PALE – PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

1. Define Legal Ethics

1.1 Explain the importance of Legal Ethics.

The practice of law which covers a wide range of activities characteristic of the legal
profession including the pursuit and defense of client's rights and interests before the
court, will be transgressive, anarchic, riotous, lawbreaking, defiant and disobedient to
courts, if there are no sets of governing rules to limit the parameters and tame the
exercise of the profession.

1.2 Why is it that it is a branch of Moral Science?

is a branch of moral science, which treats of the duties which an Attorney owes to the
court, to the client, to his colleagues in the profession and to the public as embodied in
the Constitution, Rules of Court, the Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons of
Professional Ethics, jurisprudence, moral laws and special laws.

1.3 What is “NON OMNE QUOD LICET HONESTUM EST”?

It is not everything which is permitted that is honorable.

Problem Area 1 – Take a Position: “Not everything legal is moral”

Legality and Morality are separate things that sometimes overlap.

Legality is a countries laws and how they’re enforced. How they are made and are
enforced is entirely up to that structures government.

Morality are the values of a socio-political climate and how beneficial or detrimental
ideas are to that society, the species, and individuals.

Not all that is legal is moral, is true. An example of this is abortionalthough it is

legal in japan, in the Philippines it is illegal to kill an unbornchild since it is
viewed as imm or al. Another example of this is deat h penalty although in
other countries it is legal, it is viewed as immoral herein the Philippines. What is moral
is worth legalizing is true since it is moralto have f reedom f or oneself , an
example of this is choosing whom tospend the rest of your life with, it is a
person’s choice whether to spend itwith a girl or a boy which is why it was legalized in
other countries.

2. Sources of legal ethics?

2.1 Rule 138 (Revised Rules of Court)

Who May Practice Law?

1. Practice of Law
 The practice of law is a PRIVILEGE granted only to those who possess the STRICT
INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL QUALIFICATIONS required of lawyers who are
instruments In the effective and efficient administration of justice. (In Re: Argosino,
1997).

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application
of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. "To engage in the
practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession.
Generally to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service which device
or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill." (Cayetano vs.
Monsod, 20.1 SORA 210 citing 111 AI..R 23).

Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar.

1. Requirements for admission to the Bar:

1. Citizen of the Philippines
2. At least 21 years old
3. Of good moral character
4. Resident of the Philippines
5. Production before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of:

a. Good moral character

b. No charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been

filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.

Can an American Citizen practice law in the Philippines?

Filipino lawyers who became naturalized American citizen can again

practice law in the country upon acquiring dual citizenship, according to
the Supreme Court.

When can you consider a person a full pledge lawyer?

Case: Michael A. Medado, B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013.

IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS MICHAEL A. MEDADO,

PETITIONER. (DIGEST)

B.M. No. 2540

September 24, 2013

TOPIC:

Admission to the Bar, Unauthorized Practice of Law, Canon 9, Signing of the Roll of Attorneys

FACTS:

Michael A. Medado passed the Philippine bar exams in 1979. On 7 May 1980, he took the
Attorney’s Oath at the PICC. He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May
1980, but failed to do so allegedly because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of
Attorneys. Several years later, while rummaging through his things, he found said Notice. He
then realized that he had not signed in the roll, and that what he had signed at the entrance of
the PICC was probably just an attendance record.

He thought that since he already took the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys was not as
important. The matter of signing in the Roll of Attorneys was subsequently forgotten.

In 2005, when Medado attended MCLE seminars, he was required to provide his roll number for
his MCLE compliances to be credited. Not having signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he was unable
to provide his roll number.

About seven years later, in 2012, Medado filed the instant Petition, praying that he be allowed to
sign in the Roll of Attorneys. Medado justifies this lapse by characterizing his acts as “neither
willful nor intentional but based on a mistaken belief and an honest error of judgment.

The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the instant petition be denied for petitioner’s
gross negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of merit, saying that petitioner could offer no
valid justification for his negligence in signing in the Roll of Attorneys.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner may be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.

RULING:

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition subject to the payment of a fine and the imposition
of a penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of law.

Not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys would be akin to imposing upon him the
ultimate penalty of disbarment, a penalty reserved for the most serious ethical transgressions. In
this case, said action is not warranted.

The Court considered Medado’s demonstration of good faith in filing the petition himself, albeit
after the passage of more than 30 years; that he has shown that he possesses the character
required to be a member of the Philippine Bar; and that he appears to have been a competent
and able legal practitioner, having held various positions at different firms and companies.

However, Medado is not free from all liability for his years of inaction.

A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is presumed to

know the law and its consequences.

Medado may have at first operated under an honest mistake of fact when he thought that what
he had signed at the PICC entrance before the oath-taking was already the Roll of Attorneys.
However, the moment he realized that what he had signed was just an attendance record, he
could no longer claim an honest mistake of fact as a valid justification. At that point, he should
have known that he was not a full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar, as it was the act of
signing therein that would have made him so. When, in spite of this knowledge, he chose to
continue practicing law, he willfully engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law likewise transgresses Canon 9 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. 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 conduct themselves in accordance with the
ethical standards of the legal profession.

Medado cannot be suspended as he is not yet a full-fledged lawyer. However, the Court
imposed upon him a penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys
one (1) year after receipt of the Resolution. He was also made to pay a fine of P32,000. Also,
during the one-year period, petitioner was not allowed to engage in the practice of law.

2.2 Rule 138-A Revised by A.M. No. 19-03-24

2.3 Rule 139 Disbarment – Purpose / Nature / Quantum of Evidence/uniqueness/
2.4 1987 Constitution Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (5) – power of the SC
2.5 Art. VI, Sec. 14 – Non-appearance of member of congress to any court / quasi-
judicial/ administrative bodies.
2.6 Art. VII, Sec. 13 – incompatible office / practice of profession – executive branch
2.7 Art. IX-A, Sec. 2 – Members of the constitutional commissions – practice of
profession and engaged in business
2.8 Art. XI, Sec. 8 – in relation to Sec 1 (ombudsman)
2.9 New civil code Art. 1491 (5) (illegal acquisition of property object of litigation )
Cases: Fornilda vs. Br. 164 RTC, GR no. 72306 1989
Valencia vs. Cabanting 196 SCRA 302
Punla vs. Atty. Eleanor Maravilla-Ona GR 11149 2017
2.10 NCC 2208 When Attorney’s fees may be recovered? Gen. Rule?
2.11 Labor code Art. 203 – Application or filing of health benefits 222 – prohibition for
appearances of non-lawyer.
2.12 Revised penal code Art. 209 Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor.
2.13 Is the code of Professional responsibility a Statute?
 Problem Area 2: Is contingent fees allowed? is Art. 1491 (5) applicable to contigent
fees?
3. Define Practice of Law.
3.1 Defined by PP v. Villanueva, 121 Phil. 897
3.2 Defined by Cayetano v Monsod, 201 SCRA 210

Problem Area 3-A: Which definition is proper Villanueva or Monsod?

3.3 Characteristics of Practice of Law:
3.3.1 Privilege not a natural or constitutional right.
3.3.2 Not a business but a profession
3.3.3 Profession but no a proprietary right
3.3.4 Lawyers are officers of the court and administrator of justice
3.3.5 A matter of public interest/ social responsibility.
3.3.6 NO dichotomy of personality.

3.3.7 Cases: Bolongalanta v. Castillo, 240 SCRA 310,313

Floran , et al., v. Ediza, A.C. No 5325 2011
Artueza v. Atty. Maderazo, A.C. No. 4354 2002
Aguirre v. Rana, B.M. No. 1036 2003
PP v. Maceda, etc. et at., G.R. 898591-96 2000
Problem Area 3-B: In case of doubt rule against the lawyer, is it proper?”
3-C: Are the following constituting practice of law?
a. Giving Legal advice
b. Giving Tax Advice
c. Authorship / Teaching law subjects in law school

Case: AC no. 5900 Anonymous complaint against Atty. Cresencio P.

Co Untian

4. Prohibited Advertisements: Solicitation is equivalent to malpractice- complete ban –

ROC – Rule 138 Sec. 27, last sentence.

4.1 CPR Canon 2 Rule 2.03

4.2 Canon 3
4.3 Canon 3 rule 3.01
4.4 Canon 3 rule 3.04
Case: Canlas V. Court of Appeals, et al., 164 SCRA 160
Exceptions:
Act must not injure the legal profession – compatible with dignity made in the modest
and decorous manner.
1. Simple customary professional card
2. Publication on a reputable law list:
What does permitted to be included?
3. Notice of Transfer of Law Office / Its opening

Problem Area 4: A
“Is it permissible to advertise the opening of a law firm in whole page newspaper ad?”
Problem Area 4: B
“Atty. A advertises a small space in a newspaper “FREE Legal Consultation” Date and
Place (his Law Office) and His name as the Lawyer who will provide such free legal services.”
Problem Area 4: C
 ABC Church is offering Free Spiritual counseling and also free legal counseling; in the
ad it states the place (at the church) and date of the event but the name of the lawyer was not
indicated? The pastor is also a Practicing Lawyer.

5. Canon 1, Rule 1.03 also known as Barratry.

5.1 Canon 1 rule 1.04 – compromise
5.2 Distinguish Barratry from Ambulance chasing
5.3 Exception on barratry- Canon of Professional Ethics Canon 28 (1st sentence)
Problem Area 5:
“ A and B brother and heirs to their father land, C is there first cousin Lawyer, C
suggested extra judicial partition to equally divide the land B wanted a bigger share and
the said legal advice was not carried. C suggested A to go to court for judicial partition
of property. B filed before the IBP against C improper conduct as a basis, barratry.
Rule on the said case.
6. No corporate practice of law:
6.1 How about the use of non de plume
Problem Area 6: A group of businessmen organized a corporation “Legal Services Inc.”
services provided are full range of legal services to the public and intended to hire
lawyers and paralegals, the SEC denied registration. Was the SEC correct? Why?
7. Who can conduct litigation? ( conduct litigation not allowed to practice)
7.1 ROC, Rule 138, Sec 1
7.2 Rule 138 Sec. 3
7.3 Rule 138 Sec 4
7.4 Pro se
7.5 Person authorized to appear for the government
7.6 Agent or friend of a party litigant MTC or MCTC
7.7 Person appointed by the court to defend the accused in localities where no Members
of the bar are available.
7.8 Law student practice rule 138-A Sec. 1, Rules of Court
Take note Revised by A.M. No. 19-03-24
7.9 Person representing themselves or their organization or members in a labor cases
before the NLRC or LA.

Problem Area 7: A “X a member of the bar in regular and good standing his services was
engaged by Y in a patent case before the IPO, the commissioner of patent requires X to pass a
qualifying examination to practice in the Quasi-judicial body? Rule on the matter.
Case: Philippine Lawyer’s Association v. Agrava, 105 Phil.73
Problem Area 7:B “X graduate of LLB not a bar passer, but a passer of the special bar
examinations for Shari’a Court. X a Muslim representing Y also a muslim in the said
Shari’a Court in a civil case being heard by the said Shari’a court in its concurrent
jurisdiction as a civil court.
Can X represent Y in the said case?
(Par. 2 Article 143 of PD 1083 (Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines)

Problem Area 7:B “ Congress approves a bill lowering the passing rate of the 2019 bar
from 75% to 70% because the subject taxation’s mortality rate was only 10%.
Rule on the matter?

1935 Sec 13.Art. VIII / 1973 Sec. 5 (5) Art. X constitution gives the power to congress to
regulate the admission to the bar.
 1987 constitution gave the power to institute rules for admission to the bar exclusively to
the SC.
Problem Area 7: C “Are you in favor of abolishing the bar examinations?”
“Are you in favor of changing the format from essay to MCQ?

Problem Area7: D “Why do you want to become a lawyer?” (1991 bar)

Problem Area 7: E “X a bar candidate in his application, stated the following:

1) Convicted Robbery/extortion = pardon by the President
2) Pending case of falsification of public document

Can he be allowed to take the bar?

Problem Area 7: F “X during his freshman in a reputable law school, charged with
reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property and was settled amicably… the
case was closed based on judgment upon compromised. He applied for the bar after
graduation but did not disclose such case he was involved.
Should he be allowed to take the bar? (CPR, Canon 7, Rule 7.01)
Cases: Cantibuhan v. Cruz, Jr. 126 SCRA 144, 145
Person representing himself (Pro se) or a friend as his agent in the MTC (Civil or
Criminal Case)
MTC RTC CA – in a civil case, a party may appear as his own counsel (Pro se)
Bar question: 2002
Problem Area 7:G “Raul Catapang, a law graduate and vice-president for labor relations
of XYZ Labor Union, entered his appearance as representative of a member of the union
before the LA for illegal dismissal case. Counsel for the employer Atty. W moved for his
disqualification because he is not a member of the bar. Rule on the matter.
(Labor code Art. 222)

8. Appearances:
8.1 Rule 138, Sec. 21 presumption of appearance
8.2 Can the court motu proprio / or instance of both parties require the presentation of
authorization by the client to legal representation? (Land Bank of the Philippines v.
Amintuan Dev. Co. 510 Phil. 839, 844 (2005)
8.3 Penalty for unauthorized legal representation?
8.4 None-lawyer masquerading as lawyer – liabilities? (ROC Rule 71, Sec. 3 (D) / RPC
art. 315 No. 2 / Damages
8.5 Public Officials who may not practice law:
Judges/Court officials or employees of Superior Court.
Official and employees of the office of the Solicitor General
Pres. / VP/ members of the cabinet their deputies and assistants
Members of the constitutional commissions
Ombudsman and his deputies
Governors, City Mayors

Criminal case Gov. employee (national/local) is the accused and the offense committed
in relation to his office.
Cannot collect fees representing local govt. units which they are official – admin
proceedings.
May not use property /personnel except the defending the interest of the govt.
 Case: Javellana v. Dept. of Interior 212 SCRA 475

Case: A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC: Atty. Karen Buffe

8.7 RA 910, Section 1 as amended

Retired Judge receiving pension from the government.
Cannot act as counsel in any civil case if the adverse party is the govt.
Criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the govt. is accused of an offense in
relation to his office.

Problem Area 8: A “X an RTC3 clerk of court, retired, handled a case 9 months after
retirement a case included in the dockets of RTC 3, X also accepted a case 2 months
after retirement a case in RTC 7, also accepted a case in RTC 11, 13 months after
retirement, the said case he appeared as collaborating counsel prior to his employment
with the judiciary. Problem Area 8: A “X an RTC3 clerk of court, retired, handled a case 9
months after retirement a case included in the dockets of RTC 3, X also accepted a case
2 months after retirement a case in RTC 7, also accepted a case in RTC 11, 13 months
after retirement, the said case he appeared as collaborating counsel prior to his
employment with the judiciary.
Problem Area 8: B “X an RTC3 clerk of court, retired, handled a case 9 months after
retirement a case included in the dockets of RTC 3, X also accepted a case 2 months
after retirement a case in RTC 7, also accepted a case in RTC 11, 13 months after
retirement, the said case he appeared as collaborating counsel prior to his employment
with the judiciary, for continuance of the case because the lead counsel is already dead.
X accepted a case after 14 months from retirement included in the dockets of RTC 3.
Ever since his employment with RTC 3 he handles law subjects in the nearby University
full load wherein it demand time that affects his regular working hours with RTC 3.
Which among the cases X can handle?
Problem Area 8:C “
Justice X, a retired CA justice, appeared before the SC for Land Bank, the adverse
party’s lawyer move for his disqualification to appear? Also X appeared to defend Y a
government employee in a criminal case (PB 22) with the MTC 3? Also, X appeared in a
civil case after 1 year of retirement against the PAGIBIG FUND as respondent?
Which among the cases he needs to be relieved?

8.8 Lawyer’s authorized to represent the government:

1. General Rule: Private lawyer cannot represent the government.
Reason: Unnecessary disbursement of public funds and assurance of
Faithful rendition of service, subject to civil service laws
(misconduct and dereliction of duties.)

Exceptions
a. Written conformity and acquiescence from the SOLGEN
Case: Municipality of Pililia, Rizal, v.CA, et al., 233 SCRA 484, 491
Province of Cebu v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 147 SCRA 447

9. Other issues:
Define:
Attorney-ad-hoc
Assumpsit
Chapertous Contract
 Attorney’s retaining lien
Counsel de Oficio
Amicus Curae
Attorney’s lien
Forum-shopping
Quantum meruit
Moral turpitude
Charging lien Lawyer
Good Moral Character

Differentiate:
Ambulance chasing from barratry
Champertous contract from contingent fee

How may a lawyer enforce his claim for attorney’s fee?

Charging lien
Retaining Lien
Suit in assumpsit
Cases: (Benjamin M. Dacanay, B.M. No. 1678 2007)
(Letter of Atty. Estelito Mendoza proposing reforms in the Bar examination –
amends Section 5 of Rule 138)
In the Matter of the Petition for authority to continue use of firm name Ozaeta,
Romulo, etc., 92 SCRA 1 (June 30, 1979)
Young vs. lim G.R. No. 210554 2015 JJ Leonen

Revolving Door Theory:

Case: PCGG vs. Sandigan bayan 2005 GR 151809
Congruent-Interest Conflict Theory: rule 6.03 applicable
DISBARMENT – meaning and characteristics
Effect of dismissal or acquittal of the accused in a criminal case in the disbarment case?
Disbarred outside our jurisdiction effect in Ph. Practice
Regular Standing of a lawyer:
B.M. No. 850 of 2000 Rule 7 Exemptions: 12 items FOR MCLE

Case: Petition for leave to resume practice ofn law, Benjamin M. Dacanay B.M. 678
December 2007 in relation to RA 9225
 Requisites for resumption of practice.
Letter of Atty. Estelito Mendoza proposing reforms in the Bar examination – amends
Section 5 of Rule 138)
 Requisites to take the PH. Bar