MATRICES

ON THE RELATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE

OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY












In partial fulfillment of the requirements in
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics



Submitted to Justice Maria Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega



Submitted by Section 3D (A.Y. 2018-2019)







Submitted this 6th of February 2019

 Class List

1. ALEJANDRINO, Romer Kevin C.
2. ALMAZAR, Victor Emmanuel I.
3. BONGABONG, Joshua James M.
4. CABRAL, Alyanna Angelina M.
5. CARIÑO, Alnee Joy M.
6. CEA, Eric Winson F.
7. CERERA, Florence Diane N.
8. CRISTOBAL, Jerric B.
9. DE MESA, John Lorence N.
10. DE OCAMPO, Marie Grace Colleen E.
11. DELA CRUZ, Camille Victoria D.
12. DELA ROSA, Rejinna E.
13. GALANG, Victor Kenner S.
14. GUMELA, Jimson Leandro V.
15. IBE, Gerald Lance T.
16. KIONG, Shaira Kasey L.
17. LUPANGO, Vince Noel L.
18. MANGAYA, Francis Luigi R.
19. MARQUEZ, Jones Harvey I.
20. PABLO, Jedia Jane M.
21. PAHAYAHAY, Maria Karen A.
22. PALTING, Lexter E.
23. PASCUA, Kim Kenneth P.
24. PUA, Mariel Y.
25. QUIZON, Kaye Antonette B.
26. RIPA, Ana Mae M.
27. SANTIAGO, Anne Christelle A.
28. SANTOS, Aura Eunice S.
29. SANTOS, Mary Keit Anne G.
30. SORIANO, Guianina Shiela Camille A.
31. TOLENTINO, Hannah C.
32. TORRES, Joanne Louis F.
33. UNARCE, Julia Antoinette S.
34. VELASCO, Erika Grace E.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS


Part Page #

I. Outline of the Code of Professional Responsibility 4
II. Matrix 1: In Relation to the Duties under the 5 – 15
Lawyer’s Oath
III. Matrix 2: In Relation to Subject Matters Pertinent to 16 - 26
Legal Ethics
IV. Matrix 3: As Illustrated by Jurisprudence 27 - 68


Outline of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Chapter I: The Lawyer and Society

CANON 1 – Promote and Respect the Law and Legal Processes
CANON 2 – Provide Efficient and Convenient Legal Services
CANON 3 – Information on Legal Services that is True, Honest, Fair
Dignified, and Objective
CANON 4 – Support for Legal Reforms and Administration of Justice
CANON 5 – Participate in Legal Education
CANON 6 – Canons Apply to Lawyers in Government Service

Chapter II: The Lawyer and The Legal Profession

CANON 7 – Uphold Dignity and Integrity in the Profession
CANON 8 – Courtesy, Fairness, and Candor Towards Professional
Colleagues
CANON 9 – Unauthorized Practice of Law

Chapter III: The Lawyer and the Courts

CANON 10 – Observe Candor, Fairness and Good Faith to the Court
CANON 11 – Respect Courts and Judicial Officers
CANON 12 – Assist in Speedy and Efficient Administration of Justice
CANON 13 – Refrain from Acts Tending to, or Giving Appearance of,
Influence

Chapter IV: The Lawyer and the Client

CANON 14 – Service to the Needy
CANON 15 – Observe Candor, Fairness, Loyalty to His Clients
CANON 16 – Hold in Trust Client’s Moneys and Properties
CANON 17 – Trust and Confidence
CANON 18 – Competence and Diligence
CANON 19 – Representation with Zeal
CANON 20 – Attorney’s Fees
CANON 21 – Preserve Client’s Confidences
CANON 22 – Withdrawal of Services Only for Good Cause


Matrix 1: In Relation to the Duties Under the Lawyer’s Oath

Duty Related Canons/Rules
Maintain allegiance to Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the
the Republic of the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
Philippines; support promote respect for law and for legal
its Constitution and processes.
obey the laws as well Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in
as the legal orders of unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
the duly constituted conduct.
authorities therein Rule 1.02. A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt
motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Canon 4 – A lawyer shall participate in the
development of the legal system by initiating or
supporting efforts in law reform and in the
improvement of the administration of justice.
Canon 5 – A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal
developments, participate in continuing legal
education programs, support efforts to achieve
high standards in law schools as well as in the
practical training of law students and assist in
disseminating information regarding the law
and jurisprudence.
Canon 6 – These canons shall apply to lawyers
in government service in the discharge of their
official tasks.
Rule 6.01. The primary duty of a lawyer
engaged in public prosecution is not to convict
but to see that justice is done. The suppression
of facts or the concealment of witnesses
capable of establishing the innocence of the
accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for
disciplinary action.
Rule 6.02. A lawyer in the government service
shall not use his public position to promote or
advance his private interests nor allow the
latter to interfere with his public duties.
Rule 7.02. A lawyer shall not support the
Rule 9.02. A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate
to divide a fee for legal services with persons
not licensed to practice law, except:
a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement
with a partner or associate that, upon the
latter's death, money shall be paid over a
reasonable period of time to his estate or to
persons specified in the agreement; or
b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete
unfinished legal business of a deceased
lawyer; or
c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-
lawyer employees in a retirement plan, even
if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a
profit-sharing arrangement.
Rule 10.03. A lawyer shall observe the rules of
procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat
the ends of justice.
Canon 12 – A lawyer shall exert every effort
and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice.
Rule 12.07. A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat
or harass a witness nor needlessly
inconvenience him.
Rule 12.08. A lawyer shall avoid testifying in
behalf of his client, except:
a) on formal matters, such as the mailing,
authentication or custody of an instrument,
and the like: or
b) on substantial matters, in cases where his
testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in
which event he must, during his testimony,
entrust the trial of the case to another
counsel.
Rule 15.07. A lawyer shall impress upon his
client compliance with the laws and the
principles of fairness.
Rule 15.08. A lawyer who is engaged in another
profession or occupation concurrently with the
practice of law shall make clear to his client
whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another
capacity.
 from the client.
Rule 16.02. A lawyer shall keep the funds of
each client separate and apart from his own
and those of others kept by him.
Rule 16.03. A lawyer shall deliver the funds and
property of his client when due or upon
demand. However, he shall have a lien over the
funds and may apply so much thereof as may
be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements, giving notice promptly
thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien
to the same extent on all judgments and
executions he has secured for his client as
provided for in the Rules of Court.
Rule 16.04. A lawyer shall not borrow money
from his client unless the client's interests are
fully protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend
money to a client except, when in the interest
of justice, he has to advance necessary
expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the
client.
Do no falsehood nor Rule 1.02. A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
consent to the doing activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
of any in court lessening confidence in the legal system.
Canon 3 – A lawyer in making known his legal
services shall use only true, honest, fair,
dignified and objective information or
statements of facts.
Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the
use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
statement or claim regarding his qualifications
or legal services.
Rule 7.01. A lawyer shall be answerable for
knowingly making a false statement or
suppressing a material fact, in connection with
his application for admission to the bar.
Rule 7.03. 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
 unqualified person the performance of any task
which by law may only be performed by a
member of the Bar in good standing.
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 a
paper, the language or the argument of
opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or
authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision
already rendered inoperative by repeal or
amendment or assert as a fact that which has
not been proved.
Rule 12.05. A lawyer shall refrain from talking
to his witness during a break or recess in the
trial, while the witness is still under
examination.
Rule 12.06. A lawyer shall not knowingly assist
a witness to misrepresent himself or to
impersonate another.
Canon 19 - A lawyer shall represent his client
with zeal within the bounds of the law.
Rule 19.01. A lawyer shall employ only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of
his client and shall not present, participate in
presenting or threaten to present unfounded
criminal charges to obtain an improper
advantage in any case or proceeding.
Rule 19.02. A lawyer who has received
information that his client has, in the course of
the representation, perpetuated a fraud upon a
person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the
client to rectify the same, and failing which he
shall terminate the relationship with such
client in accordance with the Rules of Court.
Not wittingly or Rule 12.02. A lawyer shall not le multiple
willingly promote or actions arising from the same cause.
sue any groundless, Rule 15.05. A lawyer, when advising his client,
 Rule 18.02. A lawyer shall not handle any legal
matter without adequate preparation.
Canon 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client
with zeal within the bounds of the law.
Rule 19.01. A lawyer shall employ only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of
his client and shall not present, participate in
presenting or threaten to present unfounded
criminal charges to obtain an improper
advantage in any case or proceeding.
Rule 19.02. A lawyer who has received
information that his client has, in the course of
the representation, perpetuated a fraud upon a
person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the
client to rectify the same, and failing which he
shall terminate the relationship with such
client in accordance with the Rules of Court.
Rule 19.03. A lawyer shall not allow his client
to dictate the procedure in handling the case.
Delay no man for Rule 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt
money or malice, and motive or interest, encourage any suit or
will conduct myself as proceeding or delay any man's cause.
a lawyer according to Rule 1.04. A lawyer shall encourage his clients
the best of my to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will
knowledge and admit of a fair settlement.
discretion with all Canon 2 – A lawyer shall make his legal services
good fidelity as well available in an efficient and convenient manner
to the court as to my compatible with the independence, integrity
clients and effectiveness of the profession.
Rule 2.01. A lawyer shall not reject, except for
valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or
the oppressed.
Rule 2.02. In such cases, even if the lawyer does
not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render
legal advice to the person concerned if only to
the extent necessary to safeguard the latter's
rights.
Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be
done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business.
Rule 2.04. A lawyer shall not charge rates lower
than those customarily prescribed unless the
partner is permissible provided that the firm
indicates in all its communications that said
partner is deceased.
Rule 3.03. Where a partner accepts public
office, he shall withdraw from the firm and his
name shall be dropped from the firm name
unless the law allows him to practice law
concurrently.
Rule 3.04. A lawyer shall not pay or give
anything of value to representatives of the
mass media in anticipation of, or in return for,
publicity to attract legal business.
Rule 6.03. A lawyer shall not, after leaving a
government service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in said service.
Canon 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession,
and support the activities of the integrated bar.
Rule 7.02. A lawyer shall not support the
application for admission to the bar of any
person known by him to be unqualified in
respect to character, education, or other
relevant attribute.
Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he, whether in public or private
life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.
Canon 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid
harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 8.02. A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer; however, it is
the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to
give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful
maintain the respect due to the Courts and to
judicial officers and should insist on similar
conduct by others.
Rule 11.01. A lawyer shall appear in court
properly attired.
Rule 11.02. A lawyer shall punctually appear at
court hearings.
Rule 11.03. A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.
Rule 11.04. A lawyer shall not attribute to a
Judge motives not supported by the record or
have no materiality to the case.
Rule 11.05. A lawyer shall submit grievances
against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
Canon 12 – A lawyer shall exert every effort
and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice.
Rule 12.01. A lawyer shall not appear for trial
unless he has adequately prepared himself on
the law and the facts of his case, the evidence
he will adduce and the order of its profference.
He should also be ready with the original
documents for comparison with the copies.
Rule 12.03. A lawyer shall not, after obtaining
extensions of time to le pleadings, memoranda
or briefs, let the period lapse without
submitting the same or offering an explanation
for his failure to do so.
Rule 12.04. A lawyer shall not unduly delay a
case, impede the execution of a Judgment or
misuse Court processes.
Canon 13 - A lawyer shall rely upon the merits
of his cause and refrain from any impropriety
which tends to influence, or gives the
appearance of influencing the Court.
Rule 13.01. A lawyer shall not extend
extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor
seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity
with Judges.
Rule 13.02. A lawyer shall not make public
statements in the media regarding a pending
the government in the normal course of judicial
proceedings.
Canon 14 – A lawyer shall not refuse his
services to the needy.
Rule 14.01. A lawyer shall not decline to
represent a person solely on account of the
latter's race, sex, creed or status of life, or
because of his own opinion regarding the guilt
of said person.
Rule 14.02. A lawyer shall not decline, except
for serious and sufficient cause, an
appointment as counsel de oficio or as amicus
curiae or a request from the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines or any of its chapters for
rendition of free legal aid.
Rule 14.03. A lawyer may not refuse to accept
representation of an indigent client unless:
a) he is in no position to carry out the work
effectively or competently; or
b) he labors under a conflict of interest
between him and the prospective client, or
between a present client and the prospective
client.
Rule 14.04. A lawyer who accepts the cause of
a person unable to pay his professional fees
shall observe the same standard of conduct
governing his relations with paying clients.
Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his client.
Rule 15.01. A lawyer, in conferring with a
prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as
practicable whether the matter would involve
a conflict with another client or his own
interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the
prospective client.
Rule 15.03. A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
the facts.
Rule 15.04. A lawyer may, with the written
consent of all concerned, act as mediator,
prospects of the case.
Rule 15.06. A lawyer shall not state or imply
that he is able to influence any public official,
tribunal or legislative body.
Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause
of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in him.
Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.
Rule 18.01. A lawyer shall not undertake a legal
service which he knows or should know that he
is not qualified to render. However, he may
render such service if, with the consent of his
client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a
lawyer who is competent on the matter.
Rule 18.02. A lawyer shall not handle any legal
matter without adequate preparation.
Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the client's
request for information.
Canon 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client
with zeal within the bounds of the law.
Canon 20 – A lawyer shall charge only fair and
reasonable fees.
Rule 20.01. A lawyer shall be guided by the
following factors in determining his fees:
a) The time spent and the extent of the
services rendered or required;
b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions
involved;
c) The importance of the subject matter;
d) The skill demanded;
e) The probability of losing other
employment as a result of acceptance of the
proffered case;
f) The customary charges for similar services
and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to
which he belongs;
 compensation;
i) The character of the employment, whether
occasional or established; and
j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
Rule 20.02. A lawyer shall, in cases of referral,
with the consent of the client, be entitled to a
division of fees in proportion to the work
performed and responsibility assumed.
Rule 20.03. A lawyer shall not, without the full
knowledge and consent of the client, accept any
fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate
or forwarding allowance or other
compensation whatsoever related to his
professional employment from anyone other
than the client.
Rule 20.04. A lawyer shall avoid controversies
with clients concerning his compensation and
shall resort to judicial action only to prevent
imposition, injustice or fraud.
Canon 21 – A lawyer shall preserve the
confidences or secrets of his client even after
the attorney-client relation is terminated.
Rule 21.01. A lawyer shall not reveal the
confidences or secrets of his client except:
a) when authorized by the client after
acquainting him of the consequences of the
disclosure;
b) when required by law;
c) when necessary to collect his fees or to
defend himself, his employees or associates
or by judicial action.
Rule 21.02. A lawyer shall not, to the
disadvantage of his client, use information
acquired in the course of employment, nor shall
he use the same to his own advantage or that of
a third person, unless the client with full
knowledge of the circumstances consents
thereto.
Rule 21.03. A lawyer shall not, without the
written consent of his client, give information
from his les to an outside agency seeking such
information for auditing, statistical,
 Rule 21.05. A lawyer shall adopt such measures
as may be required to prevent those whose
services are utilized by him, from disclosing or
using confidences or secrets of the client.
Rule 21.06. A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet
conversation about a client's affairs even with
members of his family.
Rule 21.07. A lawyer shall not reveal that he has
been consulted about a particular case except
to avoid possible conflict of interest.
Canon 22 – A lawyer shall withdraw his
services only for good cause and upon notice
appropriate in the circumstances.
Rule 22.01. A lawyer may withdraw his
services in any of the following cases:
a) When the client pursues an illegal or
immoral course of conduct in connection
with the matter he is handling;
b) When the client insists that the lawyer
pursue conduct violative of these canons and
rules;
c) When his inability to work with co-counsel
will not promote the best interest of the
client;
d) When the mental or physical condition of
the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry
out the employment effectively;
e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the
fees for the services or fails to comply with
the retainer agreement;
f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to
public office; and
g) Other similar cases.
Rule 22.02. A lawyer who withdraws or is
discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien,
immediately turn over all papers and property
to which the client is entitled, and shall
cooperate with his successor in the orderly
transfer of the matter, including all information
necessary for the proper handling of the
matter.

Matrix 2: In Relation to Subject Matters Pertinent to Legal Ethics

Subject Matter or Area Related Canons/Rules
Honesty in Law Practice Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Canon 3 – A lawyer in making known his
legal services shall use only true, honest,
fair, dignified and objective information or
statements of facts.
Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit
the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or
unfair statement or claim regarding his
qualifications or legal services.
Rule 3.02. In the choice of a firm name, no
false, misleading or assumed name shall be
used. The continued use of the name of a
deceased partner is permissible provided
that the firm indicates in all its
communications that said partner is
deceased.
Rule 7.01. A lawyer shall be answerable for
knowingly making a false statement or
suppressing a material fact, in connection
with his application for admission to the
bar.
Rule 7.02. A lawyer shall not support the
application for admission to the bar of any
person known by him to be unqualified in
respect to character, education, or other
relevant attribute.
Rule 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 a
paper, the language or the argument of
opposing counsel, or the text of a decision
or authority, or knowingly cite as law a
provision already rendered inoperative by
 present, participate in presenting or
threaten to present unfounded criminal
charges to obtain an improper advantage in
any case or proceeding.
Rule 19.02. A lawyer who has received
information that his client has, in the
course of the representation, perpetuated a
fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall
promptly call upon the client to rectify the
same, and failing which he shall terminate
the relationship with such client in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
Dignity and Integrity of Rule 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any
the Legal Profession corrupt motive or interest, encourage any
suit or proceeding or delay any man's
cause.
Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit
to be done any act designed primarily to
solicit legal business.
Rule 3.04. A lawyer shall not pay or give
anything of value to representatives of the
mass media in anticipation of, or in return
for, publicity to attract legal business.
Rule 6.02. A lawyer in the government
service shall not use his public position to
promote or advance his private interests
nor allow the latter to interfere with his
public duties.
Canon 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 7.02. A lawyer shall not support the
application for admission to the bar of any
person known by him to be unqualified in
respect to character, education, or other
relevant attribute.
Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in
conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he,
whether in public or private life, behave in
a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
 Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his
professional dealings, use language which
is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper.
Rule 11.01. A lawyer shall appear in court
properly attired.
Rule 11.03. A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the Courts.
Rule 12.01. A lawyer shall not appear for
trial unless he has adequately prepared
himself on the law and the facts of his case,
the evidence he will adduce and the order
of its profference. He should also be ready
with the original documents for
comparison with the copies.
Canon 13 – A lawyer shall rely upon the
merits of his cause and refrain from any
impropriety which tends to influence, or
gives the appearance of influencing the
Court.
Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his client.
Availability of Legal Canon 2 – A lawyer shall make his legal
Service services available in an efficient and
convenient manner compatible with the
independence, integrity and effectiveness
of the profession.
Rule 2.01. A lawyer shall not reject, except
for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed.
Rule 2.02. In such cases, even if the lawyer
does not accept a case, he shall not refuse
to render legal advice to the person
concerned if only to the extent necessary to
safeguard the latter's rights.
Rule 2.04. A lawyer shall not charge rates
lower than those customarily prescribed
unless the circumstances so warrant.
Canon 14 – A lawyer shall not refuse his
services to the needy.
guilt of said person.
Rule 14.02. A lawyer shall not decline,
except for serious and sufficient cause, an
appointment as counsel de oficio or as
amicus curiae or a request from the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of
its chapters for rendition of free legal aid.
Rule 14.03. A lawyer may not refuse to
accept representation of an indigent client
unless:
a) he is in no position to carry out the
work effectively or competently; or
b) he labors under a conflict of interest
between him and the prospective client,
or between a present client and the
prospective client.
Rule 14.04. A lawyer who accepts the cause
of a person unable to pay his professional
fees shall observe the same standard of
conduct governing his relations with
paying clients.
Canon 22 – A lawyer shall withdraw his
services only for good cause and upon
notice appropriate in the circumstances.
Rule 22.01. A lawyer may withdraw his
services in any of the following cases:
a) When the client pursues an illegal or
immoral course of conduct in connection
with the matter he is handling;
b) When the client insists that the lawyer
pursue conduct violative of these canons
and rules;
c) When his inability to work with co-
counsel will not promote the best interest
of the client;
d) When the mental or physical condition
of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to
carry out the employment effectively;
e) When the client deliberately fails to pay
the fees for the services or fails to comply
with the retainer agreement;
f) When the lawyer is elected or
appointed to public office; and
 property to which the client is entitled, and
shall cooperate with his successor in the
orderly transfer of the matter, including all
information necessary for the proper
handling of the matter.
Rule 15.01. A lawyer, in conferring with a
prospective client, shall ascertain as soon
as practicable whether the matter would
involve a conflict with another client or his
own interest, and if so, shall forthwith
inform the prospective client.
Rule 15.03. A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.
Conflict of Interest Rule 15.08. A lawyer who is engaged in
another profession or occupation
concurrently with the practice of law shall
make clear to his client whether he is acting
as a lawyer or in another capacity.
Canon 15 – A lawyer who is engaged in
another profession or occupation
concurrently with the practice of law shall
make clear to his client whether he is acting
as a lawyer or in another capacity.
Rule 15.02. A lawyer shall be bound by the
rule on privilege communication in respect
of matters disclosed to him by a
prospective client.
Privileged Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the
Communication cause of his client and he shall be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Canon 21 – A lawyer shall preserve the
confidences or secrets of his client even
after the attorney-client relation is
terminated.
Rule 21.01. A lawyer shall not reveal the
confidences or secrets of his client except:
a) when authorized by the client after
acquainting him of the consequences of
the disclosure;
b) when required by law;
 acquired in the course of employment, nor
shall he use the same to his own advantage
or that of a third person, unless the client
with full knowledge of the circumstances
consents thereto.
Rule 21.03. A lawyer shall not, without the
written consent of his client, give
information from his les to an outside
agency seeking such information for
auditing, statistical, bookkeeping,
accounting, data processing, or any similar
purpose.
Rule 21.04. A lawyer may disclose the
affairs of a client of the firm to partners or
associates thereof unless prohibited by the
client.
Rule 21.05. A lawyer shall adopt such
measures as may be required to prevent
those whose services are utilized by him,
from disclosing or using confidences or
secrets of the client.
Rule 21.06. A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet
conversation about a client's affairs even
with members of his family.
Rule 21.07. A lawyer shall not reveal that he
has been consulted about a particular case
except to avoid possible conflict of interest.
Canon 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.
Relationship with the Rule 10.03. A lawyer shall observe the rules
Courts of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
Canon 11 – A lawyer shall observe and
maintain the respect due to the Courts and
to judicial officers and should insist on
similar conduct by others.
Canon 12 – A lawyer shall exert every effort
and consider it his duty to assist in the
 Rule 12.04. A lawyer shall not unduly delay
a case, impede the execution of a Judgment
or misuse Court processes.
Canon 13 – A lawyer shall rely upon the
merits of his cause and refrain from any
impropriety which tends to influence, or
gives the appearance of influencing the
Court.
Rule 13.01. A lawyer shall not extend
extraordinary attention or hospitality to,
nor seek opportunity for cultivating
familiarity with Judges.
Canon 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness
and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.02. A lawyer shall not knowingly
misquote or misrepresent the contents of a
paper, the language or the argument of
opposing counsel, or the text of a decision
or authority, or knowingly cite as law a
provision already rendered inoperative by
repeal or amendment or assert as a fact
that which has not been proved.
Conduct in Court Canon 11 – A lawyer shall observe and
Proceedings maintain the respect due to the Courts and
to judicial officers and should insist on
similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.01. A lawyer shall appear in court
properly attired.
Rule 11.02. A lawyer shall punctually
appear at court hearings.
Rule 11.03. A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the Courts.
Rule 12.05. A lawyer shall refrain from
talking to his witness during a break or
recess in the trial, while the witness is still
under examination.
Rule 12.06. A lawyer shall not knowingly
assist a witness to misrepresent himself or
to impersonate another.
Rule 12.07. A lawyer shall not abuse,
browbeat or harass a witness nor
 authentication or custody of an
instrument, and the like: or
b) on substantial matters, in cases where
his testimony is essential to the ends of
justice, in which event he must, during his
testimony, entrust the trial of the case to
another counsel.
Rule 13.03. A lawyer shall not brook nor
invite interference by another branch or
agency of the government in the normal
course of judicial proceedings.
Rule 15.06. A lawyer shall not state or
imply that he is able to influence any public
official, tribunal or legislative body.
Canon 11 – A lawyer shall observe and
maintain the respect due to the Courts and
to judicial officers and should insist on
similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.03. A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the Courts.
Criticism by Lawyers Rule 11.04. A lawyer shall not attribute to a
Judge motives not supported by the record
or have no materiality to the case.
Rule 11.05. A lawyer shall submit
grievances against a Judge to the proper
authorities only.
Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in
conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he,
whether in public or private life, behave in
a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.
Canon 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself
with courtesy, fairness and candor toward
his professional colleagues, and shall avoid
harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Public Statements, Rule 11.03. A lawyer shall abstain from
Language and Decorum scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the Courts.
Rule 12.07. A lawyer shall not abuse,
browbeat or harass a witness nor
 opinion for or against a party.
Canon 5 – A lawyer shall keep abreast of
legal developments, participate in
continuing legal education programs,
support efforts to achieve high standards in
law schools as well as in the practical
training of law students and assist in
disseminating information regarding the
law and jurisprudence.
Rule 10.02. A lawyer shall not knowingly
misquote or misrepresent the contents of a
paper, the language or the argument of
opposing counsel, or the text of a decision
or authority, or knowingly cite as law a
provision already rendered inoperative by
repeal or amendment or assert as a fact
that which has not been proved.
Lawyer’s Competence Rule 10.03. A lawyer shall observe the rules
and Diligence of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
Rule 12.01. A lawyer shall not appear for
trial unless he has adequately prepared
himself on the law and the facts of his case,
the evidence he will adduce and the order
of its profference. He should also be ready
with the original documents for
comparison with the copies.
Rule 12.04. A lawyer shall not unduly delay
a case, impede the execution of a Judgment
or misuse Court processes.
Canon 13 – A lawyer shall rely upon the
merits of his cause and refrain from any
impropriety which tends to influence, or
gives the appearance of influencing the
Court.
Rule 15.07. A lawyer shall impress upon his
client compliance with the laws and the
principles of fairness.
Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client
with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.01. A lawyer shall not undertake a
legal service which he knows or should
 Rule 18.02. A lawyer shall not handle any
legal matter without adequate preparation.
Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable.
Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the
client's request for information.
Canon 19 – A lawyer shall represent his
client with zeal within the bounds of the
law.
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.
Client’s Money and Rule 16.02. A lawyer shall keep the funds of
Properties each client separate and apart from his own
and those of others kept by him.
Rule 16.03. A lawyer shall deliver the funds
and property of his client when due or upon
demand. However, he shall have a lien over
the funds and may apply so much thereof as
may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees
and disbursements, giving notice promptly
thereafter to his client. He shall also have a
lien to the same extent on all judgments
and executions he has secured for his client
as provided for in the Rules of Court.
Rule 16.04. A lawyer shall not borrow
money from his client unless the client's
interests are fully protected by the nature
of the case or by independent advice.
Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a
client except, when in the interest of justice,
he has to advance necessary expenses in a
legal matter he is handling for the client.
Rule 2.04. A lawyer shall not charge rates
lower than those customarily prescribed
 a) Where there is a pre-existing
agreement with a partner or associate
that, upon the latter's death, money shall
be paid over a reasonable period of time
to his estate or to persons specified in the
agreement; or
b) Where a lawyer undertakes to
complete unfinished legal business of a
deceased lawyer; or
c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes
non-lawyer employees in a retirement
plan, even if the plan is based in whole or
in part, on a profit-sharing arrangement.
Attorney’s Fees Rule 16.02. A lawyer shall keep the funds of
each client separate and apart from his own
and those of others kept by him.
Canon 20 – A lawyer shall charge only fair
and reasonable fees.
Rule 20.01. A lawyer shall be guided by the
following factors in determining his fees:
a) The time spent and the extent of the
services rendered or required;
b) The novelty and difficulty of the
questions involved;
c) The importance of the subject matter;
d) The skill demanded;
e) The probability of losing other
employment as a result of acceptance of
the proffered case;
f) The customary charges for similar
services and the schedule of fees of the
IBP chapter to which he belongs;
g) The amount involved in the
controversy and the benefits resulting to
the client from the service;
h) The contingency or certainty of
compensation;
i) The character of the employment,
whether occasional or established; and
j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
Rule 20.02. A lawyer shall, in cases of
referral, with the consent of the client, be
entitled to a division of fees in proportion
 accept any fee, reward, costs, commission,
interest, rebate or forwarding allowance or
other compensation whatsoever related to
his professional employment from anyone
other than the client.
Rule 20.04. A lawyer shall avoid
controversies with clients concerning his
compensation and shall resort to judicial
action only to prevent imposition, injustice
or fraud.




Matrix 3: Relation of Canons as Illustrated by Jurisprudence

Case Title Related Case Overview
Canons/Rules
Jimeno, Jr. v. Canon 1 In this case, while the respondent
JImeno Rule 1.01 was aware of the demise of Perla
A.C. No. 12012 Canon 15 that rendered the Malindang
July 2, 2018 Canon 15.07 property a co-owned property of
Canon 19 Geronimo Sr. and the Jimeno
children, instead of advising the
latter to settle the estate of Perla to
enable the proper registration of
the property in their names
preliminary to the sale to Aquino,
she voluntarily signed the subject
deed, as attorney-in-fact of
Geronimo Sr., despite the patent
irregularities in its execution such
that the fact that it bore the
signature of Perla, who was already
deceased.

As a lawyer, the respondent is fully
aware of the requisites for the
legality of voluntary conveyance of
property, particularly, the scope of
the rights, interests and
participation of the parties and the
consequent transfer of the
properties, yet she chose to
disregard the patent irregularities
in the deed and voluntarily affixed
her signature thereon.

While a lawyer owes fidelity for the
cause of his clients and warm zeal
in the maintenance and defense of
his rights, he must do so only
within the bound of the law. The
lawyer’s fidelity to his client must
not be pursued at the expense of
truth and justice, and must be held
within the bound of reason and
 1.01 of Canon1, Rule 15.07 of
Canon 12 and Rule 19.01 of Canon
19 of the CPR by allowing herself to
become a party to the subject deed
which contained falsehood and
inaccuracies.

Finally, the act of the respondent in
affixing her signature on a deed of
sale containing falsehood
constitutes malpractice and gross
misconduct in her office as
attorney.
Madria v. Rivera Canon 1 Respondent lawyer caused the
A.C. No. 11256 Rule 1.01 simulation of a court decision and a
March 7, 2017 Rule 1.02 certificate of finality.
Canon 15
Rule 15.07 His explanation of having done so
Canon 17 only upon the complainant’s
Rule 18.04 persistent prodding did not
exculpate him from responsibility.
For one, the explanation is
unacceptable, if not altogether
empty. Simulating or participating
in the simulation of a court decision
and a certificate of finality of the
same decision is an outright
criminal falsification or forgery.
One need not be a lawyer to know
so, but it was worse in the
respondent’s case because he was a
lawyer. Thus, his acts were legally
intolerable. Specifically, his
deliberate falsification of the court
decision and the certificate of
finality of the decision reflected a
high degree of moral turpitude on
his part, and made a mockery of the
administration of justice in this
country. He thereby became
unworthy of continuing as a
member of the Bar.


Also, Canon 15 and Rule 18.04 of
Canon 18 of the CPR required the
respondent be true to the
complainant as his client. By
choosing to ignore his fiduciary
responsibility for the sake of
getting her money, he committed a
further violation of his Lawyer’s
Oath by which he swore not to
“delay any man's cause for money
or malice,” and to “conduct
[him]self as a lawyer according to
the best of [his] knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity as
well to the courts as to [his]
clients.” He compounded this
violation by taking advantage of his
legal knowledge to promote his
own selfish motives, thereby
disregarding his responsibility
under Canon 17.

A lawyer who causes the
simulation of court documents not
only violates the court and its
processes, but also betrays the
trust and confidence reposed in
him by his client and must be
disbarred to maintain the integrity
of the Law Profession.
Re: Letter of the Canon 1 This case stemmed from
UP Law Faculty Rule 1.02 statements made by the
A.M. No. 10-10- Canon 10 respondents of the alleged
4-SC Rule 10.01 plagiarism committed by Justice
March 8, 2011 Rule 10.02 Del Castillo in his decision in the
Rule 10.03 Vinuya case (G.R. No. 162230) and
Canon 11 other cases of plagiarism he
Rule 11.05 allegedly committed.
Canon 13
The accusation of plagiarism
against a member of the Supreme
Court is not the real issue here but
respondents’ explanations
whether or not respondent
members of the Bar have crossed
the line of decency and acceptable
professional conduct and speech
and violated the Rules of Court
through improper intervention or
interference as third parties to a
pending case (Vinuya case).

No matter how firm a lawyer’s
conviction in the righteousness of
his cause there is simply no excuse
for denigrating the courts and
engaging in public behavior that
tends to put the courts and the legal
profession into disrepute.

Whether or not respondents’ views
regarding the plagiarism issue in
the Vinuya case had valid basis was
wholly immaterial to their liability
for contumacious speech and
conduct.

Thus, respondents should,
notwithstanding their claim of
good faith, be reminded of their
lawyerly duty, under Canons 1, 11,
and 13, to give due respect to the
courts and to refrain from
intemperate and offensive
language tending to influence the
Court on pending matters or to
denigrate the courts and the
administration of justice.

The Court also directed Dean
Leonen to show cause why he
should not be disciplinary dealt
with for violation of Canon 10,
Rules 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03 and
for submitting a “dummy” that was
 compliance unsatisfactory.
However, the Court is willing to
ascribe these isolated lapses in
judgment of Dean Leonen to his
misplaced zeal in pursuit of his
objectives. In due consideration of
Dean Leonen’s professed good
intentions, the Court deems it
sufficient to admonish Dean
Leonen for failing to observe full
candor and honesty in his dealings
with the Court as required under
Canon 10.
Vitriolo v. Atty. Rule 1.01 This is an administrative case for
Dasig Rule 1.03 disbarment filed against Atty.
A.C. No. 4984 Rule 6.02 Felina S. Dasig, an official of the
April 1. 2003 CHED. The charge involves gross
misconduct of respondent in
violation of the Attorneys Oath for
having used her public office to
secure financial spoils to the
detriment of the dignity and
reputation of the CHED.

Respondents attempts to extort
money from persons with
applications or requests pending
before her office are violative of
Rule 1.01 of the CPR, which
prohibits members of the Bar from
engaging or participating in any
unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful
acts. Moreover, said acts constitute
a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code
which bars lawyers in government
service from promoting their
private interests. Promotion of
private interests includes soliciting
gifts or anything of monetary value
in any transaction requiring the
approval of his office or which may
be affected by the functions of his
office. Respondents conduct in
 a lawyer in public office is expected
not only to refrain from any act or
omission which might tend to
lessen the trust and confidence of
the citizenry in government, she
must also uphold the dignity of the
legal profession at all times and
observe a high standard of honesty
and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a
lawyer in government service is a
keeper of the public faith and is
burdened with high degree of
social responsibility, perhaps
higher than her brethren in private
practice.

For her violation of Rule 1.01, 1.03
and 6.02, respondent deserves
outright disbarment.
Palencia v. Atty. Rule 1.03 Jerry Palencia filed this complaint
Linsangan and Rule 2.03 against respondents for
Atty. Binoya Canon 3 committing the following unethical
A.C. No. 10557 Canon 16 acts: (1) refusing to remit the
July 10, 2018 Rule 16.01 amount collected in the Singapore
Rule 16.03 case worth US$95,000.00, and in
offering only US$20,765.05; (2)
depositing complainant’s money
into their own account; and (3)
engaging in “ambulance chasing”
by deploying their agents to
convince Palencia to hire
respondents’ services while the
former was still bedridden in the
hospital.

The Supreme Court found
respondents Attys. Pedro
Linsangan and Gerard Linsangan to
have violated Rule 1.03, Rule 2.03,
Canon 3, Canon 16, Rule 16.01, and
Rule 16.03 of the CPR.

The practice of law is a profession
 profession as a noble calling,
including, among others, the
manner by which he makes known
his legal services. A lawyer in
making known his legal services
must do so in a dignified manner.
They are prohibited from soliciting
cases for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents
or brokers. The CPR explicitly
states that “[a] lawyer shall not do
or permit to be done any act
designed primarily to solicit legal
business.”

Money collected by a lawyer on a
judgment rendered in favor of his
client constitutes trust funds and
must be immediately paid over to
the client. As he holds such funds as
agent or trustee, his failure to pay
or deliver the same to the client
after demand constitutes
conversion. Thus, whenever a
lawyer collects money as a result of
a favorable judgment, he must
promptly report and account the
money collected to his client.
Chua v. De Rule 1.03 Complainant sought the
Castro Rule 10.03 disbarment of Atty. Arturo M. De
A.C. No. 10671 Castro (Atty. De Castro) for his
(Resolution) capricious and continuous
November 25, unethical practice of law in
2015 deliberately delaying, impeding
and obstructing the administration
of justice in his strategy for the
defense of his client.

As shown by the records, Atty. De
Castro violated his oath of office in
his handling of the collection case
against his client. Chua was able to
show that, through Atty. De
 De Castro violated his
responsibility to attend previously
set engagements with the court,
absent a truly good reason to be
absent.

Lawyers should be reminded that
their primary duty is to assist the
courts in the administration of
justice. Any conduct which tends to
delay, impede or obstruct the
administration of justice
contravenes such lawyers’ duty, in
particular, Rule 1.03 and 10.03 of
the CPR.
Linsangan v. Rule 2.03 Linsangan filed a complaint for
Atty. Tolentino Rule 1.03 disbarment against Atty. Tolentino.
A.C. No. 6672 Canon 3 It was alleged that respondent,
September 4, Rule 16.04 with the help of his paralegal
2009 Labiano, convinced complainant's
clients to transfer legal
representation and promised
financial assistance and
expeditious collection of claims.

The Court found that respondent
had encroached on the
professional practice of
complainant, violating Rule 8.02
and other canons of the CPR.
Moreover, he contravened the rule
against soliciting cases for gain,
personally or through paid agents
or brokers as stated in Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Lawyers are prohibited from
soliciting cases for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers. Rule 2.03
should be read in connection with
Rule 1.03 of the CPR. This rule
proscribes ambulance chasing as a
measure to protect the community
 borrowers, respondent violated
Rule 16.04. The rule is that a lawyer
shall not lend money to his client.
The only exception is, when in the
interest of justice, he has to
advance necessary expenses for a
matter that he is handling for the
client. Labiano’s calling card
contained the phrase with financial
assistance. The phrase was clearly
used to entice clients to change
counsels with a promise of loans to
finance their legal actions.
Khan, Jr. v. Rule 2.03 This administrative complaint
Simbillo Rule 3.01 against Atty. Rizalino Simbillo
A.C. No. 5299 arose from a paid advertisement
August 19, 2003 which appeared in the Philippine
Daily Inquirer, which reads:
“ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE
SPECIALIST 532-4333/521-667.”
It was further revealed that similar
advertisements were published in
the Manila Bulletin and The
Philippine Star.

The IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline found the respondent
guilty of violation of Rules 2.03 and
3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 138,
Section 27 of the Rules of Court.

According to the Supreme Court,
what adds to the gravity of the
respondent’s act is that in
advertising himself as a self-styled
“Annulment of Marriage
Specialist,” he wittingly or
unwillingly erodes and
undermines not only the stability
but the sanctity of an institution
still considered sacrosanct despite
the contemporary climate of
 the time of the filing of the case, he
in fact encourages people, who
might have otherwise been
disinclined and would have
refrained from dissolving their
marriage bonds, to do so.

The court held that for solicitation
to be proper, it must be compatible
with the dignity of legal profession.
If it is made in a modern and
decorous manner, it would bring
no injury to the lawyer and to the
bar. Thus, the use of simple signs
stating the name or names of the
lawyers, the office and residence
address, and fields of practice, as
well as advertisements in legal
periodicals bearing the same brief
data, are permissible. Even the use
of calling cards is now acceptable.
Publication in reputable law lists,
in a manner consistent with the
standards of conduct imposed by
the canon, of brief biographical and
informative data is likewise
allowable.
Dulalia, Jr. v. Canon 5 Atty. Cruz allegedly opposed the
Cruz Rule 1.01 application for building permit of
A.C. No. 6854 complainant Dulalia because of a
April 27, 2007 personal grudge against his wife,
who objected to respondent's
marrying her first cousin Imelda
Soriano, respondent's marriage
with Carolina Agaton being still
subsisting. Respondent married
Imelda Soriano on September 17,
1989 at the Nevada, USA, when the
Family Code of the Philippines had
already taken effect. He had the
impression that the applicable
provision at the time was Article 83
of the Civil Code.
 marriage was still in place is
contrary to honesty, justice,
decency and morality. Immoral
conduct which is proscribed under
Rule 1.01 connotes conduct that
shows indifference to the moral
norms of society and the opinion of
good and respectable members of
the community.

He also violated Canon 5 because
the duty enunciated therein carries
with it the obligation to be well-
informed of the existing laws and
to keep abreast with recent
enactments. Respondent's claim
that he was not aware that the
Family Code already took effect on
August 3, 1988 as he was in the
United States from 1986 and
stayed there until he came back to
the Philippines together with his
second wife on October 9, 1990
does not lie.
Olazo v. Tinga Rule 6.02 Petitioner Jovito Olazo avered that
A.M. No. 10-5-7- Rule 6.03 respondent Retired Associate
SC Rule 1.01 Justice Dente Tinga abused his
December 7, position as a Congressman and a
2010 member of Awards Committee
over the disposition of lot formerly
part of Fort Andres Bonifacio.

With respect to the violation of
Rule 6.02, the complainant alleged
that the respondent exerted undue
pressure and influence over the
complainant’s father, Miguel P.
Olazo, for the latter to contest the
complainant’s sales application
and claim the subject land for
himself. The complainant alleged
that the respondent exerted undue
pressure and influence over the
 himself.

Anent the violation of Rule 6.03, the
complainant alleged that the
respondent persuaded Miguel
Olazo to direct Manuel to convey
his rights over the land to Joseph
Jeffrey Rodriguez. As a result of the
respondent’s promptings, the
rights to the land were transferred
to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.

Regarding the violation of Rule
1.01, the complainant alleged that
the respondent engaged in
unlawful conduct considering his
knowledge that Joseph Jeffrey
Rodriguez was not a qualified
beneficiary under Memorandum
No. 119. The complainant averred
that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez is not
a bona fide resident of the
proclaimed areas and does not
qualify for an award.
Spouses Olbes v. Canon 7 Petitioner spouses Franklin and
Atty. Deciembre Rule 7.03 Lourdes Olbes issued blank checks
A.C. No. 5365 Canon 1 to respondent Atty. Victor V.
April 27, 2005 Deciembre as security for the
payment of a loan of ₱10,000.00
plus interest. The respondent filled
up the checks in amounts not
agreed upon despite his full
knowledge that the loan they were
meant to secure had already been
paid.

Atty. Victor V. Deciembre is found
guilty of gross misconduct and
violation of Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of
the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Respondent does
not deny the ₱10,000 loan obtained
from him by petitioners. He thus
 the bar that made them trust him
with their blank checks. Also, his
malevolent act of filling up the
blank checks by indicating
amounts that had not been agreed
upon at all and despite
respondent’s full knowledge that
the loan supposed to be secured by
the checks had already been paid
was a brazen act of falsification of a
commercial document, resorted to
for his material gain. And he did not
stop there. Because the checks
were dishonored upon
presentment, respondent had the
temerity to initiate unfounded
criminal suits against petitioners,
thereby exhibiting his vile intent to
have them punished and deprived
of liberty for frustrating the
criminal duplicity he had wanted to
foist on them. He committed an act
indicative of moral depravity not
expected from, and highly
unbecoming, a member of the bar.
Guevarra v. Eala Rule 7.03 A complaint of disbarment was
A.C. No. 7136 Rule 1.01 filed against Atty. Jose Emmanuel
August 1, 2007 M. Eala (also known as Noli Eala,
former PBA Commissioner) for
grossly immoral conduct and
unmitigated violation of the
lawyer’s oath. It was alleged that
Atty. Eala maintained sexual
relations with a married woman,
while being a married man himself.

The Supreme Court held that the
lawyer’s oath mandates that a
lawyer should support the
Constitution and obey the laws,
hence he shall not make use of
deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct, grossly immoral
 provided under Article 334 of the
Revised Penal Code is committed
by, “Any husband who shall keep a
mistress in a conjugal dwelling, or,
shall have sexual intercourse,
under scandalous circumstances,
with a woman who is not his wife,
or shall cohabit with her in any
other place, shall be punished by
prision correccional in its
minimum and medium period.”
Furthermore, Section 2 of Article
15 of the Constitution states that
“Marriage, as an inviolable social
institution, is the foundation of the
family and shall be protected by the
state.” Respondent’s grossly
immoral conduct runs afoul of the
Constitution and the laws, that he
as a lawyer has sworn to uphold.

Hence, the Court declared Atty.
Jose Emmanuel M. Eala
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.
Foodsphere, Inc Canon 8 The Corderos filed a complaint in
v. Mauricio, Jr. Rule 8.01 BFAD against Foodsphere after
A.C. No. 7199 Canon 7 finding a colony of worms in their
July 22, 2009 CDO liver spread. Atty. Mauricio
threatened to publish an article
imputing defects to petitioner’s
products unless they give in to
Cordero’s demand. Later, the
Corderos and Foodsphere forged a
kasunduan wherein they withdraw
the complaint from BFAD and Atty.
Mauricio was their witness. Later,
Atty. Mauricio announced in his
radio program a liver spread in the
 status quo order that was issued
against him to desist from doing
that. Hence, Foodsphere filed a
complaint for disbarment against
Atty. Mauricio.

For he defied said status quo
order, despite his (respondents)
oath as a member of the legal
profession to obey the laws as well
as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities, he violated
Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 or the CPR.
By failing to live up to his oath and
to comply with the exacting
standards of the legal profession,
respondent also violated Canon 7
of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which directs a
lawyer to at all times uphold the
integrity and the dignity of the legal
profession. Hence, he was
suspended for 3 years.
Pefianco v. Canon 8 Complainant Atty. Pefianco and
Garcia Canon 10 respondent Atty. Garcia are
A.C. No. 11727 Rule 10.01 opposing counsels in a case. In
September 6, response to the former’s motion for
2017 reconsideration, the latter filed a
comment and opposition thereto,
and therein alleged, among others,
that Atty. Pefianco had been
suspended from the practice of law
for one (1) year. This prompted
Atty. Pefianco to institute an
administrative complaint against
Atty. Garcia, asserting that the
allegations in respondent’s
comment and opposition are
discourteous, unfair and lack
candor, an act of harassing tactic,
and constitute falsehood.

The Court held that there was no
 appear before the CA. Garcia, as a
lawyer, is also an officer of the
court. Being such, she is obliged to
observe Canon 10 and Rule 10.01
of the CPR. Consequently, Garcia
has a duty to disclose Pefianco’s
suspension, lest she will be in
breach of the duty imposed upon
her by the CPR. Had she concealed
such information, the
administration of justice in the
cases handled by Pefianco would
be prejudiced, as his unauthorized
participation therein would
invalidate the proceedings.
Further, allowing Pefianco to
practice law despite his suspension
would amount to consenting to a
falsehood, an act that the Lawyer’s
Oath also proscribes.
Lijauco v. Rule 9.02 This is an administrative complaint
Terrado Rule 1.01 against Atty. Terrado for gross
A.C. No. 6317 misconduct, malpractice and
August 31, 2006 unbecoming of an officer in court
when he neglected a legal matter
entrusted to him despite receipt of
payment representing attorney’s
fees.

Complainant alleged that
respondent failed to appear before
the trial court in the hearing for the
issuance of the Writ of Possession
and did not protect her interests in
the Compromise Agreement which
she subsequently entered into to
end LRC Case No. B-2610.
Respondent denied the accusations
against him.

Regarding the violation of Rule
9.02, in this case, despite the strong
protestation of respondent that the
events say otherwise. By openly
admitting that he divided the
₱70,000.00 to other individuals as
commission/referral fees,
respondent violated Rule 9.02

As to the violation of Rule 1.01, by
luring complainant to participate
in a compromise agreement with a
false and misleading assurance that
complainant can still recover after
three years her foreclosed
property respondent violated Rule
1.01.

Respondent’s disregard for his
client’s interests is evident in the
iniquitous stipulations in the
compromise agreement where the
complainant conceded the validity
of the foreclosure of her property;
that the redemption period has
already expired thus consolidating
ownership in the bank, and that she
releases her claims against it. The
duty of a lawyer to safeguard his
client’s interests commences from
his retainer until his discharge
from the case or the final
disposition of the subject matter of
litigation. Acceptance of money
from a client establishes an
attorney-client relationship and
gives rise to the duty of fidelity to
the client’s cause.

Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado is found
guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and
9.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is suspended
from the practice of law for six
months, and sternly warned that
any similar infraction will be dealt
August 1, 2012 10%, of the attorney’s fees the
latter would receive in
representing Sps. Yap, whom he
referred, in an action for partition
of the estate of the late Benjamin
Yap. Their agreement was reflected
in a letter. However, respondent
failed to pay him the agreed
commission. Complainant further
alleged that respondent
abandoned his legal wife, Milagros
Hilado, with whom he has two
children, and cohabited with Mae
Florgalido, with whom he has four
children. Respondent, raised the
defense of forgery which was
belied by his letter admitting to
have undertaken the payment of
complainant’s commission but
passing the responsibility to the
Sps. Yap. He further failed to
address the issue regarding his
wife.

The settled rule is that betrayal of
the marital vow of fidelity or 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.
Consequently, respondent violated
the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code which
proscribes a lawyer from engaging
in “unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.”
In Re: Canon 11 This administrative case stemmed
Suspension of Rule 11.05 from the events of the Criminal
Atty. Bagabuyo Canon 13 case proceeding originally raffled
A.C. No. 7006 Rule 13.02 to the sala of Judge Floripinas C.
Bail Bond. Respondent Atty
Bagabuyo, then Senior state
Prosecutor and the deputized
prosecutor of the case, objected
thereto mainly on the ground that
the original charge of murder,
punishable with reclusion
perpetua, was not subject of bail.
Judge Buser inhibited himself from
further trying the case because of
the harsh insinuation of Senior
Prosecutor Rogelio Bagabuyo that
he lacks the cold neutrality of an
impartial magistrate, by allegedly
suggesting the filing of the motion
to fix the amount of bail bond by
counsel for the accused.
Respondent appealed to the CA.
Instead of availing himself only of
judicial remedies, respondent
caused the publication of an article
regarding the Order granting to the
accused in the issue of the
Mindanao Gold Star Daily. The
article, entitled Senior prosecutor
lambast Surigao judge for allowing
murder suspect to bail out.

Atty. Bagabuyo violated Rule 11.05
of Canon 11 when he caused the
holding of a press conference
where he made statements against
the Order allowing the accused to
post bail. He also violated the same
Canon for his disrespect of the
court when he stated that Judge
Tan was ignorant of the law, that he
was studying mahjong instead of
studying the law and that he was a
liar. The SC held that it is not
against lawyers raising grievances
against erring judges but the rules
provide the proper venue and
Olivares v. Atty. Rule 12.02 Olivares filed a disbarment or
Villalon, Jr. Rule 10.03 suspension case against Villalon for
A.C. No. 6323 allegedly filing multiple actions
April 13, 2007 arising from a single cause of
action. Olivares alleged that in
1999 Villalon as counsel filed a
complaint for breach of contract of
lease against the former which was
dismissed for failure to prosecute.
However, in 2004, the same
complaint was again filed by
Villalon, which was dismissed on
the grounds of res judicata and
prescription.

Respondent, on the other hand,
asserted that he was only
performing his legal obligation as a
lawyer to protect and prosecute
the interests of his client.

The Court ruled that Villalon is
guilty of violation of Rule 12.02 of
Canon 12: “A lawyer shall not file
multiple actions arising from the
same cause.” Under Rule 17 of the
the Rules of Court, the dismissal for
failure to prosecute is an
adjudication on the merits. There is
no excuse not to know this
elementary principle of procedural
law. It is clear that Villalon
knowingly assisted his client in
repeatedly suing Olivares for the
same cause of action and subject
matter, when he should have
refrained from filing the second
complaint. Villalon is also guilty of
violating Rule 10.03 of Canon 10:
“A lawyer shall observe the rules of
procedure and shall not misuse
them to defeat the ends of justice.”
A lawyer’s fidelity to his client must
 Filing multiple actions constitutes
an abuse of the Court’s processes. It
constitutes improper conduct that
tends to impede, obstruct and
degrade justice. Villalon for
misusing Court’s processes, has
subjected himself to disciplinary
action for incompetence or willful
violation of his duties as an
attorney to act with all good fidelity
to the courts, and to maintain only
such actions that appear to be just
and consistent with truth and
honor.
Dumlao, Jr. v. Canon 13 Complainant Judge Dumlao filed a
Camacho Rule 13.01 complaint against Atty. Camacho
A.C. No. 10498 Canon 10 for violation of the Code of
September 4, Rule 10.01 Professional Responsibility. He
2018 Canon 11 alleged that Camacho is the counsel
Rule 19.01 in one of the cases raffled in his
sala. In the course of the case, Atty.
Camacho persistently called Judge
Dumlao in an attempt to influence
the outcome of the case. He
exhibited that if the trial court
would rule in their favor, a part of
his attorney’s fees would inure to
him. Furthermore, he reiterated
that he is well-connected with the
members of the Supreme Court,
and could very well promise him a
promotion.

Atty. Camacho, in behalf of his
clients, filed a motion for summary
judgment, which was granted. The
opposing party filed a notice of
appeal. Atty. Dumlao called the
complainant and promised a
significant amount, otherwise, he
would be disbarred through his
connections. A writ of execution in
favor of Atty. Camacho’s clients
 and threatened to disbar the sheriff
if he fails to issue the same.

The court ruled that membership

in the bar is a privilege burdened
with conditions. A lawyer has the
privilege and right to practice law
during good behavior and can be
deprived of it for misconduct
ascertained. The highly immoral
implication of a lawyer
approaching a judge to discuss, in
private, a matter related to a case
pending in that judge’s sala cannot
be over-emphasized. A lawyer is
duty bound to actively avoid any
act that tends to influence, or may
be seen to influence, the outcome of
the ongoing case. Moreover, a
lawyer who commits attempted
bribery, or corruption of public
officials against a judge or court
personnel, violates Canon 10.

By implying that he can influence
SC Justices to advocate for his case,
respondent trampled upon the
integrity of the judicial system and
eroded confidence in the judiciary.
The act of Atty. Camacho in
disrespecting the sheriff also
violated Canon 11. It is the duty of
a lawyer to observe and maintain
the respects due to the courts of
justice and judicial officers.
Gonzales v. Rule 15.02 A complaint for disbarment was
Cabucana Rule 15.03 filed by Gonzales against Atty.
A.C. No. 6836 Rule 10.01 Marcelo Cabucana for representing
January 23, Rule 13.01 conflicting interest and violation of
2006 Rule 21.01 the CPR rules 10.01, 13.01, 15.02.
Rule 21.02 15.03, 21.01 and 21.02 when the
latter’s law firm thru his
partner/associate/brother Atty.
Thereafter, complainant alleged
that despite the representation of
Cabucana Law Firm for cases
which are still pending, herein
respondent represented Gatchecos
for cases filed against Gonzales.

In the respondent’s answer, he
averred that: (1) he never
appeared for the complainant
because it was his brother Atty.
Edmar who handled the case; (2)
he admitted that he represented
the Gatchecos but claimed that his
appearance was pro bono because
the Gatchecos pleaded to him as no
other counsel was willing to handle
their case; (3) he first decline to
serve as counsel of the Gatchecos,
but after realizing his oath to delay
no man for money and malice,
represented the Gatchecos free of
charge and (4) he entered his
appearance in good faith and opted
to represent the Gatchecos rather
than to leave them defenseless.

The Supreme Court ruled that
herein respondent was guilty of
violation of CPR rule 15.03 because
it is a well settled rule that a lawyer
is barred from representing
conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the
facts. Such prohibition is founded
on principles of public policy and
good taste as the nature of the
lawyer-client relations is one of
trust and confidence of the highest
degree. Lawyers are expected not
only to keep inviolate the client’s
confidence, but also to avoid the
 which is of paramount importance
in the administration of justice.

However, the Court mitigated Atty.
Marcelo’s penalty because of the
fact that he is representing the
Gatcheco spouses pro bono and
that it was his firm and not
respondent personally, which
handled the civil case of Gonzales.
Also, the Court noted the
observation of the IBP
Commissioner Reyes that there
was no malice and bad faith in
respondent’s acceptance of the
Gatchecos cases as shown by the
move of complainant to withdraw
the case.
Santiago v. Fojas Canon 14 An expulsion case was faced by the
A.C. No. 4103 Rule 15.05 complainants but lost in their
September 7, Canon 18 petition at the Court of Appeals due
1995 to abandonment, failure to act
accordingly, or serious neglect of
their counsel, Atty. Fojas.
Appellants soon discovered that
Fojas never answered it after all
because, according to him, he was a
very busy man. Atty. Fojas
admitted his “mistake” in failing to
file an answer for the expulsion
case, but he alleges that it was
cured by his filing of a motion for
reconsideration. However, such
motion for reconsideration was
denied. Atty. Fojas defended his
negligence with the reason that the
case was a losing cause after all.
Atty. Fojas also asserts that he was
about to appeal the said decision to
this Court, but his services as
counsel for the complainants were
illegally and unilaterally
terminated by complainant.
 14 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Once he agrees to
take up the cause of a client, the
lawyer owes fidelity to such cause
and must always be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in
him. This means that his client is
entitled to the benefit of any and
every remedy and defense that is
authorized by the law of the land
and he may expect his lawyer to
assert every such remedy or
defense.

Atty. Fojas’s negligence is not
excused by his claim that Civil Case
No. 3526-V-91 was in fact a “losing
cause”. The Supreme Court held
that he should have seasonably
informed the complainants thereof
under Rule 15.05.

Pressure and large volume of legal
work provide no excuse for the
respondent’s inability to exercise
due diligence in the performance of
his duty to file an answer. Every
case a lawyer accepts deserves his
full attention, diligence, skill, and
competence, regardless of its
importance and whether he
accepts it for a fee or for free.
Furthermore, a breach of Canon 18
of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which requires him
to serve his clients, the
complainants herein, with
diligence and, more specifically,
Rule 18.03.
Quiambao v. Rule 15.03 Felicitas Quiambao was the
Bamba Rule 1.02 president and managing director of
A.C. No. 6708 Allied Investigation Bureau, Inc
August 25, 2005 (AIB). Quiambao procured the legal
by Quiambao against spouses
Santiago and Florito Torroba.When
Quiambao resigned from AIB, Atty.
Bamba, without withdrawing as
counsel from the ejectment case,
represented AIB in a complaint
case for replevin and damages
against her. Quiambao filed
charges against Atty. Bamba for
representing conflicting interests
and violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility. For his
part, Atty. Bamba denies that he
was a personal lawyer of
Quiambao, and he believes that it is
part of his duty to pursue cases in
behalf of employees at the time
Quiambao was working in AIB.
Even then, Atty. Bamba contends
that the ejectment case and
replevin case are completely
unrelated. Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of
the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides: “A lawyer
shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent
of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.” This
prohibition is founded on
principles of public policy and good
taste. In the course of a lawyer-
client relationship, the lawyer
learns all the facts connected with
the client's case, including the
weak and strong points of the case.
The nature of that relationship is,
therefore, one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree.
Moreover, The court held that the
property relation of Quiambao and
his wife can be presumed to be that
of conjugal partnership of gains;
hence, the majority shares in AIB
 than one security agency in
contravention of R.A. No. 5487.
Thus, in organizing SESSI, the
respondent violated Rule 1.02,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which mandates
lawyers to promote respect for the
law and refrain from counseling or
abetting activities aimed at
defiance of the law.
Ramos v. Rule 14.04 Petitioner Ernesto M. Ramos filed a
Dajoyag, Jr. Rule 12.03 complaint against Atty. Mariano A.
A.C. No. 5174 Dajoyag, Jr. for his negligence in
February 28, failing to appeal a ruling of the
2002 National Labor Relations
Commission which affirmed the
dismissal by the Labor Arbiter of a
complaint for illegal dismissal. On
his defense, respondent explained
that his negligence is excusable
since his failure to file an appeal on
time was due to the delay in
receiving the notice from the court;
That he was actually able to file a
Memorandum of Appeal within the
reglementary period which was
however denied; thereafter, he
filed a Motion for Extension of time
to File a Petition for Certiorari
because of his workload and heavy
schedule. That when he came to
know about the resolution of the
court granting the said motion, he
was not expecting that a warning
will be given from the Court stating
that no further extension will be
granted after that. He was also able
to file a Petition for Certiorari
together with the second motion
for extension of time, that had the
second motion for extension been
granted, the appeal should have
been filed on time.
 matter of right but in the sound
discretion of the court, and lawyers
should never presume that their
motions for extension or
postponement will be granted or
that they will be granted the length
of time they pray for. Due diligence
requires that they should conduct a
timely inquiry with the division
clerks of court of the action on their
motions and the lack of notice
thereof will not make them any less
accountable for their omission.
Rule 12.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
provides: “A lawyer shall not, after
obtaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda of briefs, let
the period lapse without
submitting the same or offering an
explanation for his failure to do so.”

Regardless of the agreement he
had with complainant with respect
to the payment of his fees,
respondent owed it to complainant
to do his utmost to ensure that
every remedy allowed by law is
availed of. Rule 14.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility enjoins
every lawyer to devote his full
attention, diligence, skills, and
competence to every case that he
accepts. Pressure and large volume
of legal work do not excuse
respondent for filing the petition
for certiorari out of time.
Bergonia v. Rule 15.05 A complaint against Atty. Arsenio
Merrera Rule 12.03 Merrera was filed by Arsena
A.C. No. 5024 Rule 18.03 Bergonia for allegedly causing the
February 20, unceremonious dismissal of the
2003 latter’s appeal. Specifically, despite
obtaining two extensions, Atty.
The Court found Atty. Merrera
guilty of violating Canons 12 and
18 of the Canons of Professional
Responsibility and is suspended
from the practice of law for a
period of six (6) months. A lawyer
who requests an extension must do
so in good faith and with a genuine
intent to file the required pleading
within the extended period. In
granting the request, the court acts
on the presumption that the
applicant has a justifiable reason
for failing to comply with the
period allowed. Here, while the
respondent’s Motions were
granted, implying that he had been
given ample time either to finish
researching his case or to
withdraw his appeal, he still failed
to file the required brief.

Candor in all their dealings is the
very essence of a practitioner’s
honorable membership in the legal
profession. Lawyers are required
to act with the highest standard of
truthfulness, fair play and nobility
in the conduct of litigation and in
their relations with their clients,
the opposing parties, the other
counsels and the courts. They are
bound by their oath to speak the
truth and to conduct themselves
according to the best of their
knowledge and discretion, and
with fidelity to the courts and their
clients. Canon 18.03 of the Code
requires that a lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him and his negligence in
connection therewith renders him
liable.
foreclosed property.

Atty. Ricafort required them to pay
a filing fee and explained the
importance of depositing
₱65,000.00 in court to counter the
deposit of the buyer of the
foreclosed property. They then
delivered the cheque in the said
amount. Atty. Ricafort persuaded
him to entrust the check to him
instead so that he (Atty. Ricafort)
would be the one to encash it and
then deposit the amount in court
but he never did.

Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort was found
guilty of a violation of Canon 16,
Rule 16.01 and Canon 17 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility
and, accordingly, disbar him.

It is easier to believe that Atty.
Ricafort persuaded the Tarogs on
the need for that amount to be
deposited in court for purposes of
their civil case. Being non-lawyers,
they had no idea about the
requirement for them to consign
any amount in court, due to the
substantive and procedural
implications of such requirement
being ordinarily known only to
lawyers. Their ready and full
reliance his representations about
the requirement to consign that
amount in court was entirely
understandable in view of their
awareness of his’ standing in the
legal community of the place. It
was not far-fetched for the Tarogs
to believe that an amount close in
value to their original obligation
 As to the non-issuance of receipt
after receiving the cheque, ethical
and practical considerations made
it both natural and imperative for
him to issue receipts, even if not
demanded, and to keep copies of
the receipts for his own records. He
was all too aware that he was
accountable for the moneys
entrusted to him by the clients, and
that his only means of ensuring
accountability was by issuing and
keeping receipts.

Undoubtedly, he was required to
hold in trust any money and
property of his clients that came
into his possession, and he needed
to be always mindful of the trust
and confidence his clients reposed
in him. Thus, having obtained the
funds in the course of his
professional employment, he had
the obligation to deliver such funds
to his clients (a) when they became
due, or (b) upon demand.
Hernandez v. Go Canon 16 Complainant’s husband abandoned
A.C. No. 1526 Canon 17 her and her son. Shortly thereafter,
January 31, her husband’s creditors demanded
2005 payments of his loans. Fearful that
the various mortgage contracts
involving here properties would be
foreclosed and aware of impending
suits for sum of money against her,
complainant engaged the services
of respondent, Atty. Jose C. Go.

He advised her to give him her land
titles covering two lots located in
Zamboanga City so he could sell
them to enable her to pay her
creditors. He then persuaded her to
execute deeds of sale in his favor
creditors.

Complainant came to know that
respondent did not sell her lots.
Instead, he paid her creditors with
his own funds and had her land
titles registered in his name,
depriving her of her real properties
worth millions. Hence, she filed a
disbarment complaint against
respondent.

Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, the
principal source of ethical rules for
lawyers provides: “A lawyer shall
hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may
come into his possession.”
Respondent breached this Canon.
His acts of acquiring for himself
complainant’s lots entrusted to him
are, by any standard, acts
constituting gross misconduct, a
grievous wrong, a forbidden act, a
dereliction in duty, willful in
character, and implies a wrongful
intent and not mere error in
judgment. He violated the Court’s
mandate that lawyers must at all
times conduct themselves,
especially in their dealing with
their clients and the public at large,
with honesty and integrity in a
manner beyond reproach.

Canon 17 of the same Code states:
“A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause
of his client and he shall be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed
in him.” Respondent abused
complainant’s trust and confidence
when he did not sell her properties
 honestly in his duty as
complainant's counsel.
Adrimisin v. Canon 16 Complainant engaged the legal
Javier Rule 18.03 services of Atty. Rolando S. Javier
A.C. No. 2591 for the filing of bail bond of
September 8, Monterde. Atty. Javier received
2006 ₱500 from the complainant, issued
a receipt and promised that
Monterde would be released from
jail. However, Atty. Javier failed to
take up complainant’s cause.
Complainant demanded for the
return of the ₱500 but respondent
kept on insisting that complainant
seek refund from the insurance.

Atty. Javier is liable for violation of
Canon 16 and Rule 18.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility
(Code). The Code mandates every
lawyer to hold in trust all moneys
and properties of his client that
may come into his possession.
Consequently, a lawyer should
account for the money received
from a client. The Code also enjoins
a lawyer not to neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable.

By his receipt of the amount,
respondent agreed to take up
complainants cause and owed
fidelity to complainant and her
cause, even if complainant never
paid any fee. Lawyering is not a
business. It is a profession in which
duty to public service, not money,
is the primary consideration.

A lawyer’s failure to return upon
demand the funds held by him on
 in him by his client. Such act is a
gross violation of general morality
as well as of professional ethics. It
impairs public confidence in the
legal profession and deserves
punishment.

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.
Those who are guilty of such
infraction may be disbarred or
suspended from the practice of law.
Fernandez v. Canon 17 This is a complaint for disbarment
Novero Canon 18 against Atty. Reynaldo Novero, Jr.
A.C. No. 5394 Rule 18.02 for alleged patent and gross neglect
December 2, Rule 18.03 in the handling of Civil Case No.
2002 7500. And that Novero tried to shift
the blame on complainant by
claiming that the latter insisted on
presenting his sister from Manila
as their last witness.

His failure to file his formal offer of
exhibits constitutes inexcusable
negligence as it proved fatal to the
cause of his client since it led to the
dismissal of the case. To compound
his inefficiency, respondent filed a
motion for reconsideration outside
the reglementary period, which
was thus accordingly denied by the
trial court for being filed out of
time.

Respondents acts and omission
clearly constitute violation of the
Code of Professional
Responsibility, which includes
Canon 17, Canon 18, Rule 18.02
and Rule 18.03.
 even malfeasance or misfeasance,
would be binding on his client.
Verily, a lawyer owes to the client
the exercise of utmost prudence
and capability in that
representation.
Francisco v. Canon 17 Herein petitioner engaged the
Portugal Canon 18 services of herein respondent for
A.C. No. 6155 Rule 18.03 SPO1 Francisco Tolentino and two
March 14, 2006 Rule 18.04 others, after being found guilty by
the Sandiganbayan of Homicide.
After filing a second motion for
reconsideration and an ad
cautalem petition after the denial
of the first motion for
reconsideration, complainants
never heard from respondent again
despite the frequent telephone
calls they made to his office. When
respondent did not return their
phone inquiries, complainants
went to respondents last known
address only to find out that he had
moved out without any forwarding
address. They were shocked to
discover that the Court had already
issued a Resolution, denying the
petition for late filing and non-
payment of docket fees.

Complainants also learned that the
said Resolution had attained
finality and warrants of arrest had
already been issued against the
accused because respondent,
whose whereabouts remained
unknown, did nothing to prevent
the reglementary period for
seeking reconsideration from
lapsing.

The Court in this case affirmed the
recommendation of the IBP for
 higher duty to be circumspect in
defending the accused for it is not
only the property of the accused
which stands to be lost but more
importantly, their right to their life
and liberty.

Respondent was thus found guilty
of violating the provisions of the
Code of Professional
Responsibility, which includes
Canon 17, Canon 18, Rule 18.03
and Rule 18.04.

The Court in this case takes notice
that the ad cautelam petition was
actually filed out of time. Though
respondent filed with the
Sandiganbayan an Urgent Motion
for Leave to File Second Motion for
Reconsideration with the attached
Second Motion for
Reconsideration, he should have
known that a second motion for
reconsideration is a prohibited
pleading and it rests on the sound
discretion of the Sandiganbayan to
admit it or not.
Pitcher v. Gagate Canon 17 Complainant Pitcher engaged the
A.C. No. 9532 Canon 18 services of Atty. Gagate to settle the
October 8, 2013 Rule 18.03 affairs of her deceased husband
Canon 19 who was engaged in a business in
Rule 19.01 the Philippines and owned 40% of
the shareholdings in Consulting
Edge, Inc. Complainant and
respondent met with Batengui, a
major stockholder of the same
company, to discuss the settlement
of the deceased’s shares. Prior to
the meeting, respondent ordered
complainant to put a paper seal on
the door of the premises of the
company, assuring that it was legal.
 charged of grave coercion.
Respondent told complainant to go
into hiding until the former has
filed all the necessary motions in
court but the same abandoned the
case and stopped communicating
with the complainant.

Atty. Rustico B. Gagate is found
guilty of violating Canon 17 Rule
18.03 of Canon 18 and Rule 19.01
of Canon 19 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Court
finds that respondent failed to
exercise the required diligence in
handling complainant’s cause since
he: first, failed to represent her
competently and diligently by
acting and proffering professional
advice beyond the proper bounds
of law; and, second, abandoned his
client’s cause while the grave
coercion case against them was
pending.
Relampagos v. Rule 19.02 In 1957, Oliva Dancel purchased a
Lagunay Rule 1.01 commercial lot located in Moto
A.C. No. 10703 Rule 1.03 Norte, Loon, Bohol. On 25 October
February 9, 1975, Olivia executed a Deed of
2015 Absolute Sale in favor of her sister,
Vivencia Relampagos, mother of
the complainant, over one-third of
said commercial lot.

In April 1979, Oliva executed a
Deed of Donation over her interest
in the said lot in favor of her son
and sole heir, Apolonio Dancel. On
6 April 1979, Original Certificate of
Title No. 38028 was issued over the
entire lot in the name of Apolonio
on the basis of a free patent
application filed by Oliva.

from Oliva in 1975. Apparently,
Vivencia died on 9 February 1977
without having acquired physical
possession thereof.

The Deed of Transfer was refused
registration by the Register of
Deeds because it violated the five-
year prohibition on free patent
titles.

According to the complainant, Atty.
Lagunay notarized the Deed of
Transfer knowing that the title to
the subject lot was obtained by free
patent and therefore the transfer
was prohibited for five years
following the grant and that Atty.
Lagunay never advised his clients
to surrender to Vivencia or her
heirs the one-third portion she
purchased. It is further alleged that
after the death of the spouses
Dancel, Atty. Lagunay continued to
advise their children not to cede
possession and ownership of the
one-third portion sold to Vivencia.

The Court dismissed the
disbarment complaint in the
absence of a prima facie case
against Atty. Lagunay. While the
Deed of Transfer was executed in
1979 in apparent violation of the
five-year prohibition, it can not be
denied that Oliva had owned the
land when she first executed a
pacto de retro sale thereof in 1957.
Subsequently, she also mortgaged
it and leased portions thereof to
others. There is thus no showing
that the State was fraudulently
deprived of public property, and
 anyone else through the
subsequent sale, transfer or lease
of the said land. This is chiefly the
charge against Atty. Lagunay.
Spouses Jacinto Canon 20 Spouses Emilio and Alicia Jacinto
v. Bangot, Jr. Rule 20.04 filed the present administrative
A.C. No. 8494 Rule 1.01 case against Atty. Emelie P. Bangot,
October 5, 2016 Canon 15 Jr. for the latter’s unjust and
Canon 17 dishonest treatment of them as his
Rule 18.03 clients.

The complainants averred that a
private survey team had conducted
a survey of Cad. 237 Lot No. 1351
on October 10-11, 2008 pursuant
to the order of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 39, in Cagayan de
Oro City in connection with the
reconstitution of the lost certificate
of title of said lot by the owners.

The complainants further averred
that they had then consulted with
the respondent, briefing him on
their concern, and delivering to
him the documents pertinent to
their land; that after scrutinizing
the documents, he had told them
that he would be initiating a case
for certiorari in their behalf to
nullify the order for the
reconstitution of the lost title
covering Cad. 237 Lot No. 1351;
that he had then insinuated that
one of their lots would be his
attorney’s fees.

The complainants recalled that the
respondent requested them to
proceed to his law office

In this case, the Honorable
Supreme Court ruled that that the
 fairness in his dealings with his
clients
Ignacio v. Alviar Canon 20 This is an administrative case led
A.C. No. 11842 Rule 20.01 by complainant Jocelyn Ignacio
July 17, 2017 Canon 1 against respondent Atty. Daniel T.
Rule 1.01 Alviar for violation of Canon 1, 1
Canon 12 Rule 1.01 2 of the Code of
Rule 12.04 Professional Responsibility (CPR)
Canon 18 for his alleged refusal to refund the
Rule 18.03 amount of acceptance fees; Canon
12, Rule 12.04 and Canon 18, Rule
18.03 for his alleged failure to
appear in the criminal case he is
handling and to file any pleading
therein.

Respondent was referred to
complainant for purposes of
handling the case of complainant's
son who was then apprehended
and detained by the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)
in Quezon City. Respondent-lawyer
failed to attend the arraignment of
the complainant’s son.
Complainant requested
respondent’s withdrawal from the
case and the return of portion of
the ₱100,000.

Ultimately, the court ruled that
since respondent only performed
preparatory legal services, he is not
entitled to full acceptance fee but
only fees determined by quantum
meruit, Section 24, Rule 138, and
Canon 20, Rule 20.01 of the CPR,
and that the remainder should be
restituted to complainant.

The court also distinguished
acceptance fee from attorney’s fee.
Cueto v. Rule 20.04 Petitioner engaged the services of
 was made to pay ₱50,000 for the
said services, to which although
surprised, petitioner accepted and
paid partly in check and in cash.
Atty. Jimenez later on sued the
petitioner for violation of BP Blg.
22 for issuing a check with
insufficient funds. Petitioner filed
his own administrative complaint
against Atty. Jimenez for violating
the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Canons of
Professional Ethics.

Atty. Jimenez was held guilty by the
Court for violation of Canon 20
Rule 20.4 and Canon 14 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility,
because the respondent’s filing of a
criminal case was highly improper,
as borne out by the records,
petitioner had already paid more
than half of respondent’s fee. To
resort to a suit to recover the
balance reveals a certain kind of
shameful conduct and
inconsiderate behavior that clearly
undermines the tenet embodied in
Canon 15 that a lawyer should
observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his client.
Palacios v. Canon 21 Complainant is the owner-
Amora, Jr. Rule 21.01 developer of more or less 312
A.C. No. 11504 Canon 1 hectares of land estate property.
August 1, 2017 Rule 1.01 One of the investors of such was
Rule 1.02 Philippine Golf Development and
Rule 1.03 Equipment, Inc. Complainant
retained the services of respondent
of the Amora to represent and act
as its legal counsel in connection
with the Riviera project. After
complainant terminated
 proposals to his former client,
herein complainant, this time in his
capacity as Phil. Golf’s
representative and assignee.

Atty. Amora violated canon 21,
rules 21.01 and 21.02. Using
confidential information which he
secured from complainant while he
was the latter’s counsel,
respondent accused his former
client of several violations. In the
process, respondent disclosed
confidential information that he
secured from complainant thereby
jeopardizing the latter’s interest.
Also, Canon 1, Rules 1.01 up to 1.03
and Canon 15, Rules 15.01 and
15.03 were violated because
despite the obvious conflict of
interest between complainant and
Phil. Golf, respondent nevertheless
agreed to represent the latter in
business negotiations and worse,
even caused the filing of a lawsuit
against his former client, herein
complainant, using information the
respondent acquired from his
former professional employment.