LEGAL ETHICS: SUMMARY OF CASE DOCTRINES

CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Marquez vs. Clores-Ramos, AM No. P-96-1182, July 19, 2000

It cannot be overemphasized that every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity,
uprightness and honesty. Like any public servant, he must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and
integrity not only in the performance of his official duties but in his personal and private dealings
with other people, to preserve the Court’s good name and standing. This is because the image of a
court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women
who work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel. Thus, it becomes the
imperative sacred duty of each and every one in the court to maintain its good name and standing as
a true temple of justice.

The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of court personnel must be free from any
whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to his duties in the judicial branch but also to his
behavior outside the court as a private individual. There is no dichotomy of morality; a court
employee is also judged by his private morals. These exacting standards of morality and decency
have been strictly adhered to and laid down by the Court to those in the service of the judiciary.
Respondent, as a court stenographer, did not live up to her commitment to lead a moral life. Her act
of maintaining relation with Atty. Burgos speaks for itself.

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Liangco, A.C. 5355, December

In Sps. Donato v. Atty. Asuncion, Jr. citing Yap v. Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr., this Court
explained the concept of gross misconduct as any inexcusable, shameful or flagrant unlawful
conduct on the part of a person concerned with the administration of justice; i.e., conduct
prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right determination of the cause. The motive behind
this conduct is generally a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.

As a member of the bar and former judge, respondent is expected to be well-versed in the Rules of
Procedure. This expectation is imposed upon members of the legal profession, because membership
in the bar is in the category of a mandate for public service of the highest order. Lawyers are oath-
bound servants of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and
ethics, and whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest for truth and justice, for which they
have sworn to be fearless crusaders.

As judge of a first-level court, respondent is expected to know that he has no jurisdiction to

entertain a petition for declaratory relief. Moreover, he is presumed to know that in his capacity as
judge, he cannot render a legal opinion in the absence of a justiciable question. Displaying an utter
lack of familiarity with the rules, he in effect erodes the public’s confidence in the competence of
our courts. Moreover, he demonstrates his ignorance of the power and responsibility that attach to
the processes and issuances of a judge, and that he as a member of the bar should know.

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer must uphold the
Constitution and promote respect for the legal processes.

INEXCUSABLE IGNORANCE OF THE LAW in violation of Canons 1 and 10, Rule

10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law and legal processes.

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.

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 any artifice.

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.

Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.

LAWYER’S OATH

Sebastian vs. Calis, A.C. No. 5118. September 9, 1999

In the light of the foregoing, we find that the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct for violating
Canon 1 Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable. They reveal
moral flaws in a lawyer. They are unacceptable practices. A lawyer’s relationship with others
should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor. This is the essence
of the lawyer’s oath. The lawyer’s oath is not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust
that must be upheld and keep inviolable. The nature of the office of an attorney requires that he
should be a person of good moral character.This requisite is not only a condition precedent to
admission to the practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the
practice of law.We have sternly warned that any gross misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his
professional or private capacity, puts his moral character in serious doubt as a member of the Bar,
and renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.

The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they
possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such
privilege.We must stress that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A
lawyer has the privilege to practice law only during good behavior. He can be deprived of his
license for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after giving him the
opportunity to be heard.

Here, it is worth noting that the adamant refusal of respondent to comply with the orders of the IBP
and his total disregard of the summons issued by the IBP are contemptuous acts reflective of
unprofessional conduct. Thus, we find no hesitation in removing respondent Dorotheo Calis from
the Roll of Attorneys for his unethical, unscrupulous and unconscionable conduct toward
complainant.

In Re: Petition Of Al Argosino To Take The Lawyers Oath, B.M. No. 712, March 19, 1997
We stress to Mr. Argosino that 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.

De Guzman vs. De Dios, A.C. No. 4943. January 26, 2001

As a lawyer, respondent is bound by her oath to do no falsehood or consent to its commission and to
conduct herself as a lawyer according to the best of her knowledge and discretion. The lawyer’s
oath is a source of obligations and violation thereof is a ground for suspension, disbarment, or other
disciplinary action.

Berenguer vs. Carranza, A.C. No. 716 January 30, 1969

A lawyer's oath is one impressed with the utmost seriousness; it must not be taken lightly. Every
lawyer must do his best to live up to it. There would be a failure of justice if courts cannot rely on
the submission as well as the representations made by lawyers, insofar as the presentation of
evidence, whether oral or documentary, is concerned. If, as unfortunately happened in this case,
even without any intent on the part of a member of the bar to mislead the court, such deplorable
event did occur, he must not be allowed to escape the responsibility that justly attaches to a conduct
far from impeccable.

THE PRACTICE OF LAW

Cayetano vs. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991

Black defines "practice of law" as:

The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal
principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not
limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation,
but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and
special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds,
and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients and all
actions taken for them in matters connected with the law. An attorney engages in the
practice of law by maintaining an office where he is held out to be-an attorney, using
a letterhead describing himself as an attorney, counseling clients in legal matters,
negotiating with opposing counsel about pending litigation, and fixing and collecting
fees for services rendered by his associate. (Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd ed.)

The provision on qualifications regarding members of the Bar does not necessarily refer or involve
actual practice of law outside the COA We have to interpret this to mean that as long as the lawyers
who are employed in the COA are using their legal knowledge or legal talent in their respective
work within COA, then they are qualified to be considered for appointment as members or
commissioners, even chairman, of the Commission on Audit.

ULEP vs. Legal Clinic, Inc. Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993

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 lawyers 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.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true,
honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. He is not supposed to 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. Nor shall he pay or give
something of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity
to attract legal business. Prior to the adoption of the code of Professional Responsibility, the
Canons of Professional Ethics had also warned that lawyers should not resort to indirect
advertisements for professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments,
or procuring his photograph to be published in connection with causes in which the lawyer has been
or is engaged or concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the
importance of the lawyer's position, and all other like self-laudation.

The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement of his talents. A lawyer
cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession. advertise his talents or skill as in a manner
similar to a merchant advertising his goods. The prescription against advertising of legal services or
solicitation of legal business rests on the fundamental postulate that the that the practice of law is a
profession.

Exceptions to the rule against advertising or solicitation:

1. Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct
imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data. "Such data must not be
misleading and may include only a statement of the lawyer's name and the names of his
professional associates; addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses; branches of law
practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the bar; schools attended with dates of
graduation, degrees and other educational distinction; public or quasi-public offices; posts of
honor; legal authorships; legal teaching positions; membership and offices in bar
associations and committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities;
the fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the names and addresses of references; and,
with their written consent, the names of clients regularly represented."

The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere
supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published principally
for other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly publish his brief biographical and
informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer
permit his name to be published in a law list the conduct, management or contents of which are
calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to lower the dignity or standing of
the profession.

2. The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The card may contain only
a statement of his name, the name of the law firm which he is connected with, address,
telephone number and special branch of law practiced.

3. The publication of a simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the
partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the convenience of the
profession, is not objectionable.

4. He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone directory but not under a designation of
special branch of law.

Philippine Lawyers’ Association vs. Agrava, G.R. No. L-12426, February 16, 1959
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the
preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the
management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in
addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in
mattersconnected with the law incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services
contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a
creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in
attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as
do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves the
determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jr. p. 262,
263).

Practice of law under modem conditions consists in no small part of work performed outside of any
court and having no immediate relation to proceedings in court. It embraces conveyancing, the
giving of legal advice on a large variety of subjects, and the preparation and execution of legal
instruments covering an extensive field of business and trust relations and other affairs. Although
these transactions may have no direct connection with court proceedings, they are always subject to
become involved in litigation. They require in many aspects a high degree of legal skill, a wide
experience with men and affairs, and great capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex
situations. These customary functions of an attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to
the administration of justice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the question set
forth in the order, can be drawn between that part of the work of the lawyer which involves
appearance in court and that part which involves advice and drafting of instruments in his office. It
is of importance to the welfare of the public that these manifold customary functions be performed
by persons possessed of adequate learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all
times under the heavy trust obligations to clients which rests upon all attorneys. (Moran, Comments
on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3 [1953 ed.] , p. 665-666, citing In re Opinion of the Justices [Mass.],
194 N.E. 313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. v. Automobile Service Assoc. [R.I.] 179 A. 139,144).

In conclusion, we hold that under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar authorized by this
Tribunal to practice law, and in good standing, may practice their profession before the Patent
Office, for the reason that much of the business in said office involves the interpretation and
determination of the scope and application of the Patent Law and other laws applicable, as well as
the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved; that part of the functions of the Patent
director are judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so that appeals from his orders and decisions are,
under the law, taken to the Supreme Court.

Aguirre vs. Rana, B. M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003

The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to
persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The
exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational
attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not
acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a
privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar examinations, if the person
seeking admission had practiced law without a license.

True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyer’s oath. However, it is
the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that
respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to
become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a
lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and
his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.

Burbe vs. Magulta, AC No. 99-634,June 10, 2002

Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rules 16.01 and 18.03 which state
that respectively:

Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.
However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to
satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall
also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as
provided for in the Rules of Court.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.

The Practice of Law – a Profession, Not a Business

Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital
that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood is not a professional but a secondary
consideration. Duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary
consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to
themselves. The practice of law is a noble calling in which emolument is a byproduct, and the
highest eminence may be attained without making much money.

Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that lawyers shall hold in trust all
moneys of their clients and properties that may come into their possession.
· Lawyers who convert the funds entrusted to them are in gross violation of professional
ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.

POWER TO CONTROL AND REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF LAW

In re: Cunanan, March 18, 1985

FACTS:
RA 972 “Bar Fluners Act of 1953”
Objectives: to admit to the Bar those candidates who suffered from:
(a) Insufficiency of reading materials and (b) 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.

· Admission to practice of law is almost without exception conceded everywhere to be the

exercise of a judicial function. Admission to practice have also been held to be the exercise
of one of the inherent powers of the court.
· If the legislature cannot indirectly control the action of the courts by requiring of them
construction of the law according to its own views, it is very plain it cannot do so directly,
by settling aside their judgments, compelling them to grant new trials, ordering the discharge
of offenders, or directing what particular steps shall be taken in the progress of a judicial
inquiry.
HELD: In decreeing the bar candidates who obtained in the bar examinations of 1946 to 1952, a
general average of 70 per cent without falling below 50 per cent in any subject, be admitted in mass
to the practice of law, the disputed law is not a legislation; it is a judgment — a judgment revoking
those promulgated by this Court during the aforecited year affecting the bar candidates concerned;
and although this Court certainly can revoke these judgments even now, for justifiable reasons, it is
no less certain that only this Court, and not the legislative nor executive department, that may be so.
Any attempt on the part of any of these departments would be a clear usurpation of its functions, as
is the case with the law in question.

That the Constitution has conferred on Congress the power to repeal, alter or supplement the rule
promulgated by this Tribunal, concerning the admission to the practice of law, is no valid argument.
Section 13, article VIII of the Constitution provides:

Section 13. The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law. Said rules shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive
rights. The existing laws on pleading, practice and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes, and are
declared Rules of Court, subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same.
The Congress shall have the power to repeal, alter, or supplement the rules concerning pleading,
practice, and procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. — Constitution
of the Philippines, Art. VIII, sec. 13.

RATIONALE: The public interest demands of legal profession adequate preparation and
efficiency, precisely more so as legal problem 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
developed constantly and 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.
Moreover, the statement that there was an insufficiency of legal reading materials is grossly
exaggerated.

Florence Teves Macarubbo v. Atty. Edmundo L. Mararubbo, ADM Case No. 6148, January
22, 2013

Charge: WHEREFORE, respondent Edmundo L. Macarubbo is found guilty of gross immorality

and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law. He is likewise ORDERED to show
satisfactory evidence to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline and to this Court that he is
supporting or has made provisions for the regular support of his two children by complainant. Let
respondent's name be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.

FACTS: Respondent here has exhibited the vice of entering into multiple marriages and then
leaving them behind by the mere expedient of resorting to legal remedies to sever them. Respondent
also failed to support his children by complainant. Such pattern of misconduct by respondent
undermines the institutions of marriage and family, institutions that this society looks to for the
rearing of our children, for the development of values essential to the survival and well-being of our
communities, and for the strengthening of our nation as a whole. This must be checked if not
stopped.

HELD: As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must
also be perceived to be of good moral character and must lead a life in accordance with the highest
moral standards of the community. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of
the bar to continue as such, including that which makes a mockery of the inviolable social
institution of marriage, outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community.

In sum, respondent has breached the following precepts of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of
the legal profession.

Javellana vs. DILG, et. al., G.R. No. 102549 August 10, 1992

FACTS: Javellana is an incumbent member of the City Council or Sanggunian Panglungsod of

Bago City, and a lawyer by profession who has continuously engaged in the practice of law without
securing authority for that purpose from the Regional Director, Department of Local Government,
as required by DLG Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 in relation to DLG Memorandum Circular
No. 74-58.

· As to members of the bar the authority given for them to practice their profession shall
always be subject to the restrictions provided for in Section 6 of Republic Act 5185. In all
cases, the practice of any profession should be favorably recommended by the Sanggunian
concerned as a body and by the provincial governors, city or municipal mayors, as the case
may be.

· c) That no conflict of interests between the practice of profession or engagement in private

employment and the official duties of the concerned official shall arise thereby;

Five months later or on October 10, 1991, the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) was
signed into law, Section 90 of which provides:

Sec. 90. Practice of Profession. - (a) All governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited from
practicing their profession or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of their functions
as local chief executives.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

(b) Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in
schools except during session hours: Provided, That sanggunian members who are members of the
Bar shall not:

(1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government unit or any
office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party;

(2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national or local
government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office;

(3) Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local
government unit of which he is an official; and
(4) Use property and personnel of the Government except when the sanggunian member concerned
is defending the interest of the Government.

HELD: Petitioner's contention that Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and DLG
Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 violate Article VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution is completely
off tangent. Neither the statute nor the circular trenches upon the Supreme Court's power and
authority to prescribe rules on the practice of law. The Local Government Code and DLG
Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 simply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid
conflicts of interest between the discharge of their public duties and the private practice of their
profession, in those instances where the law allows it.

Frias vs. Bautista-Lozada, A.C. No. 6656, May 4, 2006

The court held that the defense of prescription does not lie in administrative proceedings against
lawyers. And in the 2004 case of Heck v. Santos, we declared that an administrative complaint
against a member of the bar does not prescribe.

If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be emboldened to

disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long
as no private complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of
being completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to
answer for. It is the duty of this Court to protect the integrity of the practice of law
as well as the administration of justice. No matter how much time has elapsed from
the time of the commission of the act complained of and the time of the institution of
the complaint, erring members of the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining
arm of the Court. This categorical pronouncement is aimed at unscrupulous
members of the bench and bar, to deter them from committing acts which violate
the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the
Lawyer’s Oath.

The CBD-IBP derives its authority to take cognizance of administrative complaints against lawyers
from this Court which has the inherent power to regulate, supervise and control the practice of law
in the Philippines. Hence, in the exercise of its delegated power to entertain administrative
complaints against lawyers, the CBD-IBP should be guided by the doctrines and principles laid
down by this Court.

In the Matter Of The Integration Of The Bar Of The Philippines, January 9, 1973

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.

The term "Bar" refers to the collectivity of all persons whose names appear in the Roll of
Attorneys. An Integrated Bar (or Unified Bar) perforce must include all lawyers.

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." Indeed, the power to integrate is
an inherent part of the Court's constitutional authority over the Bar. In providing that "the Supreme
Court may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar," Republic Act 6397
neither confers a new power nor restricts the Court's inherent power, but is a mere legislative
declaration that the integration of the Bar will promote public interest or, more specifically, will
"raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the
Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively."

The judicial pronouncements support this reasoning:

— Courts have inherent power to supervise and regulate the practice of law.

— The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege; a privilege, moreover, clothed with
public interest, because a lawyer owes duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the
profession, to the courts, and to the nation; and takes part in one of the most important functions of
the State, the administration of justice, as an officer of the court.

— Because the practice of law is privilege clothed with public interest, it is far and just that the
exercise of that privilege be regulated to assure compliance with the lawyer's public responsibilities.

— These public responsibilities can best be discharged through collective action; but there can be
no collective action without an organized body; no organized body can operate effectively without
incurring expenses; therefore, it is fair and just that all attorneys be required to contribute to the
support of such organized body; and, given existing Bar conditions, the most efficient means of
doing so is by integrating the Bar through a rule of court that requires all lawyers to pay annual dues
to the Integrated Bar.

Freedom of Association.
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 in
cohesive group of which every lawyer is already a member.

Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not
attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he
chooses. The body compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues.

Regulatory Fee.
A membership fee in the Integrated Bar is an exaction for regulation, while the purpose of a tax is
revenue. If the Court has inherent power to regulate the Bar, it follows that as an incident to
regulation, it may impose a membership fee for that purpose. It would not be possible to push
through an Integrated Bar program without means to defray the concomitant expenses. The doctrine
of implied powers necessarily includes the power to impose such an exaction.

Fair to All Lawyers.

Bar integration is not unfair to lawyers already practising because although the requirement to pay
annual dues is a new regulation, it will give the members of the Bar a new system which they
hitherto have not had and through which, by proper work, they will receive benefits they have not
heretofore enjoyed, and discharge their public responsibilities in a more effective manner than they
have been able to do in the past. Because the requirement to pay dues is a valid exercise of
regulatory power by the Court, because it will apply equally to all lawyers, young and old, at the
time Bar integration takes effect, and because it is a new regulation in exchange for new benefits, it
is not retroactive, it is not unequal, it is not unfair.

Exception No. 1 of the Syllabus (Section 1, Rule 138-A, Rules of Court)

In Re: Need That Law Student Practicing Under Rule 138-A Be Actually Supervised During Trial,
Bar Matter No. 730, June 13, 1997

For the guidance of the bench and bar, we hold that a law student appearing before the Regional
Trial Court under Rule 138-A should at all times be accompanied by a supervising lawyer. Section
2 of Rule 138-A provides.

Section 2. Appearance. — The appearance of the law student authorized by this rule, shall be under
the direct supervision and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly
accredited by the law school. Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to
be filed, must be signed the by supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic.

The phrase "direct supervision and control" requires no less than the physical presence of the
supervising lawyer during the hearing. This is in accordance with the threefold rationale behind the
Law Student Practice Rule, to wit:

1. to ensure that there will be no miscarriage of justice as a result of incompetence or

inexperience of law students, who, not having as yet passed the test of professional
competence, are presumably not fully equipped to act a counsels on their own;

2. to provide a mechanism by which the accredited law school clinic may be able to
protect itself from any potential vicarious liability arising from some culpable action by
their law students; and

3. to ensure consistency with the fundamental principle that no person is allowed to

practice a particular profession without possessing the qualifications, particularly a license,
as required by law.

The rule clearly states that the appearance of the law student shall be under the direct control and
supervision of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by law schools.

· IN VIEW WHEREOF, we hold that a law student appearing before the Regional Trial Court
under the authority of Rule 138-A must be under the direct control and supervision of a
member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school and that
said law student must be accompanied by a supervising lawyer in all his appearance.

Cruz vs. Mina, G.R. No. 154207, April 27, 2007

RULE 138-A LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE

Section 1. Conditions for Student Practice. – A law student who has successfully completed his 3rd
year of the regular four-year prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law school's
clinical legal education program approved by the Supreme Court, may appear without compensation
in any civil, criminal or administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer, to
represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school.

Sec. 2. Appearance. – The appearance of the law student authorized by this rule, shall be under the
direct supervision and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited
by the law school. Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed,
must be signed by the supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic.
The rule, however, is different if the law student appears before an inferior court, where the issues
and procedure are relatively simple. In inferior courts, a law student may appear in his personal
capacity without the supervision of a lawyer. Section 34, Rule 138 provides:

SEC. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. — In the Court of a municipality a party may conduct
his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with
the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of
an attorney and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.

· Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts by a non-lawyer is
allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law student. As succinctly clarified in Bar
Matter No. 730, by virtue of Section 34, Rule 138, a law student may appear, as an agent or
a friend of a party litigant, without the supervision of a lawyer before inferior courts.

CASES ON REQUIREMENT OF CITIZENSHIP

Re: Application for Admission to the Bar Vicente D. Ching, B.M. No. 914, October 1, 1999

Under Article IV, Section 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution, the citizenship of a legitimate child born
of a Filipino mother and an alien father followed the citizenship of the father, unless, upon reaching
the age of majority, the child elected Philippine citizenship. 4 This right to elect Philippine
citizenship was recognized in the 1973 Constitution when it provided that "(t)hose who elect
Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-
five" are citizens of the Philippines. 5 Likewise, this recognition by the 1973 Constitution was
carried over to the 1987 Constitution which states that "(t)hose born before January 17, 1973 of
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority" are Philippine
citizens.

C.A. No. 625 which was enacted pursuant to Section 1(3), Article IV of the 1935 Constitution,
prescribes the procedure that should be followed in order to make a valid election of Philippine
citizenship. Under Section 1 thereof, legitimate children born of Filipino mothers may elect
Philippine citizenship by expressing such intention "in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the
party concerned before any officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall be filed with the
nearest civil registry. The said party shall accompany the aforesaid statement with the oath of
allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines."

Cases on Requirement of Good Moral Character:

In The Matter Of The Disqualification Of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling In The 2002 Bar
Examinations And For Disciplinary Action As Member Of The Philippine Shari’a Bar, Atty.
Froilan R. Melendrez, B.M. No. 1154, June 8, 2004

In Bar Matter 1209, the Court stated, thus:

It has been held that good moral character is what a person 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. Moral character is not a subjective term but one which
corresponds to objective reality. The standard of personal and professional integrity is not satisfied
by such conduct as it merely enables a person to escape the penalty of criminal law. Good moral
character includes at least common honesty.

Narag vs. Narag, A.C. No. 3405 June 29, 1998

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

“Rule 1.01-- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.”
”CANON 7-- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03-- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.”

Thus, good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but
a continuing qualification for all members of the bar. Hence, when a lawyer is found guilty of gross
immoral conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred.

Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to
show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. Furthermore,
such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed
under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.

We explained in Barrientos vs. Daarol that, “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 and leading lives in
accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of the
Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the
keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by
creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards.”

Advincula vs. Macabata, A.C. No. 7204, March 7, 2007

As may be gleaned from above, the Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded that their possession of good moral character is a
continuing condition to preserve their membership in the Bar in good standing. The continued
possession of good moral character is a requisite condition for remaining in the practice of law.
[6] In Aldovino v. Pujalte, Jr., we emphasized that:

This Court has been exacting in its demand for integrity and good moral
character of members of the Bar. They are expected at all times to uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession and 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. Membership in the legal profession is
a privilege. And whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy
 of the trust and confidence of the public, it becomes not only the right but also the
duty of this Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of
ministering within its Bar, to withdraw the privilege.

It should be noted that the requirement of good moral character has four ostensible purposes,
namely:
(1) to protect the public;
(2) to protect the public image of lawyers;
(3) to protect prospective clients; and
(4) to protect errant lawyers from themselves.

Immorality has not been confined to sexual matters, but includes conduct inconsistent with
rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity and dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant,
or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable members of the
community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare.

Villanueva vs. Sta. Ana, CBD CASE No. 251, July 11, 1995

Well-settled is the rule that good moral character is not only a condition precedent to an admission
to the legal profession but it must also remain extant in order to maintain one's good standing in that
exclusive and honored fraternity. The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates:

CANON 1 — . . . .
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
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.

Cordova vs. Cordova, A.M. No. 3249, November 29, 1989

After a review of the record, we agree with the findings of fact of the IBP Board. We also agree that
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 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 is possessed of good moral character. That requirement is not exhausted and dispensed with upon
admission to membership of the bar. On the contrary, that requirement persists as a continuing
condition for membership in the Bar in good standing.

Tapucar vs. Tapucar, A.C. No. 4148, July 30, 1998

As this Court often reminds members of the Bar, they must live up to the standards and norms
expected of the legal profession, by upholding the ideals and tenets embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility always. Lawyers must maintain a high standards of legal proficiency,
as well as morality including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. For they are at all times subject to
the scrutinizing eye of public opinion and community approbation. Needless to state, those whose
conduct – both public and private – fails this scrutiny would have to be disciplined and, after
appropriate proceedings, penalized accordingly.

Keeping a mistress, entering into another marriage while a prior one still subsists, as well as
abandoning and/or mistreating complainant and their children, show his disregard of family
obligations, morality and decency, the law and the lawyer’s oath. Such gross misbehavior over a
long period of time clearly shows a serious flaw in respondent’s character, his moral indifference to
scandal in the community, and his outright defiance of established norms. All these could not but
put the legal profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril,
hence the need for strict but appropriate disciplinary action.

Bacarro vs. Pinatacan, Adm. Case No. 559-SBC January 31, 1984
One of the indispensable requisites for admission to the Philippine Bar is that the applicant must be
of good moral character. This requirement aims to maintain and uphold the high moral standards
and the dignity of the legal profession, and one of the ways of achieving this end is to admit to the
practice of this noble profession only those persons who are known to be honest and to possess
good moral character. "As a man of law, (a lawyer) is necessary a leader of the community, looked
up to as a model citizen" He sets an example to his fellow citizens not only for his respect for the
law, but also for his clean living. Thus, becoming a lawyer is more than just going through a law
course and passing the Bar examinations. One who has the lofty aspiration of becoming a member
of the Philippine Bar must satisfy this Court, which has the power, jurisdiction and duty to pass
upon the qualifications, ability and moral character of candidates for admission to the Bar, that he
has measured up to that rigid and Ideal standard of moral fitness required by his chosen vocation.

As in the Tan cases, We hold that herein respondent Pinatacan had failed to live up to the high moral
standard demanded for membership in the Bar. He had seduced complainant into physically
submitting herself to him by promises of marriage. He even eloped with her and brought her to
another place. He got her pregnant and then told her to have an abortion When complainant refused,
he deserted her. Complainant had to track him down to ask him to help support their child born out
of wedlock, and during the few times that she was able to see him, respondent merely made
promises which he apparently did not intend to keep. On top of all these, respondent had the
audacity and impudence to deny before this Court in a sworn Affidavit the paternity of his child by
complaint.

Ventura vs. Atty. Samson, A.C. No. 9608, November 27, 2012
From the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and the admissions of respondent himself, we
find that respondent’s act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his former
employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction. Respondent not only admitted
he had sexual intercourse with complainant but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he
asserted that he did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her money.
Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect
for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that
he procured the act by enticing a very young woman with money showed his utmost moral
depravity and low regard for the dignity of the human person and the ethics of his profession.

Respondent has violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant, then a 13-year-
old minor, who for a time was under respondent’s care. Whether the sexual encounter between the
respondent and complainant was or was not with the latter’s consent is of no moment. Respondent
clearly committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral and highly reprehensible act. Such conduct is a
transgression of the standards of morality required of the legal profession and should be disciplined
accordingly.
Leda vs. Tabang, A.C. No. 2505 February 21, 1992

Firstly, his declaration in his application for Admission to the 1981 Bar Examinations that he
was "single" was a gross misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad faith, for which
he should be made answerable. Rule 7.01, Canon 7, Chapter II of the Code of Professional
Responsibility explicitly provides: "A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false
statement or suppression of a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the
bar." That false statement, if it had been known, would have disqualified him outright from taking
the Bar Examinations as it indubitably exhibits lack of good moral character.

Respondent's lack of good moral character is only too evident. He has resorted to conflicting
submissions before this Court to suit himself. He has also engaged in devious tactics with
Complainant in order to serve his purpose. In so doing, he has violated Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to
the court" as well as Rule 1001 thereof which states that "a lawyer should do no falsehood nor
consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any
artifice." Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing
and pleading before them. Respondent, through his actuations, has been lacking in the candor
required of him not only as a member of the Bar but also as an officer of the Court.

Laguitan vs. Tinio, A.M. No. 3049 December 4, 1989

The Court agrees that respondent Tinio deserves to be suspended from the practice of law but not
merely because he has failed in his obligation to support the children complainant bore him but also
because for a prolonged period of time, he lived in concubinage with complainant, a course of
conduct inconsistent with the requirement of good moral character that is required for the continued
right to practice law as a member of the Philippine Bar, Concubinage imports moral turpitude and
entails a public assault upon the basic social institution of marriage.

Guevarra vs. Atty. Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007

While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between
two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it
is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. Even if not all forms of extra-
marital relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside marriage is
considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage
and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.

Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation
of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

In Re: Victorio D. Lanuevo, A.M. No. 1162 August 29, 1975; In Re: Ramon E. Galang, A.C.
No. 1163 August 29, 1975; In Re: HON. BERNARDO PARDO, HON. RAMON PAMATIAN,
ATTY. MANUEL TOMACRUZ, ATTY. FIDEL MANALO And ATTY. GUILLERMO
PABLO, JR., Members, 1971 Bar Examining Committee, A.M. No. 1162
It is patent likewise from the records that respondent Lanuevo too undue advantage of the trust and
confidence reposed in him by the Court and the Examiners implicit in his position as Bar Confidant
as well as the trust and confidence that prevailed in and characterized his relationship with the five
members of the 1971 Bar Examination Committee, who were thus deceived and induced into re-
evaluating the answers of only respondent Galang in five subjects that resulted in the increase of his
grades therein, ultimately enabling him to be admitted a member of the Philippine Bar.
Section 2 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court of 1964, in connection, among others, with the
character requirement of candidates for admission to the Bar, provides that "every applicant for
admission as a member of the Bar must be ... of good moral

character ... 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."

Respondent Galang when he took the Bar for the first time in 1962 did not expressly require the
disclosure of the applicant's criminal records, if any.
Galang continued to intentionally withhold or conceal from the Court his criminal case of slight
physical injuries which was then and until now is pending in the City Court of Manila; and
thereafter repeatedly omitted to make mention of the same in his applications to take the Bar
examinations in 1967, 1969 and 1971.