1 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
Lawyer’s Oath of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of
I, ___________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will
support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as
the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein; I will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing
of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote
or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit or give aid
nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money
or malice and will conduct myself as a lawyer according
to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all
good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I
impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without
any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help
me God.
Nature of Lawyer’s Oath
The lawyer’s oath is not mere facile words, drift and
hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and kept
inviolable. (Sebastian vs. Calis, 1999)
It is NOT a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law.
Every lawyer should at all times weigh his actions
according to the sworn promises he made when taking the
lawyer’s oath.
DUTIES OF ATTORNEYS (Rule 138, section 20, Rules of
Court)
1. Maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
and to support the Constitution and obey the laws of
the Philippines;
2. To observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts of justice and judicial officers;
3. To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings
only as appear to him as just, and such defenses only
as he believes to be honestly debatable under the
laws;
4. To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes
confided to him, such means only as are consistent
with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the
judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false
statement of fact or law;
5. To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every
peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client,
and to accept no compensation in connection with his
client’s business except from him or with his
knowledge and approval;
6. To abstain from all offensive personality and to
advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation
the cause with which he is charged;
7. Not to encourage either the commencement or the
continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any
man’s cause for any corrupt motive or interest;
8. Never to reject, for any consideration personal to
himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed;
9. In the defense of a person accused of a crime, by all
fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal
opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present
every defense that the law permits, to the end that
no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by
due process of law.
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
The CPR is the principal basis of the rules of ethics for
members of the bar who do not belong to the judiciary.
There is a separate rule that governs those who are
members of the bench – Judicial Ethics.
CANON 1
A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws
of the land and promote respect for law and for legal
processes
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Conviction for crimes involving moral turpitude – a
number of lawyers have been suspended or disbarred for
conviction of crimes involving moral turpitude such as:
1. estafa
2. bribery
3. murder ebms asf
4. seduction
5. abduction
6. smuggling
7. falsification of public documents
Morality as understood in law – This is a human standard
based on natural moral law which is embodied in man’s
conscience and which guides him to do well and avoid evil.
Moral Turpitude – anything that is done contrary to
justice, honesty, modesty or good morals.
Immoral Conduct – those conducts which are willful,
flagrant, or shameless and which shows a moral
2 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable
members of the community
Grossly Immoral Conduct – One that is so corrupt and
false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or
disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree; it is a
WILLFUL, FLAGRANT or SHAMELESS ACT which shows a
MORAL INDIFFERENCE to the opinion of respectable
members of the community.
Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence
in the legal system.
Rule 1.03 – A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive
or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay
any man’s cause.
Rule 1.04 – A lawyer shall encourage his clients to
avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a
fair settlement.
If a lawyer finds that his client’s cause is defenseless, it is
his burden/duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and
submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible.
It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to
bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases where the blood,
relationship or trust makes it his duty to do so.
Temper client’s propensity to litigate.
Should not be an instigator of controversy but a mediator
for concord and conciliator for compromise.
The law violated need not be a penal law. “Moral
Turpitude” – everything which is done contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty or good morals.
Give advice tending to impress upon the client and his
undertaking exact compliance with the strictest principles
of moral law.
Until a statute shall have been construed and interpreted
by competent adjudication, he is free and is entitled to
advise as to its validity and as to what he conscientiously
believes to be its just meaning and extent.
A lawyer has the obligation not to encourage suits. This is
so as to prevent barratry and ambulance chasing.
Barratry – offense of frequently exciting and stirring up
quarrels and suits, either at law or otherwise; Lawyer’s act
of fomenting suits among individuals and offering his legal
services to one of them.
Ambulance Chasing – Act of chasing victims of accidents
for the purpose of talking to the said victims (or relatives)
and offering his legal services for the filing of a case
against the person(s) who caused the accident(s).
CANON 2
A lawyer shall make his legal services available in an
efficient and convenient manner compatible with the
independence, integrity and effectiveness of the
profession.
Rule 2.01 – A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid
reasons, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed.
Rule 2.02 – In such a case, even if a lawyer does not
accept a case, he shall not refuse to render legal advise
to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary
to safeguard latter’s rights.
Rule 2.03 – a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done
any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
Primary characteristics which distinguish the legal
profession from business;
1. duty of service, of which the emolument is a by
product, and in which one may attain the highest
eminence without making such money;
2. a relation as an ‘officer of court’ to the
administration of justice involving thorough
sincerity, integrity and reliability;
3. a relation to clients in the highest degree of
fiduciary;
4. a relation to colleagues at the bar characterized
by candor, fairness and unwillingness to resort to
current business methods of advertising and
encroachment on their practice or dealing with
their clients.
Defenseless – not in the position to defend themselves due
to poverty, weakness, ignorance or other similar reasons.
Oppressed – victims of acts of cruelty, unlawful exaction,
domination or excessive use of authority.
Rule on Advertisements
 General Rule: No advertisements allowed. The
most worthy and effective advertisement
possible is the establishment of a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity
to trust.
Lawyers may not advertise their services or expertise nor
should not resort to indirect advertisements for
professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring
newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph to be
published in connection with causes in which the lawyer
3 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
has been engaged or concerning the manner of their
conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the
importance of the lawyer’s position, and all other self-
laudation.
 Exceptions/ Permissible advertisements:
1. Reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with
the standards of conduct imposed by the canons,
of brief biographical and informative data, are
allowed.
2. Ordinary simple professional Card. It may
contain only a statement of his name, the name
of the law firm which he is connected with,
address, telephone number and the special
branch of law practiced.
3. A simple announcement of the opening of a law
firm or of changes in the partnership, associates,
firm name or office address, being for the
convenience of the profession, is not
objectionable.
4. Advertisements or simple announcement of the
existence of a lawyer or his law firm posted
anywhere it is proper such as his place of
business or residence except courtrooms and
government buildings.
5. Advertisements or announcement in any legal
publication, including books, journals, and legal
magazines.
Rule 2.04 – A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than
those customarily or prescribed, unless circumstances
so warrant.
A lawyer cannot delay the approval of a compromise
agreement entered into between parties, just because his
attorney’s fees were not provided for in the agreement.
Rule: A lawyer cannot compromise the case without
client’s consent (special authority). Exception: Lawyer has
exclusive management of the procedural aspect of the
litigation (e.g. Submission for decision on the evidence so
far presented. But in case where lawyer is confronted with
an emergency and prompt/urgent action is necessary to
protect clients interest and there’s no opportunity for
consultation, the lawyer may compromise.
Rule: Refrain from charging rates lower than the
customary rates.
Valid Justification: relatives, co-lawyers, too poor
CANON 3
A lawyer in making known is legal services shall use
only true, honest, fair dignified and objective
information or statement of facts.
Rule 3.01 – A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of
any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-auditory or unfair statement or claim
regarding his qualifications or legal services.
Violation of Rule 3.01 is unethical, whether done by him
personally or through another with his permission.
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
communication 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.
It is unethical to use the name of a foreign firm.
Death of a partner does not extinguish attorney-client
relationship with the law firm.
Negligence of a member in the law firm is negligence of
the firm.
CANON 4
A lawyer shall participate in the improvement of the
legal system by initiating or supporting efforts in law
reform and in 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 students
and assist in disseminating information regarding the
law and jurisprudence.
Objectives of integration of the Bar
To elevate the standards of the legal profession
To improve the administration of justice
To enable the Bar to discharge its responsibility more
effectively.
4 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
The three-fold obligation of a lawyer
First, he owes it to himself to continue improving his
knowledge of the laws;
Second, he owes it to his profession to take an active
interest in the maintenance of high standards of legal
education;
Third, he owes it to the lay public to make the law a part of
their social consciousness.
CANON 6
These canons shall apply to lawyers in government
service in the discharge of their official tasks.
Public Officials – include elective and appointive officials
and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the
career or non-career service, including military and police
personnel, whether or not they receive compensation,
regardless of amount. (Sec. 3 (b), RA 6713).
The law requires the observance of the following norms of
conduct by every public official in the discharge and
execution of their official duties:
1. commitment to public interest
2. professionalism
3. justness and sincerity
4. political neutrality
5. responsiveness to the public
6. nationalism and patriotism
7. commitment to democracy
8. simple living (Sec. 4, RA 6713)
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 of disciplinary action.
Rule 6.02 – A lawyer in the government service shall
not use his public position to promote or advance his
private interest, nor allow the latter to interfere with
his public duties.
Rule 6.03 – A lawyer shall not, after leaving
government service, accept engagements or
employment in connection with any matter in which he
had intervened while in said service.
Various ways a government lawyer leaves government
service:
1. retirement
2. resignation
3. expiration of the term of office
4. dismissal
5. abandonment
Q: What are the pertinent statutory provisions regarding
this Rule?
A: Sec. 3 (d) RA 3019 as amended and Sec. 7 (b), RA 6713
Sec 3. Corrupt practice of Public Officers. In
addition to acts or omission of public officers
already penalized by existing law, the following
shall constitute corrupt practice of any public
officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(d) accepting or having any member of
his family accept employment in a
private enterprise which has pending
official business with him during the
pendency thereof or within one year
after termination.
Section 7 (b) of RA 6713 prohibits officials from doing any
of the following acts:
1. own, control, manage or accept employment as
officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker,
agent, trustee or nominee in any private
enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by
their office unless expressly allowed by law.
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of
one (1) year after resignation, retirement, or separation
from public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b)
(2) above, but the professional concerned cannot practice
his profession in connection with any matter before the
office he used to be with, in which case the one year
prohibition shall likewise apply.
Lawyers in the government service are prohibited to
engage in the private practice of their profession unless
authorized by the constitution or law, provided that such
practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their
official functions.
Misconduct in office as a public official may be a ground
for disciplinary action (if of such character as to affect his
qualification as lawyer or to show moral delinquency).
Should recommend the acquittal of the accused whose
conviction is on appeal, IF he finds no legal basis to sustain
the conviction.
Includes restriction is representing conflicting interest (e.g.
Accepting engagements vs. former employer, PNB)
The OSG is not authorized to represent a public official at
any state of a criminal case.
CANON 7
A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION
5 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED
BAR.
Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly
making a false statement or suppressing a material fact
in connection with his application for admission to the
bar.
Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application
for admission to the bar of any person known by him
to be unqualified in respect to character, education, or
other relevant attribute.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
CANON 8
A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY,
FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL
COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS
AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
encroach upon the professional employment of
another lawyer, however, it is the right of any lawyer,
without fear or favor, to give proper advice and
assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or
neglectful counsel.
CANON 9
A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,
ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any
unqualified person the performance of any task which
by law may only be performed by a member of the bar
in good standing.
Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to
divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed
to practice law, 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
agreement.
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 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules 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.
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
motive 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.
6 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
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 proferrence. He should also be ready with
the original documents for comparison with the copies.
Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions
arising from the same cause.
Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining
extensions of time to file 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.
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 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.
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 case tending to
arouse public opinion for or against a party.
Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite
interference by another branch or agency of 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 officio 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 if:
(a) he is not in a position to carry out the work
effectively or competently;
(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 CLIENTS.
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 15.02.- A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on
7 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
privilege communication in respect of matters
disclosed to him by a 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, conciliator or arbitrator
in settling disputes.
Rule 15.05. - A lawyer when advising his client, shall
give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and
probable results of the client's case, neither overstating
nor understating the 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.
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.
CANON 16
A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND
PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS
PROFESSION.
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected or received for or 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.
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.
Rules 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.
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,
perpetrated 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.
8 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
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 service
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 case 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 CONFIDENCE AND
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 files 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 clients.
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 case:
(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
9 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
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 cooperative with his successor in the orderly
transfer of the matter, including all information
necessary for the proper handling of the matter.
LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE
RULE 138-A
Section 1. Conditions for student practice. — A law
student who has successfully completed his 3rd year of
the regular four-year prescribed law curriculum and is
enrolled in a recognized law school's clinical legal
education program approved by the Supreme Court,
may appear without compensation in any civil, criminal
or administrative case before any trial court, tribunal,
board or officer, to represent indigent clients accepted
by the legal clinic of the law school.
Section 2. Appearance. — The appearance of the law
student authorized by this rule, shall be under the direct
supervision and control of a member of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school.
Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or
other papers to be filed, must be signed by the
supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic.
Section 3. Privileged communications. — The Rules
safeguarding privileged communications between
attorney and client shall apply to similar
communications made to or received by the law
student, acting for the legal clinic.
Section 4. Standards of conduct and supervision. — The
law student shall comply with the standards of
professional conduct governing members of the Bar.
Failure of an attorney to provide adequate supervision
of student practice may be a ground for disciplinary
action.
Non-lawyers who may be authorized to appear in court:
1. Cases before the MTC: Party to the litigation, in
person OR through an agent or friend or
appointed by him for that purpose (Sec. 34, Rule
138, RRC)
2. Before any other court: Party to the litigation, in
person (Ibid.)
3. Criminal case before the MTC in a locality where
a duly licensed member of the Bar is not
available: the judge may appoint a non-lawyer
who is:
1. resident of the province
2. of good repute for probity and ability
to aid the accused in his defense (Rule
116, Sec. 7, RRC).
4. Legal Aid Program – A senior law student, who is
enrolled in a recognized law school’s clinical
education program approved by the supreme
Court may appear before any court without
compensation, to represent indigent clients,
accepted by the Legal Clinic of the law
school. The student shall be under the direct
supervision and control of an IBP member duly
accredited by the law school.
5. Under the Labor code, non-lawyers may appear
before the NLRC or any Labor Arbiter, if
1. they represent themselves, or if
2. they represent their organization or
members thereof (Art 222, PO 442, as
amended).
6. Under the Cadastral Act, a non-lawyer can
represent a claimant before the Cadastral
Court (Act no. 2259, Sec. 9).
ESCRA RULINGS
LESLIE UI, complainant, vs. ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO,
respondent.
Administrative Law; Attorneys; Disbarment; Practice of
law is a privilege; Requisites for admission to the
practice of law.—The practice of law is a privilege. A bar
candidate does not have the right to enjoy the practice
of the legal profession simply by passing the bar
examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked,
subject to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer
violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics. The
requisites for admission to the practice of law are: (a) he
must be a citizen of the Philippines; (b) a resident
thereof; (c) at least twenty-one (21) years of age; (d) a
person of good moral character; (e) he must show that
no charges against him involving moral turpitude, are
filed or pending in court; (f) possess the required
10 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
educational qualifications; and (g) pass the bar
examinations.
Same; Same; Same; Possession of good moral character
must be continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment
of the privilege of law practice.—Clear from the
foregoing is that one of the conditions prior to
admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess
good moral character. More importantly, possession of
good moral character must be continuous as a
requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law
practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the
revocation of such privilege.
Same; Same; Same; Lawyers, as keepers of public faith,
are burdened with a higher degree of social
responsibility and thus must handle their personal
affairs with greater caution.—Simple as the facts of the
case may sound, the effects of the actuations of
respondent are not only far from simple, they will have a
rippling effect on how the standard norms of our legal
practitioners should be defined. Perhaps morality in our
liberal society today is a far cry from what it used to be
before. This permissiveness notwithstanding, lawyers, as
keepers of public faith, are burdened with a higher
degree of social responsibility and thus must handle
their personal affairs with greater caution. The facts of
this case lead us to believe that perhaps respondent
would not have found herself in such a compromising
situation had she exercised prudence and been more
vigilant in finding out more about Carlos Ui’s personal
background prior to her intimate involvement with him.
Same; Same; Same; To warrant disciplinary action,
conduct must be “grossly immoral,” that is, it must be so
corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.—
All these taken together leads to the inescapable
conclusion that respondent was imprudent in managing
her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her
relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what
respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be
considered immoral. For immorality connotes conduct
that shows indifference to the moral norms of society
and the opinion of good and respectable members of
the community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant
disciplinary action, the same must be “grossly immoral,”
that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to
a high degree.
Same; Same; Same; A member of the Bar and officer of
the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous
relationships x x x but must also so behave himself as to
avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that
he is flouting those moral standards.—We have held
that “a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not
only required to refrain from adulterous relationships x x
x but must also so behave himself as to avoid
scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is
flouting those moral standards.” Respondent’s act of
immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon
discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged
moral indifference and proves that she had no intention
of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the
legal profession. Complainant’s bare assertions to the
contrary deserve no credit. After all, the burden of proof
rests upon the complainant, and the Court will exercise
its disciplinary powers only if she establishes her case by
clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. This, herein
complainant miserably failed to do.
MELANIO L. ZORETA, complainant, vs. ATTY.
HEHERSON ALNOR G. SIMPLICIANO, respondent.
Attorneys; Disbarment; The practice of law is not a right
but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who
show that they possess, and continue to possess, the
qualifications required by law for the conferment of
such privilege; An attorney may be disbarred, or
suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties
as an attorney and counselor, which include statutory
grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court, all of these being broad enough to cover
practically any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional
or private capacity.—At the threshold, it is worth
stressing that the practice of law is not a right but a
privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that
they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications
required by law for the conferment of such privilege.
Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions. A lawyer has the privilege and right to
practice law only during good behavior and can only be
deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared
by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard
has been afforded him. Without invading any
constitutional privilege or right, an attorney’s right to
practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to
suspend him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to
hold a license or to exercise the duties and
responsibilities of an attorney. It must be understood
that the purpose of suspending or disbarring him as an
attorney is to remove from the profession a person
whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted
with the duties and responsibilities belonging to an
office of attorney, and thus to protect the public and
those charged with the administration of justice, rather
than to punish an attorney. Elaborating on this, we said
in Maligsa v. Cabanting that “*t+he bar should maintain a
high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty
and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal
profession by faithfully performing his duties to society,
to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end a
member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing
any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence
11 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty
and integrity of the legal profession.” Towards this end,
an attorney may be disbarred, or suspended for any
violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney and
counselor, which include statutory grounds enumerated
in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, all of these
being broad enough to cover practically any misconduct
of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity.
Same; Same; Notarial Law; Notarization is not an empty,
meaningless, routinary act—it is invested with
substantive public interest, such that only those who are
qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.—
Apropos to the case at bar, it has been emphatically
stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless,
routinary act. It is invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public. The protection of
that interest necessarily requires that those not
qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from
imposing upon the public, the courts, and the
administrative offices in general. It must be underscored
that the notarization by a notary public converts a
private document into a public document making that
document admissible in evidence without further proof
of authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to
full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason,
notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of their duties.
Same; Same; Same; The lawyer’s act of notarizing
documents without the requisite commission therefor is
reprehensible, constituting as it does not only
malpractice but also the crime of falsification of public
documents; Respondent barred from being
commissioned as a notary public permanently and
suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.—
The requirements for the issuance of a commission as
notary public must not be treated as a mere casual
formality. The Court has characterized a lawyer’s act of
notarizing documents without the requisite commission
therefore as “reprehensible, constituting as it does not
only malpractice but also x x x the crime of falsification
of public documents.” For such reprehensible conduct,
the Court has sanctioned erring lawyers by suspension
from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial
commission and disqualification from acting as such, and
even disbarment. x x x Needless to state, respondent
cannot escape from disciplinary action in his capacity as
a notary public and as a member of the Philippine Bar.
However, the penalty recommended by the Board of
Governors of the IBP must be increased. Respondent
must be barred from being commissioned as a notary
public permanently and suspended from the practice of
law for two (2) years.
MARILI C. RONQUILLO, ALEXANDER RONQUILLO and
JON ALEXANDER RONQUILLO, represented by their
Attorney-in-Fact SERVILLANO A. CABUNGCAL,
complainants, vs. ATTY. HOMOBONO T. CEZAR,
respondent.
Administrative Law; Attorneys; Disbarment; Grounds for
Disbarment or Suspension of a Member of the Bar; A
lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct,
whether in his professional or private capacity, which
shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as
an officer of the court.—Under Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Revised Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be
disbarred or suspended on any of the following grounds:
(1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other gross misconduct in
office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude; (5) violation of the
lawyer’s oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court; and (7) willfully appearing as
an attorney for a party without authority. Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” “Conduct,” as
used in this rule, does not refer exclusively to the
performance of a lawyer’s professional duties. This
Court has made clear in a long line of cases that a lawyer
may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether
in his professional or private capacity, which shows him
to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and
good demeanor, or unworthy to continue as an officer
of the court.
Same; Same; Same; Lawyers must conduct themselves
beyond reproach at all times whether, they are dealing
with their clients or the public at large, and a violation of
the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies
the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including
suspension and disbarment.—The practice of law is not
a right but a privilege. It is granted only to those of good
moral character. The Bar must maintain a high standard
of honesty and fair dealing. Lawyers must conduct
themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they
are dealing with their clients or the public at large, and a
violation of the high moral standards of the legal
profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate
penalty, including suspension and disbarment.
Same; Same; Same; Disciplinary proceedings against
lawyers do not involve a trial of an action but rather
investigations by the court into the conduct of one of its
officers.—Be that as it may, we cannot grant
complainants’ prayer that respondent be directed to
return the money he received from them in the amount
of P937,500.00. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers
do not involve a trial of an action, but rather
investigations by the court into the conduct of one of its
officers. The only question for determination in these
12 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
proceedings is whether or not the attorney is still fit to
be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. Thus,
this Court cannot rule on the issue of the amount of
money that should be returned to the complainants.
LILY FLORES-SALADO, MINDA FLORES LURA, and FE V.
FLORES, complainants, vs. ATTY. ROMAN A.
VILLA-NUEVA, JR., respondent.
Attorneys; Disbarment; A disbarment proceeding is not
the occasion to determine the issue of falsification or
forgery simply because the sole issue to be addressed
and determined therein is whether or not the
respondent attorney is still fit to continue to be an
officer of the court in the dispensation of justice.—We
emphasize that allegations of falsification or forgery
must be competently proved because falsification or
forgery cannot be presumed. As such, the allegations
should first be established and determined in
appropriate proceedings, like in criminal or civil cases,
for it is only by such proceedings that the last word on
the falsity or forgery can be uttered by a court of law
with the legal competence to do so. A disbarment
proceeding is not the occasion to determine the issue of
falsification or forgery simply because the sole issue to
be addressed and determined therein is whether or not
the respondent attorney is still fit to continue to be an
officer of the court in the dispensation of justice.
Accordingly, we decline to rule herein whether or not
the respondent had committed the supposed
falsification of the affidavit of waiver/withdrawal in the
absence of the prior determination thereof in the
appropriate proceeding.
Evidence; Documentary Evidence; Notarized
Documents; Public Documents; It is settled that
notarization converts a private document into a public
document, whereby the document becomes entitled to
full faith and credit upon its face.—The complainants
have hereby challenged the due execution and
authenticity of the affidavit of waiver/withdrawal, a
notarized document. In view of this, the complainants’
mere denial of having signed the affidavit of
waiver/withdrawal did not suffice to overcome the
positive value of it as a notarized document. It is settled
that notarization converts a private document into a
public document, whereby the document becomes
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. The
notarized document then has in its favor the
presumption of regularity, and to overcome the
presumed regularity of its execution, whoever alleges
the contrary should present evidence that is clear,
convincing and more than merely preponderant.
Same; Same; Birth Certificates; A birth certificate
consists of entries related to the fact of birth in public
records, and is made in the performance of duty by the
local civil registrar as a public officer.—A birth certificate
consists of entries related to the fact of birth in public
records, and is made in the performance of duty by the
local civil registrar as a public officer. It is thus treated as
the prima facie evidence of the fact of one’s birth, and
can be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence
to the contrary. As such, the birth certificate submitted
by the respondent was decisive on the date of his birth
in the absence of clearer and more convincing contrary
evidence.
Same; Same; Same; The State expressly allows the late
registration of births not only at the instance of the
father, mother, or guardian in case the person whose
birth is to be registered is under eighteen (18) years of
age, but also at the instance of the person himself when
already of age.—The veracity of the respondent’s birth
certificate cannot be successfully assailed on the basis
alone of its being belatedly entered in the local civil
registry. This is because the State expressly allows the
late registration of births not only at the instance of the
father, mother, or guardian in case the person whose
birth is to be registered is under 18 years of age, but also
at the instance of the person himself when already of
age. To accord with such policy of the State, the fact of
late registration of the respondent’s birth should not
adversely affect the validity of the entries made in his
birth certificate.
Attorneys; Disbarment; Any questions pertaining to the
qualifications of the respondent to be appointed as a
state prosecutor should be directed to the Secretary of
Justice who had administrative supervision over him
under the law, and not to this Court in the guise of the
disbarment complaint.—The Court finds the need to
clarify that although it may entertain a disbarment or
suspension complaint brought against a lawyer
employed in the government service whether or not the
complaint pertained to an act or conduct unrelated to
the discharge of his official functions, the investigation
should be carried out by the agency or office having
administrative supervision over him or her when the
allegations of the complaint relate to the qualifications
of the respondent to be appointed to the public office.
Accordingly, any questions pertaining to the
qualifications of the respondent to be appointed as a
state prosecutor should be directed to the Secretary of
Justice who had administrative supervision over him
under the law, and not to this Court in the guise of the
disbarment complaint. The complaint for disbarment is
sui generis, and the proceeding thereon should focus
only on the qualification and fitness of the respondent
lawyer to continue membership in the Bar.
13 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
VICTORIA V. RADJAIE, complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE O.
ALOVERA, respondent.
Administrative Law; Attorneys; Respondent has
sufficiently demonstrated that he is morally and legally
unfit to remain in the exclusive and honorable fraternity
of the legal profession.—This Court finds the
recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant to
be well-taken. Respondent has thus sufficiently
demonstrated that he is morally and legally unfit to
remain in the exclusive and honorable fraternity of the
legal profession.
Same; Same; The lawyer’s oath is a sacred trust that
every lawyer must uphold and keep inviolable at all
times.—This oath to which all lawyers have subscribed
in solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to the
pursuit of justice, is not a mere ceremony or formality
for practicing law to be forgotten afterwards nor is it
mere words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that
every lawyer must uphold and keep inviolable at all
times. This oath is firmly echoed and reflected in the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Same; Same; Respondent disregarded his primary duty
as an officer of the court, who is sworn to assist the
courts and not to impede or pervert the administration
of justice to all and sundry.—The testimonies of Nenita
M. Aluad, Teresita V. Bauzon and Concepcion Alcazar
were all quite telling on how respondent acted in a
grossly reprehensible manner in having the questioned
decision dated January 30, 1995 come to fore, leading
ultimately to its execution divesting the complainant of
her property. Respondent gravely abused his
relationship with his former staff, pompously flaunting
his erstwhile standing as a judge. Respondent
disregarded his primary duty as an officer of the court,
who is sworn to assist the courts and not to impede or
pervert the administration of justice to all and sundry. In
so doing, he made a mockery of the judiciary and
eroded public confidence in courts and lawyers.
ROSA YAP PARAS, complainant, vs. ATTY. JUSTO DE
JESUS PARAS, respondent.
Administrative Law; Attorneys; Disbarment; Good moral
character is not only a condition precedent to admission
to the practice of law; Continued possession is also
essential for remaining in the practice of law; Power to
disbar must be exercised with great caution and only in
clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the
standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the
Court and as a member of the bar; It should never be
decreed where any lesser penalty such as temporary
suspension could accomplish the end desired.—It is a
time-honored rule that good moral character is not only
a condition precedent to admission to the practice of
law. Its continued possession is also essential for
remaining in the practice of law (People vs. Tunda, 181
SCRA 692 [1990]; Leda vs. Tabang, 206 SCRA 395
[1992]). In the case at hand, respondent has fallen
below the moral bar when he forged his wife’s signature
in the bank loan documents, and, sired a daughter with
a woman other than his wife. However, the power to
disbar must be exercised with great caution, and only in
a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the
standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the
Court and as a member of the bar (Tapucar vs. Tapucar,
Adm. Case No. 4148, July 30, 1998). Disbarment should
never be decreed where any lesser penalty, such as
temporary suspension, could accomplish the end
desired.
JOCELYN DE LEON, complainant, vs. ATTY. TYRONE
PEDREÑA, respondent.
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Gross Immoral Conduct; It bears
stressing that immoral conduct is gross when it is so
corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled
as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when
committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of
decency.—The records show that Atty. Pedreña rubbed
the complainant’s right leg with his hand; tried to insert
his finger into her firmly closed hand; grabbed her hand
and forcibly placed it on his crotch area; and pressed his
finger against her private part. Given the circumstances
in which he committed them, his acts were not merely
offensive and undesirable but repulsive, disgraceful and
grossly immoral. They constituted misconduct on the
part of any lawyer. In this regard, it bears stressing that
immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to
constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed
under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to
shock the community’s sense of decency.
Same; Same; Same; The possession of good moral
character is both a condition precedent and a continuing
requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to
retain membership in the Legal Profession.—The
possession of good moral character is both a condition
precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant
admission to the Bar and to retain membership in the
Legal Profession. Members of the Bar are clearly duty-
bound to observe the highest degree of morality and
integrity in order to safeguard the reputation of the Bar.
Any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer that tends to
expose a deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity
or good demeanor, be it in the lawyer’s public or private
activities, is sufficient to warrant the lawyer’s
suspension or disbarment. Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court, provides that a member of the Bar may
14 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
be disbarred or suspended for grossly immoral conduct,
or violation of his oath as a lawyer. Towards that end,
we have not been remiss in reminding members of the
Bar to live up to the standards and norms of the Legal
Profession by upholding the ideals and principles
embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Same; Same; Same; Atty. Pedreña’s misconduct was
aggravated by the fact that he was then a Public
Attorney mandated to provide free legal service to
indigent litigants, and by the fact that De Leon was then
such a client.—Atty. Pedreña’s misconduct was
aggravated by the fact that he was then a Public
Attorney mandated to provide free legal service to
indigent litigants, and by the fact that De Leon was then
such a client. He also disregarded his oath as a public
officer to serve others and to be accountable at all
times, because he thereby took advantage of her
vulnerability as a client then in desperate need of his
legal assistance.
Same; Penalties; The determination of the penalty to
impose on an erring lawyer is within the Supreme
Court’s discretion.—Verily, the determination of the
penalty to impose on an erring lawyer is within the
Court’s discretion. The exercise of the discretion should
neither be arbitrary nor despotic, nor motivated by any
animosity or prejudice towards the lawyer, but should
instead be ever controlled by the imperative need to
scrupulously guard the purity and independence of the
Bar and to exact from the lawyer strict compliance with
his duties to the Court, to his client, to his brethren in
the profession, and to the general public.
INTERADENT ZAHNTECHNIK, PHIL., INC., represented
by LUIS MARCO I. AVANCEÑA, complainant, vs. ATTY.
REBECCA S. FRANCISCO-SIMBILLO, respondent.
Attorneys; Disbarment; A complaint for disbarment
based on the attorney’s alleged moral turpitude cannot
prosper after the criminal cases charging him with
offenses involving moral turpitude were dismissed by
the trial courts.—A complaint for disbarment based on
the respondent attorney’s alleged moral turpitude
cannot prosper after the criminal cases charging him
with offenses involving moral turpitude were dismissed
by the competent trial courts. The rule regarding this
ground for disbarment requires the respondent
attorney’s conviction of the offense involving moral
turpitude by final judgment.
Same; Same; Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
provides for the grounds for disbarment of lawyers.—
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a
lawyer may be disbarred on any of the following
grounds, namely: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross
misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5)
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6)
violation of the lawyers oath; (7) willful disobedience of
any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) corruptly or
willfully appearing as a lawyer for a party to a case
without authority so to do.
Same; Same; Mere existence or pendency of the
criminal charges involving moral turpitude is not a
ground for disbarment or suspension of an attorney.—
Although the complainant might have availed itself of
the available remedies to review or reverse the
dismissals, it behooves the Court to terminate this case
against her now considering that, as indicated, the mere
existence or pendency of the criminal charges for crimes
involving moral turpitude is not a ground for disbarment
or suspension of an attorney.
ALFREDO BON, complainant, vs. ATTYS. VICTOR S. ZIGA
and ANTONIO A. ARCANGEL, respondents.
Administrative Law; Attorneys; Notarization is not an
empty, meaningless, routinary act; Notaries public must
observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties.—Arcangel seems to be
laboring under a misguided understanding of the basic
principles of the Notarial Law. It is well to remind him
that notarization is not an empty, meaningless,
routinary act. It is invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization
converts a private document into a public document
thus making that document admissible in evidence
without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial
document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon
its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public
at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgement
executed by a notary public and appended to a private
instrument. For this reason, notaries public must
observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence
of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance
would be undermined.
Same; Same; The party or parties who executed the
instrument must be the ones to personally appear
before the Notary Public to acknowledge the
document.—A member of the bar who performs an act
as a notary public should not notarize a document
unless the persons who signed the same are the very
same persons who executed and personally appeared
before him to attest to the contents and truth of what
are stated therein. The acts of the affiants cannot be
delegated to anyone for what are stated therein are
facts of which they have personal knowledge. They
should swear to the document personally and not
through any representative. Otherwise, their
representative’s name should appear in the said
15 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
documents as the one who executed the same. That is
the only time the representative can affix his signature
and personally appear before the notary public for
notarization of the said document. Simply put, the party
or parties who executed the instrument must be the
ones to personally appear before the Notary Public to
acknowledge the document.
MARINA C. GONZALES, complainant, vs. ATTY. CALIXTO
B. RAMOS, respondent.
Administrative Law; Attorneys; Notary Public; A notary
public should not notarize a document unless the
persons who signed the same are the very same persons
who executed and personally appeared before the said
notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what
are stated therein.—A notary public should not notarize
a sale even if one of the signatories therein did not
personally appear before him clearly falls short of the
yardstick of accuracy and fidelity referred to above. The
respondent himself admitted his professional
shortcomings when he said that all he did to ascertain
the authenticity of the signature of the complainant was
to compare her signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale
with her other signatures on pleadings on file with him.
Such conduct of the respondent runs contrary to the
express wordings of the acknowledgment in the deed of
sale
BUDENCIO DUMANLAG, complainant, vs. ATTY. JAIME
M. BLANCO, JR., respondent.
Administrative Complaints; Attorneys; Disbarment;
When a groundless complaint is filed in bad faith, the
Court has to step in and penalize the erring
complainant.—As a rule, a complainant should not be
penalized for the exercise of the right to litigate. But the
rule applies only if the right is exercised in good faith.
When a groundless complaint is filed in bad faith, the
Court has to step in and penalize the erring complainant.
Same; Same; The penalty for filing a malicious complaint
varies from censure to a fine as high as P5,000.—The
penalty for filing a malicious complaint varies from
censure to a fine as high as P5,000.
EUFEMIA A. CAMINO, complainant, vs. ATTY. RYAN REY
L. PASAGUI, respondent.
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Conflict of Interests; The
profession demands of an attorney an absolute
abdication of every personal advantage conflicting in
any way, directly or indirectly, with the interest of his
client.—A lawyer is duty-bound to observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions
with his clients. The profession, therefore, demands of
an attorney an absolute abdication of every personal
advantage conflicting in any way, directly or indirectly,
with the interest of his client. In this case, Atty. Pasagui
failed to measure up to the exacting standard expected
of him.
Same; Same; A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct
committed either in his professional or private
capacity.—Rule 1.0, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, provides that “*a+ lawyer shall not engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” It
is well established that a lawyer’s conduct is “not
confined to the performance of his professional duties.
A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed
either in his professional or private capacity. The test is
whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or
whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an
officer of the court.”
Same; Same; A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his
possession.—The failure of Atty. Pasagui to inform
Camino of the status of the transfer of title despite the
release of the loan to finance the transfer of the title, is
a clear indicium that he converted the money for his
own use and constituted a gross violation of
professional ethics and betrayal of public confidence in
the legal profession. He violated Canon 16 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which states that “*a+
lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of
his client that may come into his possession.”
Same; Same; Respondent, by converting the money of
his client to his own personal use without her consent,
was guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross
misconduct.—A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself
not to delay any man for money or malice and is bound
to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients. He
is obligated to report promptly the money of his client
that has come into his possession. He should not
commingle it with his private property or use it for his
personal purposes without his client’s consent. When a
lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a
particular purpose (such as for filing fees, registration
fees, transportation and office expenses), he should
promptly account to the client how the money was
spent. If he does not use the money for its intended
purpose, he must immediately return it to the client.
Respondent, by converting the money of his client to his
own personal use without her consent, was guilty of
deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct. Not only did
he degrade himself but as an unfaithful lawyer he
besmirched the fair name of an honorable profession.
Same; Same; Attorneys, like Caesar’s wife, must not only
keep inviolate their client’s confidence, but must also
16 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing,
for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their
secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount
importance in the administration of justice.—Atty.
Pasagui’s act of propositioning himself as a lawyer of
Tan and Camino who have opposing interests as one
being the seller and the other one, the buyer, is
deplorable. As lawyer of the buyer, Tan, he facilitated
the buyer’s payments to Camino, but at the same time
when it seemed that he could get a higher price from
another buyer, he encouraged Camino to cancel the sale
in favor of Tan. Clearly, such actuations of Atty. Pasagui
are tantamount to double-dealing and conflict of
interest, and manifests unethical practice of law.
Attorneys, like Caesar’s wife, must not only keep
inviolate their client’s confidence, but must also avoid
the appearance of treachery and double-dealing, for
only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their
secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount
importance in the administration of justice.
Same; Penalties; A member of the Bar may be penalized,
even disbarred or suspended from his office as an
attorney, for violation of the lawyer’s oath and/or for
breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied
in the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).—A
member of the Bar may be penalized, even disbarred or
suspended from his office as an attorney, for violation of
the lawyer’s oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the
legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility. For the practice of law is “a profession, a
form of public trust, the performance of which is
entrusted to those who are qualified and who possess
good moral character.” The appropriate penalty for an
errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial
discretion based on the surrounding facts.
Same; In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the
only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to
be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. In such
cases, the Supreme Court’s (SC’s) only concern is the
determination of respondent’s administrative liability; it
should not involve his civil liability for moneys received
from his client in a transaction separate, distinct, and
not intrinsically linked to his professional engagement.—
The Court also deems it appropriate to order the return
of the moneys which respondent received as attorney-
in-fact, for the purpose of facilitating the transfer of the
title in the name of the complainant with the
corresponding payment of legal interest as pronounced
in the case of Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 703 SCRA 439
(2013). True, in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers,
the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still
fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. In
such cases, the Court’s only concern is the
determination of respondent’s administrative liability; it
should not involve his civil liability for moneys received
from his client in a transaction separate, distinct, and
not intrinsically linked to his professional engagement.
However, in this case, it appeared that the Caminos
entrusted the task of facilitating the transfer of the title
by virtue of respondent’s legal expertise. The receipt of
the moneys was not by virtue of a personal transaction
between the complainant and respondent. After all, if a
person, in respect to business affairs or troubles of any
kind, consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining
professional advice or assistance, and the attorney
voluntarily permits or acquiesces with the consultation,
as in this case, then the professional employment is
established. Once lawyers agree to take up the cause of
a client, they owe fidelity to such cause and must always
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them
OMAR P. ALI, complainant, vs. ATTY. MOSIB A.
BUBONG, respondent.
Attorneys; Disbarment; Grounds; Grave Misconduct;
Where a lawyer’s misconduct as a government official is
of such nature as to affect his qualification as a lawyer
or to show moral delinquency, then he may be
disciplined as a member of the bar on such grounds.—
The Code of Professional Responsibility does not cease
to apply to a lawyer simply because he has joined the
government service. In fact, by the express provision of
Canon 6 thereof, the rules governing the conduct of
lawyers “shall apply to lawyers in government service in
the discharge of their official tasks.” Thus, where a
lawyer’s misconduct as a government official is of such
nature as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to
show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as
a member of the bar on such grounds. Although the
general rule is that a lawyer who holds a government
office may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for
infractions he committed as a government official, he
may, however, be disciplined as a lawyer if his
misconduct constitutes a violation of his oath a member
of the legal profession.
Same; Same; Same; Same; As an officer of the court one
is subject to a rigid discipline that demands that in his
every exertion the only criterion be that truth and
justice triumph.—[A] person takes an oath when he is
admitted to the bar which is designed to impress upon
him his responsibilities. He thereby becomes an “officer
of the court” on whose shoulders rests the grave
responsibility of assisting the courts in the proper, fair,
speedy and efficient administration of justice. As an
officer of the court he is subject to a rigid discipline that
demands that in his every exertion the only criterion be
that truth and justice triumph. This discipline is what has
given the law profession its nobility, its prestige, its
exalted place. From a lawyer, to paraphrase Justice Felix
Frankfurter, are expected those qualities of truth-
speaking, a high sense of honor, full candor, intellectual
honesty, and the strictest observance of fiduciary
responsibility—all of which, throughout the centuries,
17 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
have been compendiously described as moral character.
Same; Same; Same; Same; 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.—[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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The ill-conceived use of his
knowledge of the intricacies of the law calls for nothing
less than the withdrawal of his privilege to practice
law.—Respondent’s conduct manifestly undermined the
people’s confidence in the public office he used to
occupy and cast doubt on the integrity of the legal
profession. The ill-conceived use of his knowledge of the
intricacies of the law calls for nothing less than the
withdrawal of his privilege to practice law.
Same; Same; Nature; A proceeding for suspension or
disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the
complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a
defendant.—A case of suspension or disbarment may
proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the
complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of
the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit
and grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven. This
rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary
proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment
is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant
is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant.
Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and
afford no redress for private grievance. They are
undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare.
They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving
courts of justice from the official ministration of persons
unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to
answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the
court. The complainant or the person who called the
attention of the court to the attorney’s alleged
misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no
interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may
have in the proper administrative of justice.
CARRIE-ANNE SHALEEN CARLYLE S. REYES,
complainant, vs. ATTY. RAMON F. NIEVA, respondent.
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Good Moral Character; Good
moral character is a trait that every practicing lawyer is
required to possess.— Good moral character is a trait
that every practicing lawyer is required to possess. It
may be defined as “what a person really is, as
distinguished from good reputation, or from the opinion
generally entertained of him, or the estimate in which
he is held by the public in the place where he is known.
Moral character is not a subjective term but one which
corresponds to objective reality.” Such requirement has
four (4) ostensible purposes, namely: (a) to protect the
public; (b) to protect the public image of lawyers; (c) to
protect prospective clients; and (d) to protect errant
lawyers from themselves.
Same; Same; Same; Lawyers are expected to abide by
the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the
Bar but also throughout their legal career, in order to
maintain their good standing in this exclusive and
honored fraternity.—Verily, lawyers are expected to
abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission
to the Bar but also throughout their legal career, in
order to maintain their good standing in this exclusive
and honored fraternity. They may be suspended from
the practice of law or disbarred for any misconduct,
even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it
shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity or good demeanor.
Same; Same; Same; It has been established that
respondent habitually watches pornographic materials
in his office-issued laptop while inside the office
premises, during office hours, and with the knowledge
and full view of his staff. Obviously, the Supreme Court
(SC) cannot countenance such audacious display of
depravity on respondent’s part not only because his
obscene habit tarnishes the reputation of the
government agency he works for — the Civil Aviation
Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) where he was
engaged at that time as Acting Corporate Secretary —
but also because it shrouds the legal profession in a
negative light.—Without a doubt, it has been
established that respondent habitually watches
pornographic materials in his office-issued laptop while
inside the office premises, during office hours, and with
the knowledge and full view of his staff. Obviously, the
Court cannot countenance such audacious display of
depravity on respondent’s part not only because his
obscene habit tarnishes the reputation of the
government agency he works for — the CAAP where he
was engaged at that time as Acting Corporate Secretary
— but also because it shrouds the legal profession in a
negative light. As a lawyer in the government service,
respondent is expected to perform and discharge his
duties with the highest degree of excellence,
professionalism, intelligence, and skill, and with utmost
devotion and dedication to duty. However, his aforesaid
habit miserably fails to showcase these standards, and
instead, displays sheer unprofessionalism and utter lack
of respect to the government position he was entrusted
to hold. His flimsy excuse that he only does so by himself
and that he would immediately close his laptop
18 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
whenever anyone would pass by or come near his table
is of no moment, because the lewdness of his actions,
within the setting of this case, remains. The legal
profession — much more an engagement in the public
service should always be held in high esteem, and those
who belong within its ranks should be unwavering
exemplars of integrity and professionalism. As keepers
of the public faith, lawyers, such as respondent, are
burdened with a high degree of social responsibility and,
hence, must handle their personal affairs with greater
caution. Indeed, those who have taken the oath to assist
in the dispensation of justice should be more possessed
of the consciousness and the will to overcome the
weakness of the flesh, as respondent in this case.
Administrative Proceedings; Evidence; Substantial
Evidence; In administrative proceedings, the quantum of
proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial
evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.—Based on a survey of cases, the recent
ruling on the matter is Cabas v. Sususco, 793 SCRA 309
(2016), which was promulgated just this June 15, 2016.
In the said case, it was pronounced that: In
administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof
necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence,
i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Further, the complainant has the burden of proving by
substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint.
The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and
is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere
suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given
credence. (Emphasis supplied) Accordingly, this more
recent pronouncement ought to control and therefore,
quell any further confusion on the proper evidentiary
threshold to be applied in administrative cases against
lawyers.
Attorneys; Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are
sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they
do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather
an investigation by the Supreme Court (SC) into the
conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to
inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal
prosecution.—The evidentiary threshold of substantial
evidence — as opposed to preponderance of evidence
— is more in keeping with the primordial purpose of and
essential considerations attending this type of cases. As
case law elucidates, “*d+isciplinary proceedings against
lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely
criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit,
but is rather an investigation by the Court into the
conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to
inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal
prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor
a prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court
motu proprio. Public interest is its primary objective,
and the real question for determination is whether or
not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the
privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its
disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a
member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an
officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving
the purity of the legal profession and the proper and
honest administration of justice by purging the
profession of members who by their misconduct have
proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted
with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the
office of an attorney. In such posture, there can thus be
no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor.”
Same; Good Moral Character; Sexual Harassment;
Watching Pornographic Materials; Penalties; Suspension
from Practice of Law; Respondent exhibited his immoral
behavior through his habitual watching of pornographic
materials while in the office and his acts of sexual
harassment against complainant. Considering the
circumstances of this case, the Court deems it proper to
impose upon respondent the penalty of suspension from
the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.—
Jurisprudence provides that in similar administrative
cases where the lawyer exhibited immoral conduct, the
Court meted penalties ranging from reprimand to
disbarment. In Advincula v. Macabata, 517 SCRA 600
(2007), the lawyer was reprimanded for his distasteful
act of suddenly turning the head of his female client
towards him and kissing her on the lips. In De Leon v.
Pedreña, 708 SCRA 13 (2013), the lawyer was suspended
from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years for
rubbing the female complainant’s right leg with his
hand, trying to insert his finger into her firmly closed
hand, grabbing her hand and forcibly placed it on his
crotch area, and pressing his finger against her private
part. While in Guevarra v. Eala, 529 SCRA 1 (2007), and
Valdez v. Dabon, Jr., 775 SCRA 1 (2015), the Court meted
the extreme penalty of disbarment on the erring lawyers
who engaged in extramarital affairs. Here, respondent
exhibited his immoral behavior through his habitual
watching of pornographic materials while in the office
and his acts of sexual harassment against complainant.
Considering the circumstances of this case, the Court
deems it proper to impose upon respondent the penalty
of suspension from the practice of law for a period of
two (2) years.
SAMUEL B. ARNADO, complainant, vs. ATTY.
HOMOBONO A. ADAZA, respondent.
Attorneys; Mandatory Continuing Legal Education; Bar
Matter (BM) No. 850 requires members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to undergo
continuing legal education “to ensure that throughout
their career, they keep abreast with law and
jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and
19 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
enhance the standards of the practice of law.”—Bar
Matter No. 850 requires members of the IBP to undergo
continuing legal education “to ensure that throughout
their career, they keep abreast with law and
jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and
enhance the standards of the practice of law.” The First
Compliance Period was from 15 April 2001 to 14 April
2004; the Second Compliance Period was from 15 April
2004 to 14 April 2007; and the Third Compliance Period
was from 15 April 2007 to 14 April 2010. Complainant’s
letter covered respondent’s pleadings filed in 2009,
2010, 2011, and 2012 which means respondent also
failed to comply with the MCLE requirements for the
Fourth Compliance Period from 15 April 2010 to 14 April
2013.
Same; Same; Respondent’s failure to comply with the
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
requirements and disregard of the directives of the
MCLE Office warrant his declaration as a delinquent
member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).—
Respondent’s failure to comply with the MCLE
requirements and disregard of the directives of the
MCLE Office warrant his declaration as a delinquent
member of the IBP. While the MCLE Implementing
Regulations state that the MCLE Committee should
recommend to the IBP Board of Governors the listing of
a lawyer as a delinquent member, there is nothing that
prevents the Court from using its administrative power
and supervision to discipline erring lawyers and from
directing the IBP Board of Governors to declare such
lawyers as delinquent members of the IBP.
Same; Same; Penalties; The Supreme Court (SC) deems it
proper to declare respondent as a delinquent member
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and to
suspend him from the practice of law for six (6) months
or until he has fully complied with the requirements of
the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) for
the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Compliance Periods,
whichever is later, and he has fully paid the required
noncompliance and reinstatement fees.—The OBC
recommended respondent’s suspension from the
practice of law for six months. We agree. In addition, his
listing as a delinquent member of the IBP is also akin to
suspension because he shall not be permitted to
practice law until such time as he submits proof of full
compliance to the IBP Board of Governors, and the IBP
Board of Governors has notified the MCLE Committee of
his reinstatement, under Section 14 of the MCLE
Implementing Regulations. Hence, we deem it proper to
declare respondent as a delinquent member of the IBP
and to suspend him from the practice of law for six
months or until he has fully complied with the
requirements of the MCLE for the First, Second, Third,
and Fourth Compliance Periods, whichever is later, and
he has fully paid the required noncompliance and
reinstatement fees.
MARIA VICTORIA G. BELO-HENARES, complainant, vs.
ATTY. ROBERTO “ARGEE” C. GUEVARRA, respondent.
Social Media; Facebook; Words and Phrases; Facebook is
a “voluntary social network to which members subscribe
and submit information. x x x It has a worldwide forum
enabling friends to share information such as thoughts,
links, and photographs, with one another.”—Facebook is
currently the most popular social media site, having
surpassed one (1) billion registered accounts and with
1.71 billion monthly active users. Social media are web-
based platforms that enable online interaction and
facilitate users to generate and share content. There are
various classifications of social media platforms and one
can be classified under the “social networking sites”
such as Facebook. Facebook is a “voluntary social
network to which members subscribe and submit
information. x x x It has a worldwide forum enabling
friends to share information such as thoughts, links, and
photographs, with one another.” Users register at this
site, create a personal profile or an open book of who
they are, add other users as friends, and exchange
messages, including automatic notifications when they
update their profile. A user can post a statement, a
photo, or a video on Facebook, which can be made
visible to anyone, depending on the user’s privacy
settings.
Same; Same; Before one can have an expectation of
privacy in his or her online social networking activity —
in this case, Facebook — it is first necessary that said
user manifests the intention to keep certain posts
private, through the employment of measures to
prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility.—To
address concerns about privacy, but without defeating
its purpose, Facebook was armed with different privacy
tools designed to regulate the accessibility of a user’s
profile, as well as information uploaded by the user. In H
v. W, the South Gauteng High Court of Johannesburg,
Republic of South Africa recognized this ability of the
users to “customize their privacy settings,” but with the
cautionary advice that although Facebook, as stated in
its policies, “makes every effort to protect a user’s
information, these privacy settings are however not
foolproof.” Consequently, before one can have an
expectation of privacy in his or her online social
networking activity — in this case, Facebook — it is first
necessary that said user manifests the intention to keep
certain posts private, through the employment of
measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its
visibility. This intention can materialize in cyberspace
through the utilization of Facebook’s privacy tools. In
other words, utilization of these privacy tools is the
manifestation, in the cyber world, of the user’s
invocation of his or her right to informational privacy.
Same; Same; Restricting the privacy of one’s Facebook
20 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
posts to “Friends” does not guarantee absolute
protection from the prying eyes of another user who
does not belong to one’s circle of friends.—Restricting
the privacy of one’s Facebook posts to “Friends” does
not guarantee absolute protection from the prying eyes
of another user who does not belong to one’s circle of
friends. The user’s own Facebook friend can share said
content or tag his or her own Facebook friend thereto,
regardless of whether the user tagged by the latter is
Facebook friends or not with the former. Also, when the
post is shared or when a person is tagged, the respective
Facebook friends of the person who shared the post or
who was tagged can view the post, the privacy setting of
which was set at “Friends.” Under the circumstances,
therefore, respondent’s claim of violation of right to
privacy is negated.
Same; Same; Freedom of Expression; The constitutional
right of freedom of expression may not be availed of to
broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others, destroy their
name or reputation or bring them into disrepute.—Time
and again, it has been held that the freedom of speech
and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not
absolute. While the freedom of expression and the right
of speech and of the press are among the most zealously
protected rights in the Constitution, every person
exercising them, as the Civil Code stresses, is obliged to
act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith. As such, the constitutional right
of freedom of expression may not be availed of to
broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others, destroy their
name or reputation or bring them into disrepute. A
punctilious scrutiny of the Facebook remarks
complained of disclosed that they were ostensibly made
with malice tending to insult and tarnish the reputation
of complainant and BMGI. Calling complainant a “quack
doctor,” “Reyna ng Kaplastikan,” “Reyna ng Payola,” and
“Reyna ng Kapalpakan,” and insinuating that she has
been bribing people to destroy respondent smacks of
bad faith and reveals an intention to besmirch the name
and reputation of complainant, as well as BMGI.
Respondent also ascribed criminal negligence upon
complainant and BMGI by posting that complainant
disfigured (“binaboy”) his client Norcio, labeling BMGI a
“Frankenstein Factory,” and calling out a boycott of
BMGI’s services all these despite the pendency of the
criminal cases that Norcio had already filed against
complainant. He even threatened complainant with
conviction for criminal negligence and estafa — which is
contrary to one’s obligation “to act with justice.”
Same; Same; By posting the subject remarks on
Facebook directed at complainant and Belo Medical
Group, Inc. (BMGI), respondent disregarded the fact
that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper
decorum at all times, be it in his public or private life.—
By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at
complainant and BMGI, respondent disregarded the fact
that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper
decorum at all times, be it in his public or private life. He
overlooked the fact that he must behave in a manner
befitting of an officer of the court, that is, respectful,
firm, and decent. Instead, he acted inappropriately and
rudely; he used words unbecoming of an officer of the
law, and conducted himself in an aggressive way by
hurling insults and maligning complainant’s and BMGI’s
reputation.
Same; Same; That complainant is a public figure and/or
a celebrity and therefore, a public personage who is
exposed to criticism does not justify respondent’s
disrespectful language.—That complainant is a public
figure and/or a celebrity and therefore, a public
personage who is exposed to criticism does not justify
respondent’s disrespectful language. It is the cardinal
condition of all criticism that it shall be bona fide, and
shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. In
this case, respondent’s remarks against complainant
breached the said walls, for which reason the former
must be administratively sanctioned.
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Lawyers may be disciplined even
for any conduct committed in their private capacity, as
long as their misconduct reflects their want of probity or
good demeanor, a good character being an essential
qualification for the admission to the practice of law and
for continuance of such privilege.—“Lawyers may be
disciplined even for any conduct committed in their
private capacity, as long as their misconduct reflects
their want of probity or good demeanor, a good
character being an essential qualification for the
admission to the practice of law and for continuance of
such privilege. When the Code of Professional
Responsibility or the Rules of Court speaks of conduct or
misconduct, the reference is not confined to one’s
behavior exhibited in connection with the performance
of lawyers’ professional duties, but also covers any
misconduct, which — albeit unrelated to the actual
practice of their profession — would show them to be
unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which
their license and the law invest in them.” Accordingly,
the Court finds that respondent should be suspended
from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, as
originally recommended by the IBP-CBD, with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall
be dealt with more severely.
ATTY. DELIO M. ASERON, complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE
A. DIÑO, JR., respondent.
Remedial Law; Motion for Reconsideration; The rule
does not recognize the filing of a second motion for
reconsideration. In fact, the rule expressly provides that
the proper remedy of the losing party is to file a Petition
21 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
for Review under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court
(SC).—In Bar Matter No. 1755, the Court emphasized
the application of Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of
Court, thus: In case a decision is rendered by the [Board
of Governors] that exonerates the respondent or
imposes a sanction less than suspension or disbarment,
the aggrieved party can file a motion for reconsideration
within the 15-day period from notice. If the motion is
denied, said party can file a petition for review under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with this Court within
fifteen (15) days from notice of the resolution resolving
the motion. If no motion for reconsideration is filed, the
decision shall become final and executory and a copy of
said decision shall be furnished this Court. Clearly, the
rule does not recognize the filing of a second motion for
reconsideration. In fact, the rule expressly provides that
the proper remedy of the losing party is to file a Petition
for Review under Rule 45 with this Court. In accordance,
however, with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of
Court and in the interest of substantial justice, the Court
treats the second Motion for Reconsideration filed by
the respondent as a petition for review under Rule 45.
This is consistent with the sui generis nature of
disbarment proceedings which focuses on the
qualification and fitness of a lawyer to continue
membership in the bar and not the procedural
technicalities in filing the case.
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Use of Intemperate Language;
The Supreme Court (SC) agrees with the findings of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar
Discipline (IBP-CBD) and the Board of Governors that the
respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) when he used intemperate
language in his letter to the complainant.—After a
careful perusal of the records of the case, the Court
agrees with the findings of the IBP-CBD and the Board of
Governors that the respondent violated the CPR when
he used intemperate language in his letter to the
complainant. Canon 8 of the CPR directs all members of
the bar to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness,
and candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid
harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Specifically,
in Rule 8.01, the CPR provides: Rule 8.01 – A lawyer shall
not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. In the present
case, the respondent’s actions failed to measure up to
this Canon. Records show that he imputed to the
complainant the use of his influence as a former public
prosecutor to harass his clients during the inquest
proceedings without sufficient proof or evidence to
support the same.
Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court (SC) has
consistently reminded lawyers that though they are
entitled to present their case with vigor and courage,
such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive
and abusive language.—The Court has consistently
reminded lawyers that though they are entitled to
present their case with vigor and courage, such
enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and
abusive language. Language abounds with countless
possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful,
convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not
offensive.
SPOUSES MANOLO and MILINIA NUEZCA,
complainants, vs. ATTY. ERNESTO V. VILLAGARCIA,
respondent.
Practice of Law; Attorneys; The practice of law is a
privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards
of legal proficiency and morality.—The practice of law is
a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high
standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any violation
of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative
liability.
Same; Same; Though a lawyer’s language may be
forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and
respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession.—
Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and
emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful,
befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of
intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no
place in the dignity of judicial forum. Language abounds
with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but
respectful, convincing but not derogatory, and
illuminating but not offensive.
ROSALIE DALLONG-GALICINAO, complainant, vs. ATTY.
VIRGIL R. CASTRO, respondent.
Administrative Law; Attorneys; Legal Ethics; By
constantly checking the transmittal of the records of
Civil Case No. 784, respondent deliberately encroached
upon the legal functions of the counsel of record of that
case.— Respondent’s explanation that he will enter his
appearance in the case when its records were already
transmitted to the MCTC is unacceptable. Not being the
counsel of record and there being no authorization from
either the parties to represent them, respondent had no
right to impose his will on the clerk of court. Rule 8.02 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility states: Rule
8.02—A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach
upon the professional employment of another lawyer;
however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or
favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
Through his acts of constantly checking the transmittal
of the records of Civil Case No. 784, respondent
deliberately encroached upon the legal functions of the
counsel of record of that case. It does not matter
whether he did so in good faith.
22 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES
Same; Same; Same; In the course of his questionable
activities relating to Civil Case No. 784, respondent
acted rudely towards an officer of the court. Not only
was it ill-mannered but also unbecoming considering
that he did all these to a woman and in front of her
subordinates.—In the course of his questionable
activities relating to Civil Case No. 784, respondent
acted rudely towards an officer of the court. He raised
his voice at the clerk of court and uttered at her the
most vulgar of invectives. Not only was it ill-mannered
but also unbecoming considering that he did all these to
a woman and in front of her subordinates. As held in
Alcantara v. Atty. Pefianco, respondent ought to have
realized that this sort of public behavior can only bring
down the legal profession in the public estimation and
erode public respect for it. These acts violate Rule 7.03,
Canon 8 and Rule 8.01.
Same; Same; Same; Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility demands that lawyers conduct
themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor toward
their fellow lawyers.—Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility demands that lawyers
conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor
toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound to
uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act
honorably, fairly and candidly towards each other and
otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at all
times.
Same; Same; Same; The highest reward that can be
bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their brethren.—
The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is
the esteem of their brethren. This esteem cannot be
purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained by artifice or
contrivance. It is born of sharp contexts and thrives
despite conflicting interest. It emanates solely from
integrity, character, brains and skills in the honorable
performance of professional duty.
AVIDA LAND CORPORATION (formerly LAGUNA
PROPERTIES HOLDINGS, INC.), complainant, vs. ATTY.
AL C. ARGOSINO, respondent.
Attorneys; Code of Professional Responsibility; Under
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), lawyers
are required to exert every effort and consider it their
duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration
of justice.—Professional rules, however, impose limits
on a lawyer’s zeal and hedge it with necessary
restrictions and qualifications. Under the Code of
Professional Responsibility, lawyers are required to
exert every effort and consider it their duty to assist in
the speedy and efficient administration of justice. The
Code also obliges lawyers to employ only fair and honest
means to attain the lawful objectives of their client.
Same; Suspension from Practice of Law; Penalty of one
(1) to two (2) years’ suspension was meted in cases
involving multiple violations of professional conduct that
have cause delay in the administration of justice.—We
have meted out the penalty of one to two years’
suspension in cases involving multiple violations of
professional conduct that have caused unjust delays in
the administration of justice. The IBP Guidelines
similarly provide that “suspension is appropriate when a
lawyer knows that he is violating a court order or rule,
and there is injury or potential injury to a client or a
party, or interference or potential interference with a
legal proceeding.”
DATU BUDENCIO E. DUMANLAG, complainant, vs.
ATTY. WINSTON B. INTONG, respondent.
Attorneys; It has been consistently held that an attorney
enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the
charges against him until the contrary is proved, and
that as an officer of the court, he is presumed to have
performed his duties in accordance with his oath.—It
has been consistently held that an attorney enjoys the
legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges
against him until the contrary is proved, and that as an
officer of the court, he is presumed to have performed
his duties in accordance with his oath. Thus, in
disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon
the complainant, and for the Court to exercise its
disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent
must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory
proof. However, in this case, complainant failed to
discharge the burden of proving his accusations of gross
misconduct on the part of the respondent.
Same; Code of Professional Responsibility; Under Rule
1.04, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR), “*a+ lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid,
end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair
settlement.”—Complainant’s allegation of force and
compulsion accompanying the letter dated February 8,
2010 is negated by the very words used therein.
Respondent described said letter in the opening
paragraph as a “letter request for *complainant’s+
presence.” He then went on to close the letter with
“*h+oping for your *(complainant’s)+ preferential and
positive action on this matter” and “*m+y highest
esteem.” As aptly pointed out by Commissioner
Villanueva in his Report and Recommendation, the letter
was “carefully worded, done in a respectful manner.”
There was absolutely nothing on the face of the letter
that would justify complainant’s indignation against any
discourtesy or discrimination against him. The letter was
a mere invitation for complainant to attend a settlement
and pre-litigation conference, which respondent, as a
lawyer, is obligated to pursue. Under Rule 1.04, Canon 1
23 PALE – 1ST EXAM COVERAGE| LOURIE CALOPE NOTES

of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), “*a+ reprimand him with warning that commission of the
lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle same or similar infraction will be dealt with more
a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.” There severely. This is consistent with the ruling in the recent
was nothing wrong, therefore, with respondent’s efforts case of Andres v. Nambi, 752 SCRA 110 (2015), where
to set up a conference between complainant and his respondent therein was found to have ignored the
clients. Court’s resolution directing him to file comment, and to
have failed to attend the mandatory conference before
Same; Legal Ethics; Respondent cannot escape the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline despite notice, as
accountability for his repetitive disregard of the well as to file his position paper. Since it was also his
resolutions of the Court requiring him to file his first infraction, respondent therein was merely
comment to the complaint and to pay the fine imposed reprimanded by the Court, as in this case.
upon him for his failure to do so.—Respondent cannot,
however, escape accountability for his repetitive
disregard of the resolutions of the Court requiring him
to file his comment to the complaint and to pay the fine
imposed upon him for his failure to do so. As correctly
pointed out by Commissioner Villanueva, the Court
issued three resolutions dated July 19, 2010, March 9,
2011, and September 28, 2011, requiring respondent to
file his comment, to show cause for his failure to file,
and to pay a fine of P1,000.00 for such failure. But all
three were left unheeded. Respondent ought to know
that orders of the court are “not mere requests but
directives which should have been complied with
promptly and completely.” “He disregarded the oath he
took when he was accepted to the legal profession ‘to
obey the laws and the legal orders of the duly
constituted legal authorities.’ x x x His conduct was
unbecoming of a lawyer who is called upon to obey
court orders and processes and is expected to stand
foremost in complying with court directives as an officer
of the court,” pursuant to Canon 11 of the CPR, which
mandates that “*a+ lawyer shall observe and maintain
the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers
x x x.”

Same; Penalties; Disbarment; Suspension; The

determination of whether an attorney should be
disbarred or merely suspended for a period involves the
exercise of sound judicial discretion.—It has been
stressed that the determination of whether an attorney
should be disbarred or merely suspended for a period
involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion. The
penalties for a lawyer’s failure to file a brief or other
pleading range from reprimand, warning with fine,
suspension, and, in grave cases, disbarment. In the
present case, the Court finds too harsh the
recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of six months. After all, respondent did file his
mandatory conference brief before the IBP where he
cited the Resolution dated July 19, 2010 of the Court,
requiring him to file his comment to the complaint. He
also attended the mandatory conference/hearing
scheduled by the IBP, although he failed to file his
position paper despite the directive to do so. Under the
circumstances, and considering that this appears to be
respondent’s first infraction, the Court finds it proper to