CANON 9- A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ASSIST IN THE

UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

While a reading of Canon 9 appears to merely prohibit lawyers from assisting in

the unauthorized practice of law, the unauthorized practice of law by the lawyer himself
is subsumed under this provision, because at the heart of Canon 9 is the lawyer’s duty
to prevent the unauthorized practice of law. This duty likewise applies to law students
and Bar candidates. As aspiring members of the Bar, they are bound to comport
themselves in accordance with the ethical standards of the legal profession. Turning
now to the applicable penalty, previous violations of Canon 9 have warranted the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law. As Medado is not yet a full-fledged
lawyer, we cannot suspend him from the practice of law. However, we see it fit to
impose upon him a penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of this Resolution. For his transgression of the
prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law, we likewise see it fit to fine him in
the amount of P32,000. During the one year period, petitioner is warned that he is not
allowed to engage in the practice of law, and is sternly warned that doing any act that
constitutes practice of law before he has signed in the Roll of Attorneys will be dealt with
severely by this Court. (IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS
MICHAEL A. MEDADO, SEPTEMBER 23,2013)

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.

Rationale: The practice of law is limited only to individuals who have the necessary
educational qualifications and good moral character. Moreover, an attorney-client
relationship is a strictly personal one.

The Court ruled that the term “practice of law” implies customarily or habitually
holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood
or in consideration of his services. The Court further ruled that holding one’s self out as
a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that purpose, such as identifying oneself as
attorney, appearing in court in representation of a client, or associating oneself as a
partner of a law office for the general practice of law. The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at
the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public
interest and policy. Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those
individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The permissive right
conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he
fails to maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to
protect the public, the court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty
of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the
Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons
and ethics of the profession enjoin him not to permit his professional services or his
name to be used in aid of, or to make possible the unauthorized practice of law by, any
agency, personal or corporate. And, the law makes it a misbehavior on his part, subject
to disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law. In this case, it
has been established that Dela Rosa, who is not a member of the Bar, misrepresented
herself as Busmente’s collaborating counsel in Civil Case No. 9284. (ATTY. EDITA
NOE-LACSAMANA, VS. ATTY. YOLANDO F. BUSMENTE, A.C.NO. 7269,
NOVEMBER 23,2011.)

We, however, affirm the IBP’s finding that the respondent is guilty of assisting in
the unauthorized practice of law.  A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to
misrepresent himself as a lawyer and to practice law is guilty of violating Canon 9 and
Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In this case, Felicisimo R. Tenorio,
Jr., is not a lawyer, but he holds himself out as one.  His wife, the respondent herein,
abetted and aided him in the unauthorized practice of the legal profession. (ANA
MARIE CAMBALIZA, VS. ATTY. ANA LUZ B. CRISTAL-TENORIO, ADM.CASE
NO.6290, JULY 14, 2004)

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 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 the 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 profit sharing

A lawyer is proscribed by the Code to divide the fees for legal services rendered
with a person not licensed to practice law. The first two exceptions to the rule , strictly
speaking , represent compensation for legal services rendered by the deceased lawyer
during his lifetime, which is paid to estate or heirs. There is nothing improper in this
arrangement. Impropriety arises where the effect of arrangement is to make the estate
or heir a member of the partnership along with the surviving partners, or where the
estate or heir is to receive a percentage of the fees that may be paid from future
business of the deceased lawyer’s clients because such fees no longer represent
compensation for past services of the deceased lawyer but for the future services of the
law firm to its surviving partners. The third exception to the rule does not involve,
strictly speaking , a division of legal fees with non-lawyer employees. The retirement
benefits in the form of pension represent additional deferred wages or compensation for
past services of the employees.

We ruled in Tan Tek Beng v. David that an agreement between a lawyer and a
layperson to share the fees collected from clients secured by the layperson is null and
void, and that the lawyer involved may be disciplined for unethical conduct. (MIGUEL G.
VILLATUYA V. ATTY. BEDE S. TABALINGCOS, A.C. NO. 6622, JULY 10, 2012)

CANON 10- A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT

A lawyer is, first and foremost, an officer of the court. His first duty is not to his
client but to the administration of justice; to that end, his client’s success is wholly
subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of
the law and ethics of the profession.

The Court finds that Atty. Mejica failed to exercise candor and courtesy to the
court when he failed to inform the same of the pendency of his MR before the OPP in
connection with the same cause of action. Likewise, records show that he failed to
withdraw his MR before the OPP despite the subsequent filing of his complaint before
the MCTC. Although it is the MCTC that has jurisdiction over the complaint filed by Atty.
Mejica, he made a mockery of the judicial process and further eroded public confidence
in lawyers when he ignored the proceedings he initiated in the OPP. For these acts, the
Court finds Atty. Mejica liable under Canon 10 of the CPR for violating the lawyer's duty
to observe candor and fairness in his dealings with the court. It states:

CANON 10. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the Court.

Clearly, Atty. Mejica committed an act of professional misconduct and thereby failed to
live up to the exacting ethical standards imposed on members of the Bar.(DELIA LIM
VS. ATTY. AQUILINO MEJICA, A.C.No. 11121, September 13, 2016)

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 mislead by any artifice.

A lawyer should not conceal the truth from the court, nor mislead the court in any
manner, no matter how demanding his duties to his clients may be. His duties to his
clients should yield to his duty to deal candidly with the court.

By authorizing Edna R. Mijares, respondent pushed for the inclusion of his

alleged properties for Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program coverage. He did this
notwithstanding the Resolution finding him guilty of committing deceit and falsehood in
his application for free patent over the said properties when he manifested under oath
that he had been in the actual possession and occupation of the said lands despite the
fact that these were continuously in the possession and occupation of complainants
family. His deliberate act of disregarding this Court's ruling is conduct unbecoming of a
lawyer and degrades the legal profession. He is likewise guilty of violating Canon 1,
Rule 1.01 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
(ROUEL YAP PARAS VS. ATTY. JUSTO P. PARAS, A.C. No. 7348, September 27,
2016)

This court accepts the findings of fact of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Based on the records of this administrative Complaint, respondent is guilty of violating
Canon 10, Rules 10.01 and 10.03, and Canon 18, Rule 18.03. The importance of
Canon 10, Rule 10.01 was extensively discussed in Spouses Umaguing v. De
Vera, which involved the submission of a falsified affidavit in an electoral protest. This
court discussed that:

Fundamental is the rule that in his dealings with his client and with the
courts, every lawyer is expected to be honest, imbued with integrity, and
trustworthy. These expectations, though high and demanding, are the
professional and ethical burdens of every member of the Philippine Bar, for
they have been given full expression in the Lawyer's Oath that every lawyer
of this country has taken upon admission as a bonafide member of the Law
Profession.

(ATTY. PABLO B. FRANCISCO VS. ATTY. ROMEO M. FLORES, A.C. NO. 10753,
JANUARY 26,2016)

As if his lack of candor in his professional relationship with Antonio was not
abhorrent enough, Atty. Ireneo tried to mislead the appellate court about the receipt of a
copy of its February 10, 1997 Resolution dismissing the appeal in CA-G.R. CV No.
50075.  He denied personally receiving such copy, but the CA found and declared that
he himself received said copy. The CA arrived at this conclusion thru the process of
comparing Atty. Ireneo's signature appearing in the pleadings with that in the registry
return card. Both signatures belong to one and the same person.  Needless to stress,
Atty. Ireneo had under the premises indulged in deliberate falsehood, contrary to the
self-explanatory prescriptions of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01.
(ANTONIO CONLU, VS. ATTY. IRENEO AREDONIA, JR., A.C. No. 4955, September
12, 2011)
There is a strong public interest involved in requiring lawyers who, as officers of
the court, participate in the dispensation of justice, to behave at all times in a manner
consistent with truth and honor. The common caricature that lawyers by and large do
not feel compelled to speak the truth and to act honestly should not become a common
reality. By stating untruthfully in open court that complainant had agreed to withdraw his
lawsuits, Atty. Doronilla breached these peremptory tenets of ethical conduct. Not only
that, he violated the lawyer's oath to "do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any
in court," of which Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 are but restatements. His act infringed on
every lawyer's duty to "never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
artifice or false statement of fact or law." ( RENATO M. MALIGAYA, VS. ATTY.
ANTONIO G. DORONILLA, JR.,A.C. No.6198, SEPTEMBER 15,2006)
 What we see from the records, however, is a different situation that belied the
complainant's charges against the respondent. From the pre-trial records quoted below,
we find sufficient justification for the conclusion that the information Attys. Stephen and
Lanee David supplied their client was patently misleading and slanted "to cover up their
gross shortcomings as lawyers," as the respondent aptly put it. (JUAN PABLO P.
BONDOC VS. JUDGE DIVINA LUZ P. AQUINO-SIMBULAN, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 41, SAN FERNANDO CITY, PAMPANGA, A.M. RTJ- 09-2204,
OCTOBER 26, 2009 )

The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on those who show that they possess
and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. Indeed, lawyers are expected to
maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty,
integrity and fair dealing. They must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal
profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the
legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Magat’s
act clearly falls short of the standards set by the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly Rule 10.01. In this case, the Court agrees with the observation of the IBP
that there was a deliberate intent on the part of Atty. Magat to mislead the court when
he filed the motion to dismiss the criminal charges on the basis of double jeopardy. Atty.
Magat should not make any false and untruthful statements in his pleadings. If it were
true that there was a similar case for slight physical injuries that was really filed in court,
all he had to do was to secure a certification from that court that, indeed, a case was
filed. (RODRIGO A. MOLINA VS. ATTY. CEFERINO R. MAGAT, A.C.No. 1900, JUNE
13, 2012)

Rule 10.02 – A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of the
paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision of
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 approved.

A lawyer who deliberately made it appear that the quotations in his motion for
reconsideration were findings of the Supreme Court, when they were just part of the
memorandum of the Court Administrator, and who misspelled the name of the
complainant and made the wrong citation of authority is guilty of violation or Rule 10.02
of the Code.

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

Under Canon 10, Rule 10.03, respondent as lawyer is mandated to observe the
Rules of Procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. Respondent
recklessly used the powers of the court to inflict injustice. He issued acted on a petition
for declaratory relief against the possessor of the subject land despite want of authority,
on the very same day that it was filed and without notice and hearing to the adverse
party. (OCA vs. ATTY. LIANGCO. A.C. No. 5355. Dec 13, 2011)
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.

This canon and should constantly remind lawyers that second only to the duty
of maintaining allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the
Constitution and obey the laws of the land is the duty of all attorneys to observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers. The faithful
performance of this duty is necessary for the stability of democratic institutions. (
Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 149, 9th Edition)

Rule 11.01 – A lawyers shall appear in court properly attired.

A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired, which should be a Barong

Tagalong or a coat and tie, either of which is the recognized formal attire in the country.
Respect to the court must begin with the lawyer’s outward physical appearance in court.
Sloppy or informal attire adversely reflects on the lawyer and demeans the dignity and
solemnity of court proceedings. If dresses improperly, he may cited for contempt. (
Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, pp. 152-53, 9 th Edition)

Rule 11.02 – A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.

A lawyer should show respect due to the court and judicial officer by appearing
during the trial of case punctually and proper attire. He owes it not only to his client but
to the court and the public as well to be punctual in attendance and to be concise and
direct in the trial and disposition of causes. Inexcusable absence from, or repeated
tardiness, in attending pre-trial or hearing may not only subject the lawyer to disciplinary
action, but may also prejudice his client who, as a consequence thereof, may be non-
suited, declared in default or adjudged liable ex parte, as the case may be. (Agpalo,
Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 153, 9th Edition)

Rule 11.03 – A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive, or menacing language
or behavior before the courts.

In championing the cause of his client, a lawyer should not resort to insulting
or disparaging language amounting to disrespect toward the court. While he must
advocate his client’s cause in utmost and earnest and with maximum skill he can
marshal, he is not at liberty to resort to arrogance, intimidation, and innuendo. (Agpalo,
Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 155, 9th Edition)

Slanderous remarks such as “ Finally, in my thirty (30) years of law practice,

I never encountered a Judge who appears to be as corrupt as you are, thereby giving
me the impression that you are a disgrace to the Judicial System of this land who does
not deserved (sic) to be a member of the Philippine Bar at all.” A lawyer is obliged to
abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language before the courts. As a
supposed officer of the court, such behavior exhibited by respondent Pamatong only
serves to betray his utter lack of reverence towards the courts, which promotes nothing
but the degradation of the administration of justice. (JUDGE GREGORIO D.
PANTANOSAS, JR., v. ATTY. ELLY L. PAMATONG A.C. No. 7330, June 14, 2016)

To be sure, the adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted members of
the bar to use strong language in pursuit of their duty to advance the interests of their
clients. However, while a lawyer is entitled to present his 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. (RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW
FACULTY ENTITLED "RESTORING INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE
ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME
COURT", A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, MARCH 8, 2011 )

On many occasions, the Court has reminded members of the Bar to abstain from
all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of
a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged.
In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's language even in his
pleadings must be dignified. It is of no consequence that the allegedly malicious
statements of respondent were made not before a court but before the BSP. A similar
submission that actuations of and statements made by lawyers before the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) are not covered by the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the NLRC not being a court, was struck down in Lubiano v.
Gordolla, thus:
Respondent became unmindful of the fact that in addressing the National
Labor Relations Commission, he nonetheless remained a member of the Bar, an
oath-bound servant of the law, whose first duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice and whose conduct ought to be and must b scrupulously
observant of law and ethics.

True, utterances, petitions and motions made in the course of judicial proceedings have
consistently been considered as absolutely privileged, however false or malicious they
may be, but only for so long as they are pertinent and relevant to the subject of
inquiry.The test of relevancy has been stated, thus:

x x x. As to the degree of relevancy or pertinency necessary to make

alleged defamatory matters privileged the courts favor a liberal rule. The matter
to which the privilege does not extend must be so palpably wanting in relation to
the subject matter of the controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its
relevancy and impropriety. In order that matter alleged in a pleading may be
privileged, it need not be in every case material to the issues presented by the
pleadings. It must, however, be legitimately related thereto, or so pertinent to the
subject of the controversy that it may become the subject of inquiry in the course
of the trial x x x.
 (JOSE C. SABERON vs. ATTY. FERNANDO T. LARONG,A.C.No.6567,APRIL
16,2008)

Atty. Battung disrespected Judge Baculi by shouting at him inside the courtroom
during court proceedings in the presence of litigants and their counsels, and court
personnel. The respondent even came back to harass Judge Baculi. These actions
were not only against the person, the position and the stature of Judge Baculi, but
against the court as well whose proceedings were openly and flagrantly disrupted, and
brought to disrepute by the respondent. Litigants and counsels, particularly the latter
because of their position and avowed duty to the courts, cannot be allowed to publicly
ridicule, demean and disrespect a judge, and the court that he represents. (JUDGE
BACULI VS. ATTY. BATTUNG. A.C. NO. 8920. SEP. 28, 2011)

Rule 11.04 – A lawyer shall not attribute to a judge motives not supported by the record
or having no materiality to the case.

The rule does not preclude a lawyer from criticizing judicial conduct. The rule
allows such criticism so long as it is supported by the record or is material to the case.
His right to criticize the acts of courts and judges in a proper and respectful way and
through legitimate channels is well recognized. (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p.
157, 9th Edition)

Rule 11.05 – A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities
only.

The duty of the bar to support the judge against unjust criticism and clamor does
not, however, preclude the lawyer from filing administrative complaints against the
erring judges or from acting as counsel for clients who have legitimate grievances
against them which means that they be filed with the Supreme Court which has
administrative supervision over all courts and the power to discipline judges of lower
courts. (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 158, 9 th Edition)
 Bagabuyo violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he caused the holding of a
press conference where he made statements against the Order allowing the accused in
Crim. Case to be released on bail. He violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that
Judge Tan was displaying judicial arrogance in the article entitled, Senior prosecutor
lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out, in the Mindanao Gold
Star Daily. (RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. BAGABUYO FORMER SENIOR STATE
PROS, ADM. CASE NO. 7006, OCT 9, 2007)