysis. The student’s analysis. The analysis. The analysis. The
cases student was points are student’s student’s student’s
assigned: able to apply well argued points are arguments are points make
Critical the cited law and well supported by weak and no sense.
Thinking and to the facts of supported. logic, but unconvincing.
Analysis the given case without legal
in a clear and basis
convincing
manner.
EXAMINATIONS:

The student is expected to accomplish several quizzes (expect a quiz every meeting), and
three major exams, namely, the preliminary exam tentatively happening on December 16,
2017, the Midterm Exam tentatively scheduled on February 10, 2018, and the Final Exam
tentatively set on March 24, 2018.

4
Examinations may also cover materials that have been covered since the previous
examination. The instructor will provide information about the coverage of each major
exam as the exam date approaches.

During the major exams, full credit is given if the student

1) identifies the legal issue(s) involved;

2) correctly applies the law and/or jurisprudence to the issues identified;

3) answers in a clear and understandable manner

The professor will give partial credit proportionate to the level of knowledge and legal
skill demonstrated by the student taking the exam.

The following factors also affect the student’s grade in the examination:

1. Handwriting and the number of erasures


2. Grammar, including spelling.

Although examinations are meant to measure legal knowledge and ability


to apply the law, handwriting, erasures, grammar and spelling are major factors
considered during the bar exams. This subject would like to prepare the student
for the actual bar exam.

BASIC CLASSROOM REQUIREMENTS

1) Attend classes (only three absences, excused or not excused are allowed)

2) Submit case digests and other assignments

3) Take quizzes (expect a quiz every meeting) and three major examinations

4) Perform oral recitations (expect at least 5 rounds of oral recitations)

5) Wear blazer as specified

6) Submit ¼ index card with 1x1 photo on it and the following information:
a. Name
b. birthday
c. Home Address
d. Email and contact numbers
7) Observe classroom policies outlined below

POLICIES

5
1. Class starts at 12:00 noon and ends at 3:00 p.m. Students are requested to make an
effort to be on time so as not to disrupt the class.
2. Each student is allowed a maximum of three (3) absences. This includes both
excused and unexcused absences. The fourth is room for professor discretion. On
the fifth absence, the student is considered “FA – failed due to absences”.
3. If a student is called to recite and he or she is absent, the student will get a
recitation grade of 65
4. If a surprise quiz is given and the student is absent, whether excused or unexcused
that student gets a grade of 65 in that quiz
5. Keep mobile phone in silent mode. If a phone will cause disruption of class, the
owner will get a grade of 75 for one recitation. If owner cannot be identified, the
class president will form an investigation committee. If the investigation
committee fails to identify the owner, everyone in the class will get a grade of 75
for one recitation
6. Laptops may be used but only for purposes of following the lecture and taking
down notes.
7. Using the laptop for some other things will be subject to disciplinary measures
8. We will declare a ten-minute break every hour on the hour within the lecture.
Going out of the lecture room outside the allotted break is strictly prohibited.
9. Cheating during exams is considered serious breach. A student caught cheating
will be declared FD = failed due to dishonesty
10. Submitting an assignment done by a person other than the student considered is
likewise considered serious breach. A student involved in this anomaly is also
considered an FD
11. Acts of discourtesy may be considered serious or less serious depending on the
damage done
12. Blazers must be worn during class hours. Every student is expected to wear shoes
13. Professor reserves the right to require a student to get a decent haircut

GRADING PERCENTAGES
• PRELIM EXAM = 15%
• MIDTERM EXAM = 15%
• FINAL EXAM = 40%
• QUIZZES = 5%
• RECITATIONS = 15%
• ASSIGNMENTS = 10%

COURSE OUTLINE IN LEGAL ETHICS

PART 1 – LEGAL ETHICS

I. PRACTICE OF LAW – Definition; Its Nature; Persons Authorized to Practice Law and
exceptions; Public Officials Prohibited from Engaging in Practice of Law; Public

6
Officials with Restricted Right to Practice Law; Power to Regulate Law Practice; Nature
of Power to Admit Candidates to Legal Profession; Requirements for Bar Candidates;
Requisites for Bar Admission; Duties of the Office of a Lawyer; The Lawyer’s Oath

Cases: (Note: the list of cases that follows may be updated and added in the course of the
discussions)
1. Cayetano vs. Monsod, GR#100113, 9/3/1991
2. Lee vs. Tambago, AC#5281, 2/12/2008
3. Docena vs. Atty. Limon, AC#2387, 9/10/1998
4. Santos vs. Atty. Llamas, AC#4749, 1/20/2000
5. Philippine Lawyer’s Association vs. Agrava 105 Phil 173
6. Cruz vs. Atty. Cabrera, AC#5737, 10/25/2004
7. Ulep vs. The Legal Clinic, BM#553, 6/17/1993,
8. Atty. Magno vs. Atty. Velasco-Jacoba, AC#6296, 11/22/2005
9. Ziga vs. Judge Arejola, AM#MTJ-99-1203, 6/10/2003
10. Javellana vs. DILG, GR#102549, 8/10/1992
11. In re: Cunanan 94 PHIL 534
12. In re: Alamacen 31 SCRA 562
13. In re: Lanuevo 66 SCRA 245
14. Application for Bar Admission, Vicente Ching, BM#914, 10/1/1999,
15. Petition to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin Dacanay, BM#1678,
12/17/2007
16. Petition to Reacquire Privilege to Practice Law, Epifanio Muneses, BM#2112,
7/24/2012
17. Villa vs. Ama, BM#674, 6/14/2005
18. Narag vs. Atty. Narag, AC#3405, 6/29/1998
19. Aguirre vs. Rana, BM#1036, 6/10/2003
20. Tolentino vs. Atty. Mendoza, AC#5151, 10/19/2004,
21. Letter of Atty. Arevalo, Requesting Exemption from IBP Dues Payment,
BM#1370, 5/9/2005
22. Ting-Dumali vs. Atty. Torres, AC#5161, 4/4/2004

II. LEGAL ETHICS – Definition; Sources of Legal Ethics; Code of Professional


Responsibility

A. Lawyer’s Duty to the Public

(a) Canon 1

23. Endaya vs. Atty. Oca, AC#3967, 9/3/2003


24. Barrientos vs. Atty. Libiran-Meteoro, AC#6408, 8/31/2004
25. Alejandro vs. Atty. Alejandro, AC#4256, 2/13/2004
26. Vda. De Espino vs. Atty. Prequito, AC#4762, 6/28/2004
27. Guevarra vs. Atty. Eala, AC# 7136, 8/1/2007
28. Bautista vs. Atty. Gonzales, 182 SCRA 151,
29. Mecaral vs. Atty. Vasquez, AC#8392, 6/29/10

7
30. Cham vs. Atty. Paita-Moya, AC#7494, 6/27/2008
31. Roa vs. Atty. Moreno, AC#8382, 4/21/10
32. Samaniego vs. Atty. Ferrer, AC#7022, 6/18/2008
33. Ventura vs. Atty. Samson, AC#9608, 11/27/2012
34. Manois vs. Atty. Deciembre, AC#5364, 8/20/2008
35. Ronquillo vs. Atty. Cezar, AC#6288, 2006
36. Lee vs. Abastillas, 234 SCRA 28
37. Vitug vs. Atty. Rongcal, AC#6313, 9/7/2006
38. Abella vs. Barrios, AC#7332, 6/18/2013
39. Ramos vs. Atty. Ngaseo, AC#6210, 12/9/2004
40. Bel-Air Transit Service Corp. vs. Atty. Mendoza, AC#6107, 1/31/2005
41. De Guzman vs. Atty. De Dios, AC#4843, 1/26/2001

(b) Notarial Law

42. Tan Tiong Bio vs. Atty. Gonzales, AC#6634, 8/23/2007


43. Dela Cruz vs. Atty. Dimaano, AC#7781, 9/12/2008
44. Atty. Linco vs. Atty. Lacebal, AC#7241, 10/17/2011
45. Nevada vs. Atty. Casuga, AC#7591, 3/20/2012
46. Jandoquile vs. Atty. Revilla, AC#9514, 4/10/2013
47. Espinosa vs. Atty. Omana, AC#9081, 10/12/2011
48. Uy vs. Atty. Sano, AC#6505, 9/11/2008
49. Brennisen vs. Atty. Contawi, AC#7481, 4/24/2012
50. Williams vs. Atty. Icao, AC#6882, 12/24/2008
51. Pena vs. Atty. Paterno, AC#4191, 6/10/2013
52. Gokioco vs. Atty. Mateo, AC#4179, 11/11/2004

(c) Canon 2 & 3

53. Ulep vs. The Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378


54. Atty. Khan vs. Atty. Simbillo, AC#5299, 8/19/2003
55. Villatuya vs. Atty. Tabalingcos, AC#6622, 7/10/2012

(d)Canon 4 & 5 – MCLE (BM#850, 10/2/2001)

(e) Canon 6

56. Atty. Vitriolo vs. Atty. Dasig, AC#4984, 4/1/2003


57. Lim vs. Atty. Barcelona, AC#5438, 3/10/2004
58. Collantes vs. Atty. Renomeron, AC#3056, 8/16/1991
59. Catu vs. Atty. Rellosa, AC#5738, 2/19/2008
60. Sierra vs. Lopez, AC#7549, 8/29/2008
61. Abella vs. Barrios, Jr., AC#7332, 6/18/2013

(f) Canon 7

8
62. In Re Edillon, AM#1928, 8/3/1978
63. Francia vs. Atty. Abdon, AC#10031, 7/23/2014
64. In Re: Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron Meling, BM#114, 6/8/2004
65. Arnobit vs. Atty. Arnobit, AC#1481, 10/17/2008
66. Sps. Rafols vs. Atty. Barrios, AC#4973, 3/15/2010
67. Garrido vs. Atty. Garrido, AC#6593, 2/4/2010
68. Mendoza vs. Atty. Deciembre, AC#5338, 2/23/2009
69. Atty. Embido vs. Atty. Pe, AC#6732, 10/22/2013
70. Zaguirre vs. Atty. Castillo, AC#4921, 3/6/2003

B. Lawyer’s Duty to His Colleagues

(a) Canon 8

71. Atty. Reyes vs. Atty. Chiong, Jr., AC#5148, 7/1/2003


72. Alcantara vs. Atty. Pefianco, AC#5398, 12/3/2002
73. Saberon vs. Atty. Larong, AC#6567, 4/16/2008
74. Camacho vs. Pagulayan, AC#4807, 3/22/2000
75. Dallong-Galicinao vs. Atty. Castro, AC#6396, 10/25/2005
76. Garcia vs. Atty. Lopez, AC#6422, 8/28/2007
77. Atty. Barandon, Jr. vs. Atty. Ferrer, AC#5768, 3/26/2010

(b) Canon 9

72. Cambaliza vs. Atty. Cristal-Tenorio, AC#6290, 7/14/2004


73. Villatuya vs. Atty. Tabalingcos, AC#6622, 7/10/2012
74. Tumbokon vs. Atty. Pefianco, AC#6116, 8/1/2012
75. Petition to Sign Attorneys Roll, Michael Medado, BM#2540, 9/24/2013

C. Lawyer’s Duty to the Court

(a) Canon 10

78. Hueysuwan-Florido vs. Atty. Florido, AC#5624, 1/20/2004


79. De Zuzuarregui vs. Atty. Soguilon, AC#4495, 10/8/2008
80. Mariveles vs. Atty. Mallari 219 SCRA 44
81. Macias vs. Atty. Selda, AC#6442, 10/21/2004
82. Atty. Alonso vs. Atty. Relamida, AC#8481, 8/3/2010
83. Maligaya vs. Atty. Doronilla, AC#6198, 9/15/2006
84. Molina vs. Atty. Magat, AC#1900, 6/13/2012
85. Afurong vs. Atty. Aquino, AC#1571, 9/23/1999
86. Judge Cervantes vs. Atty. Sabio, AC#7828, 8/11/2008

(b) Canon 11

87. Judge Madrid vs. Atty. Dealca, AC#7474, 9/9/2014

9
88. Uy vs. Attys. Depasucat & De las Alas, AC#5332, 7/29/2003
89. Racines vs. Judge Morallos, AM-MTJ-08-1698, 3/3/2008
90. Baculi vs. Atty. Battung, AC#8920, 9/28/2011
91. Judge Lacurom vs. Attys. Lacoba, AC#5921, 3/10/2006
92. Provincial Prosecutor Visbal vs. Judge Buban, AM-MTJ-02-1432, 9/3/2004
93. Hon. Rodriguez-Manahan vs. Atty. Flores, AC#8954, 11/13/2013

(c) Canon 12

94. Atty. Fabroa vs. Atty. Paguinto, AC#6273, 3/15/2010


95. Foronda vs. Atty. Guerrero, AC#5469, 8/10/2004
96. Que vs. Atty. Revilla, AC#7054, 12/4/2009

(d) Canon 13

97. Jimenez vs. Atty. Verano, AC#8198, 7/15/2014


98. FoodSphere, Inc. vs. Atty. Mauricio, Jr., AC#7199, 7/22/2009

D. Lawyer’s Duty to His Client

(a) Canon 14 & 15

99. Baens vs. Atty. Sempio, AC#10378, 6/9/2014


100. Hocorma Foundation vs. Atty. Funk, AC#9094, 8/15/2012
101. Seares vs. Atty. Gonzales-Alzate, AC#9058, 11/14/2012
102. Castro-Justo vs. Atty. Galing, AC#6174, 11/16/2011
103. Sibulo vs. Atty. Cabrera, AC#4218, 7/20/2000
104. Samala vs. Atty. Valencia, AC#5439, 1/22/2007
105. Buted vs. Atty. Hernando, 203 SCRA 1
106. Perez vs. Atty. Dela Torre, AC#6160, 3/30/2006
107. Rural Bank of Calape vs. Atty. Florido, AC#5736, 6/18/2010
108. Gonzales vs. Atty. Sabacajan, 249 SCRA 276
109. Penilla vs. Atty. Alcid, Jr. AC#9149, 9/4/2013

(b) Canon 16

110. Agot vs. Atty. Rivera, AC#8000, 8/5/2014


111. Reyes vs. Atty. Maglaya, 243 SCRA 214
112. Arroyo-Posidio vs. Atty. Vitan, AC#6051, 4/2/2007
113. Meneses vs. Atty. Macalino, AC#6651, 2/2/2006
114. Aldovino vs. Atty. Pujalte, AC#5082, 2/17/2004
115. Parinas vs. Atty. Paguinto, AC#6297, 7/13/2004
116. Atty. Salomon vs. Atty. Frial, AC#7820, 9/12/2008
117. Del Rosario vs. Atty. Millado, 26 SCRA 700
118. Reddi vs. Atty. Sebrio, AC#7027, 1/30/2009
119. Barcenas vs. Atty. Alvero, AC#8159, 4/23/2010

10
120. Small vs. Atty. Banares, AC#7021, 2/21/2007
121. Arellano University vs. Atty. Mijares III, AC#8380, 11/20/2009
122. Ong vs. Atty. Grijaldo, AC#4724, 4/30/2003
123. Igual vs. Atty. Javier, 254 SCRA 416
124. Dizon vs. Atty. De Taza, AC#7676, 6/10/2014

(c) Canon 17

125. Tahaw vs. Atty. Vitan, AC#6441, 10/21/2004


126. Manalang vs. Atty. Angeles, AC#1558, 3/10/2003
127. Foronda vs. Atty. Alvarez, Jr., AC#9976, 6/25/2014

(d) Canon 18

128. Tan vs. Diamante, AC#7766, 8/5/2014


129. Cabauatan vs. Atty. Venida, AC#10043, 11/20/2013
130. Segovia-Ribaya vs. Atty. Lawsin, AC#7965, 11/13/2013
131. Cristobal vs. Atty. Renta, AC#9925, 9/17/2014
132. Nebreja vs. Atty. Reonal, AC#9896, 3/19/2014
133. Bueno vs. Atty. Raneses, AC#8383, 12/11/2012
134. Trinidad vs. Atty. Villarin, AC#9310, 2/27/2013
135. Cuizon vs. Atty. Macalino, AC#4334, 7/7/2004
136. Ford vs. Atty. Daitol, 250 SCRA
137. Barbuco vs. Beltran, AC#5092, 8/11/2004
138. Villariasa-Reisenbeck vs. Atty. Abarrientos, AC#6238, 11/4/2004
139. Jinon vs. Atty. Jiz, AC#9615, 3/5/2013
140. Atty. Solidon vs. Atty. Macalalad, AC#8158, 2/24/2010
141. Gone vs. Atty. Ga, AC#7771, 4/6/2011
142. Overgaard vs. Atty. Valdez, AC#902, 9/20/2008
143. Mejares vs. Atty. Romana, AC#6196, 3/17/02004
144. Sps. Aranda vs. Atty. Elayda, AC#7907, 12/15/2010
145. Pesto vs. Atty. Millo, AC#9612, 3/13/2013
146. Figueras vs. Atty. Jimenez, AC#9116, 3/12/2014
147. Burber vs. Atty. Magulta, AC#513, 6/10/2002
148. Abay vs. Atty. Montesino, AC#5718, 12/4/2003
149. Bergonia vs. Atty. Merrera, AC#5024, 2/20/2003

(e) Canon 19

150. Pena vs. Atty. Aparicio, AC#7298, 6/25/2007


151. Vda. De Enriquez vs. Atty. San Jose, AC#3569, 2/23/2007
152. Millare vs. Montero, 246 SCRA 1
153. Ong vs. Atty. Unto, AC#2417, 2/6/2002

(f) Canon 20

11
154. Vda. de Fajardo vs. Atty. Bugaring, AC#5113, 10/7/2004
155. Law Firm of Raymundo Armovit vs. CA, 202 SCRA 6

(g) Canon 21& 22

156. Suntay vs. Atty. Suntay, AC#1890, 8/7/2002


157. Genato vs. Atty. Silapan, AC#4078, 7/14/2003
158. Orcino vs. Atty. Gaspar, AC#3773, 9/24/1997

E. Administrative Liabilities of Lawyers – Disciplinary measures against lawyer;


Contempt vs. Disbarment, Objectives of Disbarment and Suspension; Nature of
Disbarment Proceedings; Restriction on Disbarment Power; Grounds for Disbarment;
Effects of Foreign Disbarment; Reinstatement and Its Objective and Criterion;

159. Yap-Paras vs. Atty. Paras, AC#4947, 6/7/2007


160. Lingan vs. Atty. Calubaquib, AC#5377, 6/30/2014
161. Souses Boyboy vs. Atty. Yabut, Jr., AC#5225, 4/29/2003
162. Felipe vs. Atty. Macapagal, AC#4549, 12/2/2013
163. Calub vs. Atty. Suller, AC#1474, 1/28/2000
164. Bengco vs. Atty. Bernardo, AC#6368, 6/13/2012
165. Tiong vs. Atty. Florendo, AC#4428, 12/12/2011
166. Advincula vs. Atty. Macabata, AC#7204, 3/7/2007
167. De Leon vs. Atty. Pedrena, AC#9401, 10/22/2013
168. Cojuangco vs. Atty. Palma, AC#2474, 6/30/2005
169. Suspension from Law Practice, Leon Maquera, BM#793, 7/30/2004
170. Dumadag vs. Atty. Lumaya, AC#2614, 6/29/2000
171. Maniago vs. Atty. De Dios, AC#7472, 3/30/2010
172. Reyes vs. Atty. Vitan, AC#5835, 8/10/2010
173. Richards vs. Asoy, AC#2655, 10/12/2010
174. Macarrubo vs. Atty. Macarrubo, AC#6148, 1/22/2013

Part II - JUDICIAL ETHICS

I. JUDICIAL ETHICS – Definition, Sources, Importance, Qualifications of Judges and


Justices.

II. New Code of Judicial Conduct for Philippine Judiciary

A. Canon 1. Independence

1. Vidal vs. Judge Dojillo, Jr., AM#MTJ-05-1591, 7/14/2005


2. Sps. Decena vs. Judge Malanyaon, AM#RTJ-10-2217, 4/8/2013
3. Tobias vs. Judge Limsiaco, AM#MTJ-09-1734, 1/19/11
4. Carriaga vs. Judge Baldado, AM#RTJ-03-1810, 10/21/2004
5. Burber vs. Atty. Magulta, AC#513, 6/10/2002

12
6. Abay vs. Atty. Montesino, AC#5718, 12/4/2003
7. Bergonia vs. Atty. Merrera, AC#5024, 2/20/2003

B. Canon 2. Integrity

8. Re: Compliance of Judge Rosete, AM#04-5-118-MTCC, 7/29/2004


9. Mondala vs. Judge Mariano, AM#RTJ-06-2010, 1/25/2007
10. Canada vs. Suerte, AM#RTJ-04-1884, 2/22/2008
11. Nabhan vs. Judge Calderon, AM#MTJ98-1164, 2/4/2000
12. Perfecto vs. Judge Esidera, AM-RTJ-11-2270, 1/31/11
13. Atty. Seludo vs. Judge Fineza, AM#RTJ-04-1864, 12/16/2004
14. Casamiro vs. Judge Fernandez, AM#MTJ-04-1525, 1/29/2004
15. Simbajon vs. Judge Esteban, AM#MTJ-98-1162, 8/11/1999
16. Vda. de Nepomuceno vs. Judge Bartolome, AM#MTJ-03-1482, 7/25/2003
17. P/Insp. Fidel vs. Judge Caraos, AM#MTJ-99-1224, 12/12/2002

C. Canon 3. Impartiality

18. Dialo vs. AJudge Macias, AM#RTJ-04-1859, 7/13/2004


19. Rallos vs. Judge Gako, AM#RTJ-99-1484, 3/17/2000
20. Burias vs. Judge Valencia, GR#176464, 2/4/2010
21. Versoza vs. Judge Contreras, AM#MTJ-06-1636, 3/12/2007
22. Ortiz vs. Judge Jacube, Jr., AM#RTJ-04-1833, 6/28/2005
23. Tigganay vs. Judge Wacas, AM-OCA IPI#09-3243-RTJ, 4/1/2013

D. Canon 4. Propriety

24. Dr. Alday vs. Judge Cruz, Jr., AM#RTJ-00-153-, 3/14/2001


25. Decena vs. Judge Malanyaon, AM#RTJ-02-1669, 4/14/2004
26. Reyes vs. Judge Duque, AM#RTJ-08-2136, 9/21/10
27. Concerned Employees of RTC Dagupan vs. Judge
Falloran-Aliposa, AM#RTJ-1446, 3/9/2000
28. Anonymous vs. Judge Achas, AM#MTJ-11-1801, 2/27/2013
29. Galang vs. Judge Santos, AM#MTJ-99-1197, 5/26/1999
30. Rosauro vs. Judge Kallos, AM#RTJ-03-1796, 2/10/2006
31. Ladigon vs. Judge Garong, AM#MTJ-08-1712, 8/20/2008
32. Perez vs. Judge Costales, AM#RTJ-04-1876, 2/23/2005
33. Dionisio vs. Hon. Escano, AM#RTJ98-1400, 2/1/1999
34. Abesa vs. Judge Nacional, AM#MTJ-05-1605, 6/8/2006

E. Canon 5. Equality

35. Atty. Correa vs. Judge Belen, AM#RTJ-10-2242, 8/6/2010


36. Nunez vs. Judge Ibay, AM#RTJ-06-1984, 6/30/2009
37. Anonymous Complaint vs. Judge Acuna, AM#RTJ-04-1891, 7/28/2005

13
F. Canon 6. Competence & Diligence

38. Tugot vs. Judge Colliflores, AM#MTJ-00-1332, 2/16/2004


39. Atty. Arnado vs. Judge Buban, AM#MTJ-04-1543, 5/31/2004
40. Sps. Cabico vs. Judge Querijero, AM#RTJ-02-1735, 4/27/2007
41. Borja-Manzano vs. Judge Sanchez, AM#MTJ-00-1329, 3/8/2001
42. Pantilo III vs. Judge Canoy, AM#RTJ-11-2262, 2/9/11
43. Tan vs. Judge Usman, AM#RTJ-11-2666, 2/15/11
44. Raymundo vs. Judge Andoy, AM No. MTJ-09-1738, 10/6/2010
45. OCA VS. Judge Estrada, AM#RTJ-09-2173, 1/18/11
46. Atty. Jimenez vs. Judge Amdengan, AM#MTJ-12-1818, 2/13/2013
47. Sevilla vs. Judge Lindo, AM#MTJ-08-1714, 2/9/11
48. Monticalbo vs. Judge Macaraya, AM#RTJ-09-2197, 4/13/11
49. Navarro vs. Judge Del Rosario, AM#MTJ-96-1091, 3/21/1997
50. Caneda vs. Judge Menchavez, AM# RTJ-06-2026, 3/4/2009
51. Ruiz vs. Judge Bringas, AM#MTJ-00-1266, 4/6/2000
52. Atty. Dalawampu vs. Judge Yrastorza, AM#RTJ-03-1793, 2/5/2004
53. Atty. Gacal vs. Judge Infante, AM#RTJ-04-1845, 10/5/2011

G. Administrative Liabilities of Judges

54. Beso vs. Judge Daguman, AM#MTJ-99-1211, 1/28/2000


55. Batic vs. Judge Galapon, Jr., AM#MTJ-99-1239, 7/29/2005
56. De la Paz vs. Judge Adiong, AM#RTJ-04-1857, 7/29/2005
57. Liwanag vs. Judge Lustre, AM#MTJ98-1168, 4/21/1999
58. OCA VS. Former Judge Leonida, AM#RTJ-09-2198, 1/18/11
59. Marcos vs. Judge Pamintuan, AM#RTJ-07-2062, 1/18/11
60. Conquilla vs. Judge Bernardo, AM#MTJ-09-1737, 2/9/11
61. Heck vs. Judge Santos, AM#RTJ-01-1657, 2/23/2004
62. Santos vs. Judge Arcaya-Chua, AM#RTJ-07-2093, 2009
63. Palon, Jr. vs. Judge Villarta, AM#MTJ-04-1530, 3/7/2007
64. Junio vs. Judge Rivera, AM#MTJ-91-565, 10/5/2005
65. Sison vs. Judge Caoibes, Jr., AM#RTJ-03-1771, 5/27/2004
66. OCA vs. Judge Espanol, AM#RTJ-04-1872, 10/18/2004
67. Ali vs. Hon. Pacalna, AM#MTJ-03-1505, 11/27/2013

14