1. What is Legal Ethics?

Legal Ethics
Cayetano v Monsod
It is a branch of moral science which treats of the duties G.R. No. 100113
which an attorney owes to the court, to his client, to his September 3, 1991
colleagues in the profession and to the public as embodied
in the Constitution, Rules of Court, the Code of Professional
Responsibility, Canons of Professional Ethics, jurisprudence, Facts:
moral, law and special laws (Justice George Malcolm). Monsod was nominated by President Aquino
to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC
on April 25, 1991. Cayetano opposed the
2. What are the Sources of ethical standards in the
Philippine Judiciary? nomination because allegedly Monsod does
not possess the required qualification of having
1. Primary been engaged in the practice of law for at least
a. Bar
i. Code of Professional Responsibility
ten years. Challenging the validity of the
ii. Constitution confirmation by the Commission on
iii. Rules of Court Appointments of Monsod’s nomination,
b. Bench petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari and
i. New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary Prohibition praying that said confirmation and
ii. Rules of Court the consequent appointment of Monsod as
c. Other personnel – Code of Conduct for Court Personnel Issue:
2. Secondary Whether or not respondent posses the
a. Decisions/Resolutions of the Supreme Court
b. Supreme Court Circulars required qualifications of having engaged in
c. Order/Resolution of other courts the practice of law for at least ten years.
d. IBP Issuances
e. Treatises and Publications
HELD:
The practice of law is not limited to the
3. What constitute Practice of law?
conduct of cases in court. A person is also
considered to be in the practice of law when
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of
he: “. . . for valuable consideration engages in
court, which requires the application of law,
the business of advising person, firms,
legal procedure, knowledge, training, and
associations or corporations as to their rights
experience (Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No.
under the law, or appears in a representative
100113, September 3, 1991).
capacity as an advocate in proceedings
The following acts constitute practice of law:
pending or prospective, before any court,
a. Giving of advice or rendering any kind of
commissioner, referee, board, body,
service that involves legal knowledge;
committee, or commission constituted by law
b. Appearance in court and conduct of cases in
or authorized to settle controversies.
court;
Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative
c. Preparation of pleadings and other papers
capacity, engages in the business of advising
incident to actions as well as drawing of deeds
clients as to their rights under the law, or while
and instruments of conveyance; and
so engaged performs any act or acts either in
d. Notarial acts.
court or outside of court for that purpose, is
engaged in the practice of law.”
4. Distinguish between Bar and Bench?
BAR
Refers to the whole body of attorneys and
counselors. Collectively, the members of the
legal profession.
BENCH
Refers to the whole body of judges and
justices.
5. Who is an amicus curiae?
Amicus Curiae
An experienced and impartial attorney invited
by the court to appear and help in the
disposition of the issues submitted to it. An
amicus curiae appears in court not to
represent any particular party but only to assist money-making trade similar to that of a
the court (plural: Amici Curiae).
6. Distinguish between attorney-at-law and
attorney in fact.
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
Class of persons who are licensed officers of
the court empowered to appear, prosecute
and defend, and upon whom peculiar duties,
responsibilities and liabilities are developed by 10. What constitute practice of law?
law as consequence.
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
Simply an agent whose authority is strictly
limited by the instrument appointing him. His
authority is provided in a special power of
attorney or general power of attorney or letter
of attorney. He is not necessarily a lawyer.
7. What is pro se?
Pro Se
A party to a lawsuit who represents himself, is
appearing in the case "pro se."
8. Distinguish between counsel de officio and
counsel de parte?
Counsel de oficio
An attorney appointed by the court to defend
an indigent defendant in a criminal action.
Counsel de parte
A private counsel of a party secured by him,
without intervention from the government.
9. “practice of law is a profesion not a
business” explain
The legal profession is not a business. It is not a
businessman employing a strategy for the
purpose of monetary gain. It is a sacred
profession imbued with public interest whose
primary objective is public service, as it is an
essential part in the administration of justice
and a profession in pursuit of which pecuniary
reward is considered merely incidental.
The following acts constitute practice of law:
a. Giving of advice or rendering any kind of
service that involves legal knowledge;
b. Appearance in court and conduct of cases in
court;
c. Preparation of pleadings and other papers
incident to actions as well as drawing of deeds HELD: Private respondent Javellana has been
and instruments of conveyance; and arrested based on the filing of criminal cases
d. Notarial acts. against him. By such arrest, he is deemed to be
under the custody of the law. The trial court
gave Atty. Deogracias del Rosario the custody
11. Practice under detention (People vs of private respondent Javellana with the
Maceda, Gr Nos., 89591-96, Jan. 24, 2000) obligation “to hold and detain” him in Atty. del
Rosario’s residence in his official capacity as
PEOPLE V. MACEDA the clerk of court of the regional trial court.
G.R. Nos. 89591-96 Hence, when Atty. del Rosario was appointed
January 24, 2000 judge, he ceased to be the personal custodian
of accused Javellana and the succeeding clerk
FACTS: This case stems from denial by the SC of court must be deemed the custodian under
of the People’s motion seeking reconsideration the same undertaking.
of our August 13, 1990 decision holding that As a matter of law, when a person
respondent Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda indicted for an offense is arrested, he is
committed no grave abuse of discretion in deemed placed under the custody of the law.
issuing the order of August 8, 1989 giving He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail
custody over private respondent Avelino T. so that he may be bound to answer for the
Javellana to the Clerk of Court of the Antique commission of the offense. He must be
RTC, Atty. Deogracias del Rosario, during the detained in jail during the pendency of the
pendency of Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355. At case against him, unless he is authorized by the
that time, sufficient reason was shown why court to be released on bail or on
Javellana should not be detained at the recognizance. Let it be stressed that all
Antique Provincial Jail. The trial court’s order prisoners whether under preventive detention
specifically provided for private respondent’s or serving final sentence can not practice their
detention at the residence of Atty. del Rosario. profession nor engage in any business or
However, private respondent was not to be occupation, or hold office, elective or
allowed liberty to roam around but was to be appointive, while in detention.
held as detention prisoner in said residence.
However, it was found that the order was not
strictly complied with because Javellana was 12. Private Practice
not detained in the residence of Atty. Del
Rosario. He went about his normal activities as OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS.
if he were a free man, including engaging in ATTY. LADAGA
the practice of law. A.M. No. P-99-1287
350 SCRA 326
ISSUE: Whether the private respondent January 26, 2001
engaged in an unauthorized practice of law.
FACTS: Atty. Ladaga, an RTC Branch Clerk of
Court, acted as pro bono counsel for a relative
in a criminal case, without the previous
authority from the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court as required by the
Administrative Code. An administrative
complaint was filed against Atty. Ladaga for
practicing law without permission from the
Department Head (CJ) as required by law. Atty.
Ladaga justified his appearance as he merely
gave a free legal assistance to a relative and
that he was on an approved leave of absence
during his appearances as such counsel.
Moreover, the presiding judge of the court to 13. Admission to Bar
which he is assigned knew his appearances as
such counsel. IN RE: ALMACEN
R. Nos. L-27654
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Ladaga’s appearances as 31 SCRA 562
a pro bono counsel for a relative constitutes February 18, 1970
practice of law as prohibited by the
Administrative Code. FACTS: Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen filed a
“Petition to Surrender the Lawyer’s Certificate
of Title” to the Supreme Court as a sign of his
HELD: No. Practice of law to fall within the protest as against to what he calls a tribunal
prohibition of the statute should be “peopled by people who are calloused to our
customarily or habitually holding one’s self to pleas for justice…”. He also expressed strong
the public as a lawyer and demanding payment words as against the judiciary like “justice… is
for such services. It does not pertain to isolated not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.” . The
court appearances as in this case. petition rooted from the case he lost due to
Nevertheless, for his failure to obtain a prior the absence of time and place in his motion in
permission from the head of the Department the trial court. His appeal was dismissed in the
(CJ) as required by law, respondent was Court of Appeals by reason of jurisprudence. In
reprimanded. a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court,
it was again dismissed thru a minute
resolution. With the disappointments, he
thought of this sacrificial move. He claimed
that this petition to surrender his title is only in
trust, and that he may obtain the title again as
soon as he regained confidence in the justice
system.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Almacen should
be given disciplinary actions for his acts.
HELD: YES. Indefinite suspension imposed.
RATIO: It has been pointed out by the Supreme
Court that there is no one to blame but Atty.
Almacen himself because of his negligence.
Even if the intentions of his accusations are so
noble, in speaking of the truth and alleged
injustices, so as not to condemn the sinners
but the sin, it has already caused enough
damage and disrepute to the judiciary. Since
this particular case is sui generis in its nature, a
number of foreign and local jurisprudence in
analogous cases were cited as benchmarks and
references. Between disbarment and
suspension, the latter was imposed. Indefinite
suspension may only be lifted until further
orders, after Atty. Almacen may be able to
prove that he is again fit to resume the
practice of law.
14. Can the legislature enact laws to regulate
the practice of law?
Legislature is not allowed to regulate the
practice of law
The 1987 Constitution no longer provides for
the power of the legislature to repeal, alter
and supplement the Rules promulgated by the
Supreme Court regulating the practice of law.
15. Requirements for admission to the Bar
Under Sections 2, 5 and 6 of Rule 138, the
applicant must be:
1. a Citizen of the Philippines;
2. At least 21 years of age;
3. Of Good moral character;
4. a Resident of the Philippines;
5. Must produce before the SC satisfactory
Evidence of good moral character;
6. No charges against him, involving moral
turpitude, have been filed or are pending in
any court in the Philippines (Sec. 2, Rule 138,
RRC)
7. Must have complied with the Academic
requirements;
8. Must Pass the bar examinations;
9. Take the lawyer’s Oath; and
10. Sign the Roll of Attorneys.
16. Philippine Shari’a Bar
Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S.
Meling,
B.M. No. 1154,
June 8, 2004).
Facts: Atty. Melendrez filed a petition to
disqualify Meling from taking the bar exams
and to impose disciplinary penalty as a
member of the Shari'a Bar. He alleged that in
his application to take the bar, Meling failed to
disclose the fact that he has 3 pending criminal Office of the Bar Confidant, however, had
cases. Also, Meling has been using the title received two anonymous letters: the first
“Attorney" in his communications as secretary alleged that at the time Adelantado filed his
to the Mayor. Should Issue: Meling be petition to take the bar, he had two other civil
disqualified from being admitted to the Bar. cases pending against him, as well as a criminal
Held: YES. Meling's deliberate silence and non- case for violation of B.P. 22; the other letter
revelation of his pending criminal cases alleged that Adelantado, as Sangguniang
constitute concealment. The disclosure Kabataan Chairperson, had been signing the
requirement is imposed to determine whether attendance sheets of SK meetings as “Atty.
there is satisfactory evidence of good moral Mike Adelantado.”
character of the applicant. By concealing the
existence of such cases, the applicant flunks Issue: Having passed the Bar, can Mike already
the test of fitness even if the cases are use the appellation “attorney”?
ultimately proven unwarranted or insufficient Held: NO. Passing the Bar examination is not
to impugn or affect the good moral character sufficient for admission of a person to the
of the applicant. Further, it was highly Philippine Bar. He still has to take the oath of
improper for Meling, as member of the Shari'a office and sign the Attorney’s Roll as
Bar, to use the title "Attorney". Only members prerequisites to admission. Only those who
of the Philippine Bar, who have obtained the have been admitted to the Philippine Bar can
necessary degree in the study of law and be called “Attorney." Further, he should not be
successfully passed the bar exams, been allowed to take his oath and sign the
admitted to the IBP and remain members in Attorney’s Roll. Rule 7.01 of the Code of
good standing are authorized to practice law Professional Responsibility provides that “a
and thus use the title lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly
making a false statement or suppressing a
material fact in connection with his application
17. Who may be called “attorney”? for admission to the Bar
Alawi v. Alauya Aguirre vs. Rana
A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P 403 SCRA 342
February 4, 1997 2003
Facts: Mike Adelantado disclosed in his Facts: Rana was among those who passed the
petition to take the 2003 bar examinations that 2000 Bar Examinations. before the scheduled
there were two civil cases pending against him mass oath-taking, complainant Aguirre filed
for nullification of contract and damages. He against respondent a Petition for Denial of
was conditionally allowed to take the bar, and Admission to the Bar.
subsequently placed third in the said exams. In The Court allowed respondent to take his
2004, after the two civil cases had been oath. Respondent took the lawyer’s oath on
resolved, Mike Adelantado filed his petition to the scheduled date but has not signed the Roll
take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll of of Attorneys up to now. Complainant alleges
Attorneys before the Supreme Court. The that respondent, while not yet a lawyer,
appeared as counsel for a candidate in an (Grande v. Atty. De Silva, A.C. No. 4838, July
election. 29, 2003).

Issue: Having passed the Bar and took his can

Rana already use the appellation “attorney”?
Ruling: 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.
20. APPEARANCE OF NON-LAWYERS
Only those who are licensed to practice law
can appear and handle cases in court.
Exceptions:
1. Law student practice;
2. Non-lawyers in court can appear for a party
in MTC; and
NOTE: Section 34, Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Court expressly allows pro se practice
or the right of a non-member of the bar to
engage in limited practice of law (Antiquiera,
1992).
3. Non-lawyers can represent parties in
administrative tribunals such as NLRC, DARAB,
and Cadastral Courts.

18. What are the obligations of a newly

constituted lawyer?

He must Member himself to the Integrated Bar

of the Philippines

19. Good moral character is a continuing

requirement
The nature of the office of an attorney requires
that a lawyer shall be a person of good moral
character. Since this qualification is a condition
precedent to a license to enter upon the
practice of law, the maintenance thereof is
equally essential during the continuance of the
practice and the exercise of the privilege