Sunteți pe pagina 1din 26

d

COVID NOTES

This covers the remaining lecture for the FINAL TERM

I. LEGAL ETHICS

A. CANON 14 – “shall not refuse his services to the


needy”

Rule 14.01 – “not to 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 said person’s guilt”
Rule 14.02 – “not to decline, except for serious and sufficient cause,
an appointment as counsel de officio or as amicus curiae or a request
from IBP or any of its chapter for rendition of free legal aid”
Rule 14.03 – “may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent
client unless, (a) he is not in a position to carry out the work effectively
or competently, or (b) he labors under a conflict of interest between
him and the prospective client”
Rule 14.04 – “lawyer who accepts cause of a person unable to pay his
professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct
governing relations with paying clients”

DISCUSSION: As an officer of the court, a lawyer


sworn to assist in the speedy administration of
justice, must not refuse to accept engagement save
only for the valid reasons provided in Rule 14.03.

______________________________________________

B. CANON 15 – “shall observe candor, loyalty and


fairness in all dealings and transactions with his
clients”

Rule 15.01 – “as soon as practicable, in conferring with a prospective


client, ascertain whether the matter would involve a conflict with
another client or his own and if so, forthwith inform the prospective
client”
Rule 15.02 – “be bound by the rule on privilege communication in
respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client”
Rule 15.03 – “not to represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts”
Rule 15.04 – “may with written consent of all concerned act as
mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes”
Rule 15.05 – “when advising a client, give a candid and honest
opinion on the merits and probable result of client’s case”
Rule 15.06 – “shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any
public official, tribunal or legislative body”
d

Rule 15.07 – “lawyer engaged in another profession or occupation


concurrently with law practice shall make clear to his client whether he
is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity”

DISCUSSION: The relationship between lawyer and


client is of the highest degree of fiduciary trust. It is
incumbent for a lawyer to preserve, protect and
maintain the trust and confidence reposed on him by
the client.

Without trust and confidence, the client will be


wary and hesitant to candidly disclose all information
relative and matter to the subject of engagement.
Ultimately, the lawyer will also be unable to properly
prepare and perform the service for which he was
hired without a full grasp of all relevant facts.

To encourage and ensure that the client will


bestow upon counsel full trust and confidence, this
Canon and its rules prohibits representation of
conflicting interest.

The application of the Privileged Communication


requires: (i) existence of attorney-client relation or
consultancy relations with prospective client; (ii)
communication made in the course of professional
employment; (iii) communication intended to be
confidential.

The privilege continues to exist even after


termination of the attorney-client relationship. This
rule is intended to: (a) encourage clients to make full
disclosure of facts without fear; and (b) allows the
attorney freedom to obtain full information from
client.

See: Rule 130, Sec. 24 of the Rules of Court on attorney-


client privilege communication.

Cases to Read:

1. Wilson vs. Atty. Lastimosa, AC#11153, 6/19/2019


2. Burber vs. Atty. Magulta, AC#513, 6/10/2002
3. Baens vs. Atty. Sempio, AC#10378, 6/9/2014
4. Foronda vs. Atty. Alvarez, Jr., AC#9976, 6/25/2014
5. Llunar vs. Atty. Ricafort, AC#6484, 6/16/2015
6. Foster vs. Atty. Agtang, AC#10579, 12/10/2014
d

7. Daging vs. Atty. Davis, AC#9395, 11/12/2014


8. Hocorma Foundation vs. Atty. Funk, AC#9094, 8/15/2012
9. Castro-Justo vs. Atty. Galing, AC#6174, 11/16/2011
10. Sibulo vs. Atty. Cabrera, AC#4218/7/20/2000
11. Capinpin vs. Atty. Cesa, AC#6933, 7/5/2017
12. Cerilla vs. Atty. Lezama, AC#11483, 10/3/2017
13. Tulio vs. Atty. Buhangin, AC#7110, 4/10/2016
14. Domingo vs. Atty. Revilla, AC#5473, 1/23/2018
15. Gonzales vs. Atty. Sabacajan, 249 SCRA 276
16. Perez vs. Atty. Dela Torre, AC#6160, 3/30/2006

______________________________________________

C. CANON 16 – “shall hold in trust all moneys and


properties of his clients that may come into his
possession”

Rule 16.01 – “shall account for all money or property collected or


received for or from his clients”
Rule 16.02 – “shall keep funds of each client separate and apart from
his own and those of others kept by him”
Rule 16.03 – “shall deliver funds and property of his client when due
or upon demand …. 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 … 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 – “shall not borrow money from client unless client’s
interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice … shall not lend money to client except, when in
interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal
matter he is handling for client”

DISCUSSION: Due to the fiduciary relationship


between counsel and client, the former is constituted
as TRUSTEE for the latter’s money and property.
Money collected by the lawyer for the client belongs
to the client. As such, the lawyer has the obligation to
hold in trust all his client’s money and property that
may come into his possession. He is accountable for
said items and is bound to hold them in trust for his
client. Ergo, he must keep receipts and maintain an
adequate record for such items in trust. Money
delivered to him for a specific purpose must be used
therefor, if not, he must promptly return them to the
client.
d

In relation to property held for or from the client, it


must be noted that a lawyer has an ATTORNEY’S LIEN
which consist of (a) LAWYER’S RETAINING LIEN, i.e.
over the client’s property held by him to apply to his
claims upon due notice to client; and (b) CHARGING
LIEN.

See: Sec. 37, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court for charging
lien.

Cases to Read:

1. Yoshimura vs. Atty. Panagsagan, AC#10962, 9/11/2018


2. Domingo vs. Atty. Sacdalan, AC#12475, 3/26/2019
3. Dongga-as vs. Atty. Angeles, AC#11113, 8/9/2016
4. Sison vs. Atty. Camacho, AC#10910, 1/12/2016
5. Pacificar vs. Atty. Real, AC#9022, 6/10/2019
6. Salazar vs. Atty. Quiambao, AC#12401, 3/12/2019
7. Sioson vs. Atty. Apoya, AC#12044, 7/23/2018
8. Dizon vs. Atty. De Taza, AC#7676, 6/10/2014
9. Mejares vs. Atty. Romana, AC#6196, 3/17/2004
10. Malangas vs. Atty. Zaide, AC#10675, 5/31/2016
11. Ong vs. Atty. Grijaldo, AC#4724, 4/30/2003
12. Riboya vs. Atty. Lawsin, AC#7965, 11/13/2013
13. Go vs. Atty. Buri, AC#12296, 12/4/2018
14. Gonzales vs. Atty. Santos, AC#10178, 6/19/2018
15. Nevada vs. Atty. Casuga, AC#7591, 3/20/2012
16. Aldovino vs. Atty. Pujalte, AC#5082, 2/17/2004
17. Soliman vs. Atty. Lerios-Amboy, AC#10568, 1/13/2015
18. Atty. Solidon vs. Atty. Macalalad, AC#8158, 2/24/10
19. Bondoc vs. Atty. Datu, AC#8903, 8/30/2017
20. Agot vs. Atty. Rivera, AC#8000, 8/5/2014
21. Reddi vs. Atty. Sebrio, AC#7027, 1/30/2009
22. Palencia vs. Atty. Linsangan, AC#10557, 7/10/2018
23. Yu vs. Atty. Dela Cruz, AC#10912, 1/19/2016
24. Isalos vs. Atty. Cristal, AC#11822, 11/22/2017
25. Tangcay vs. Atty. Cabarroguis, AC#11821, 4/2/2018

______________________________________________

D. CANON 17 – “owes fidelity to client’s cause, mindful


of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

DISCUSSION: The lawyer must reciprocate the client’s


trust with fidelity to the client’s cause. Fidelity is the
essence of the legal profession for without it, the
d

profession will not survive as no one will trust and


engage lawyers anymore.

Cases to Read:

1. Genato vs. Atty. Silapan, AC#4078, 7/14/2003


2. Sps. Jacinto vs. Atty. Bangot, AC#8494, 10/5/2016
3. Cuizon vs. Atty. Macalino, AC#4334, 7/7/2004
4. Chang vs. Atty. Hidalgo, AC#6934, 4/6/2016
5. UCPB vs. Atty. Noel, AC#3951, 6/19/2018
6. Cojuangco vs. Atty. Palma, AC#2474, 9/15/2004
7. Foronda vs. Atty. Alvarez, Jr., AC#9976, 6/25/2014
8. Tahaw vs. Atty. Vitan, AC#6441, 10/21/2004
9. Manalang vs. Atty. Angeles, AC#1558, 3/10/2003
10. PACES vs. Atty. Salandanan, AC#1346, 7/25/2017,
11. Punla vs. Atty. Ona, AC#11149, 8/15/2017
12. Bondoc vs. Atty. Datu, AC#8903, 8/30/2017
13. Penilla vs. Atty. Alcid, Jr., AC#9149, 9/4/2013
14. Cabiles vs. Atty. Cedo, AC#10245, 8/16/2017
15. Reisenbeck vs. Atty. Abarrientos, AC#6238, 11/4/2004
16. Baens vs. Atty. Sempio, AC#10378, 6/9/2014

______________________________________________

E. CANON 18 – “shall serve his client with competence


and diligence.”

Rule 18.01 – “shall not undertake a legal service which he knows he


is not qualified to render …. May do so, but obtain corroborating
counsel competent on the matter with client’s consent”
Rule 18.02 – “shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation”
Rule 18.03 – “shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and
his negligence in connection therewith renders him liable”
Rule 18.04 – “shall keep client informed of case status and respond
within a reasonable time to client’s request for information”

DISCUSSION: A client engages a lawyer and expects


nothing less from him. This expectation imposes upon
the lawyer the duty to diligently and competently
serve the client. The rules under this Canon intend to
bolster this duty of competence and diligence.

Cases to Read:

1. Bejerasco vs. People, GR#159781, 2/2/2011


2. Sorensen vs. Atty. Pozon, AC#11334, 1/7/2019
3. Domingo vs. Atty. Sacdalan, AC#12475, 3/26/2019
d

4. Yap vs. Atty. Dantes, AC#11741, 6/19/2019


5. Angeles vs. Atty. Lina-ac, AC#12063, 1/8/2019
6. Sps. Regulto vs. Atty. Teoxon, AC#10301, 4/3/2019
7. Salazar vs. Atty. Quiambao, AC#12401, 3/12/2019
8. Pacificar vs. Atty. Real, AC#9022, 6/10/2019
9. Justice Peralta vs. Atty. Ramon, AC#12415, 3/5/2019
10. Sps. Aranda vs. Atty. Elayda, AC#7907, 12/15/10
11. Mejares vs. Atty. Romana, AC#6196, 3/17/2004
12. Padilla vs. Atty. Samson, AC#10253, 8/22/2017
13. De Leon vs. Atty. Geronimo, AC#10441, 2/14/2018
14. Bueno vs. Atty. Raneses, AC#8383, 12/11/2012
15. Penilla vs. Atty. Alcid, Jr., AC#9149, 9/4/2013
16. Murray vs. Atty. Cervantes, AC#5408, 2/7/2017
17. Reisenbeck vs. Atty. Abarrientos, AC#6238, 11/4/2004
18. Hernandez vs. Atty. Padilla, AC#9387, 6/20/2012
19. Falcis vs. Civil Registrar, GR#21910, 7/3/2018
20. Go vs. Atty. Buri, AC#12296, 12/4/2018
21. Dagohoy vs. Atty. San Juan, AC#7944, 6/3/2013
22. Llunar vs. Atty. Ricafort, AC#6484, 6/16/2015
23. Ochagabia vs. Atty. Ocampos, AC#4401, 1/29/2004
24. Ignacio vs. Atty. Alviar, AC#11482, 7/17/2017
25. Tejano vs. Atty. Baterina, AC#8235, 1/27/2015

______________________________________________

F. CANON 19 – “shall represent client with zeal within


bounds of law”

Rule 19.01 – “shall employ only fair and honest means to attain lawful
objectives of his client … shall not present, participate in presenting or
threatening to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or proceeding:
Rule 19.02 – “lawyer who received information that his client has, in
the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or
tribunal, shall promptly call upon client to rectify the same, and failing
which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in
accordance with Rules of Court”
Rule 19.03 – “shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in
handling the case.

DISCUSSION: The duty to serve the client competently


and diligently essentially means that the lawyer owes
entire devotion to the client’s cause. He is mandated
to exert zeal in advocating for or defending his
client’s rights. The client is entitled to the benefit of
every remedy and defense authorized by law. He
expects his lawyer to assert such remedies or
d

defenses. However, in zealously advocating for his


client, the lawyer must always bear in mind that he is,
first and foremost, an officer of the court sworn to
uphold the law and obey legal processes and to assist
in the administration of justice. Hence, this Canon
and its rules implement the “within the bounds of
law” limit for lawyers to observe in discharging their
duty of serving their client with competence and
diligence.

Cases to Read:

1. Festin vs. Zubiri, AC#11600, 6/19/2017


2. Judge Dumlao vs. Atty. Camacho, AC#10498, 9/4/2018
3. Judge Lacurom vs. Attys. Jacoba, AC#5921, 3/10/2006
4. Gonzales vs. Atty. Sabacajan, 249 SCRA 276
5. Plumptre vs. Atty. Rivera, AC#11359, 8/9/2016
6. Reisenbeck vs. Atty. Abarrientos, AC#6238, 11/4/2004
7. Prosecutor Bacatan vs. Atty. Dadula, AC#10565, 9/7/2016
8. Gonzales vs. Atty. Sabacajan, 249 SCRA 276
9. Rural Bank of Calape vs. Atty. Florido, AC#5736, 6/18/10
10. Atty. Roque vs. Atty. Balbin, AC#7088, 12/42018
11. Pena vs. Atty. Aparicio, AC#7298, 6/25/2007
12. Dumanlag vs. Atty. Blanco, AC#8825, 8/3/2016
13. Ong vs. Atty. Unto, AC#2417, 2/6/2002
14. Atty. Espina vs. Atty. Echavez, AC#7250, 4/20/2015
15. Malvar vs. Atty. Feir, AC#1181, 3/5/2018

______________________________________________

G. CANON 20 – “shall charge only fair and reasonable


fees”

Rule 20.01 – “factors in determining lawyer’s fees: (a) time spent and
extent and services rendered and required; (b) novelty and difficulty of
questions involved; (c) importance of subject matter; (d) skill
demanded of lawyer (e) customary charges for similar services and IBP
schedule of fees; (f) probability of losing other compensation; (g)
amount involved in controversy and the benefits resulting from the
service); (h) contingency or certainty of compensation. ”
Rule 20.02 – “in cases of referral, shall, with client’s consent, be
entitled to a division of fees in proportion to worked performed and
responsibility assumed”
Rule 20.03 – “shall not, without full knowledge and consent of his
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 client”
d

Rule 20.04 – “shall avoid controversies with his client concerning his
compensation … shall resort to judicial action only to prevent
imposition, injustice or fraud.”

DISCUSSION: While law practice is primarily a public


service, a lawyer, like any other person, has a right to
a livelihood. As such, he is entitled to adequate
compensation so that he can also serve his client
effectively and preserve the integrity and
independence of the legal profession.

Attorney’s fees may be (a) Ordinary, i.e. the


reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer for legal
services rendered to a client/based on the fact of the
employment by client; (b) Extra-ordinary – indemnity
for damages ordered by ordered by the court to be
paid by losing party to prevailing party in litigation.

Engagement/employment as counsel gives rise to the


lawyer’s right to demand payment of fees.
Employment is usually based on a contract which may
be (a) ORAL, where he is employed without a written
contract but the conditions and amount of attorneys
fees are agreed upon; (b) EXPRESS, where a written
contract is made and is generally conclusive as to the
amount of compensation; or (c) IMPLIED, where no
express or implied agreement is made but the client
allowed the lawyer to render legal services not
intended to be gratuitous without objection, client
benefited by reason thereof, the lawyer is entitled to
compensation to prevent “unjust enrichment.”

Notwithstanding a contract for attorney’s fees, the


lawyer cannot recover the full amount for said fees
when – (a) stipulated attorney’s fees are in excess of
what the law expressly provides, (b) attorney is guilty
of fraud or bad faith against the client; (c) counsel’s
services were worthless because of his negligence;
(d) contract of employment is illegal; (d) serving
adverse interest, unless he acted with consent of
both parties.

While a CHAMPERTOUS CONTRACT is void, a


CONTINGENT FEE CONTRACT is not prohibited under
Art. 1491 of the Civil Code. The law bars the act of a
lawyer of acquiring rights or property which may be
the object of any litigation. A contract for contingent
d

fee is not covered by Art. 1491 because the transfer


or assignment of property in litigation takes effect
only after finality of the favourable judgment. The
estate of the deceased attorney may recover the
reasonable value of services rendered if said attorney
retained on contingent basis died prior to final
determination of the case.

In the following instances attorney’s fees may be paid


on the basis of QUANTUM MERUIT (“as much as he
deserved”) - (a) no express contract for attorney’s
fees; (b) fees stipulated in the contract is found by
the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable; (c)
contract for attorney’s fees is void due to purely
formal matters or defects in the execution [if invalid
due to illegality of object, lawyer can in no way
recover attorney’s fees]; (d) counsel, for justifiable
cause, was not able to finish the case to its
conclusion; (e) when lawyer and client disregard the
contract for attorney’s fees; (f) charging of fees
beyond what is fixed by law is malpractice.

Cases to Read:

1. Gimena vs. Atty. Sabio, AC#7178, 8/23/2016


2. Buntag vs. Atty. Toledo, AC#12125, 2/11/2019
3. Sps. Jacinto vs. Atty. Bangot, AC#8494, 10/5/2016
4. Dalupan vs. Gacott, AC#5067, 6/29/2015
5. Chang vs. Atty. Hidalgo, AC#6934, 4/6/2016
6. Martin vs. Atty. Dela Cruz, AC#9832, 9/4/2017
7. Sanchez vs. Atty. Aguilos, AC#10543, 3/16/2016
8. Sorensen vs. Atty. Pozon, AC#11334, 1/7/2019
9. Ignacio vs. Atty. Alviar, AC#11482, 7/17/2017
10. Orcino vs. Atty. Gaspar, AC#3773, 9/24/1997
11. Flora III vs. Atty. Luna, AC#11486, 10/17/2018
12. Agot vs. Atty. Rivera, AC#8000, 8/5/2014
13. Ramos vs. Atty. Ngaseo, AC#6210, 12/9/2004
14. Vda. De Fajardo vs. Atty. Bugaring, AC#5113, 10/7/2004
15. Law Firm of Raymundo Armovit vs. CA, 202 SCRA 16
16. Sanchez vs. Atty. Aguilos, AC#10543, 3/16/2016
17. Cortez vs. Atty. Cortez, AC#9119, 3/12/2018
18. Navarez vs. Atty. Abrogar, GR#191641, 9/2/2015

______________________________________________
d

H. CANON 21 – “shall preserve confidence and secrets


of his client even after the attorney-client relation is
terminated”

Rule 21.01 – “exceptions to confidentiality rule includes: (a) authority


from client after acquainting him of consequence of disclosure; (b)
required by law; (c) necessary to collect his fees or defend himself, his
employee or associate or by judicial action;
Rule 21.02 – “shall not, to client’s disadvantage, use information
acquired in the course of engagement, nor shall he use the same to his
own advantage or that of a third person unless client with full
knowledge of circumstance consents thereto”
Rule 21.03 – “shall not, without written consent of client, give
information from his files to an outside agency seeking such
information for audit, statistics, bookkeeping, accounting, data
processing or similar purpose”
Rule 21.04 – “may disclose client’s affairs to his partner or associate
of the firm unless prohibited by the client”
Rule 21.05 – “shall adopt such measures as may be required to
prevent those whose services are utilized by him, from disclosing or
using the confidences or secrets of his client.
Rule 21.06 – “shall avoid indiscreet conversations about a client’s
affairs even with family members”
Rule 21.07 – “shall not reveal that he has been consulted about a
particular case except to avoid possible conflict of interest.”

DISCUSSION: Due to the highly fiduciary nature of the


lawyer-client relationship, it is imperative that the
lawyer preserve the secrets and confidences of his
client and even the prospective client.

See: Sec. 21, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court on coverage of


attorney-client privilege.

Cases to Read:

1. Suntay vs. Atty. Suntay, AC#1890, 8/7/2002


2. Genato vs. Atty. Silapan, AC#4078, 7/14/2003
3. PACES vs. Atty. Salandanan, AC#1346, 7/25/2017
4. Samala vs. Atty. Valencia, AC#5439, 1/22/2007

______________________________________________

I. CANON 22 – “shall withdraw his services for good


cause and upon notice appropriate in the
circumstances.”

Rule 22.01 – “Grounds for a lawyer to withdraw his services: (a) when
the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in
d

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 [while the legal
profession is not a business, still, a lawyer is entitled to right to
livelihood]; (f) when the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office;
and (g) analogous cases. –

Rule 22.02 – “lawyer who withdraws or is discharged, subject to a


retainer lien, shall immediately turn over all papers and property to
which client is entitled … shall cooperate with his successor in the
orderly transfer of the matter”

DISCUSSION: Fidelity to client’s cause means that,


when a lawyer accepts an engagement, he impliedly
undertakes to see it to its conclusion. That said, he
cannot just, at any time, withdraw his services except
upon valid cause and observing the proper procedure.
This is in stark contrast to the right of the client to
terminate the services of counsel at any time with or
without cause.

This Canon provides the valid causes for a lawyer to


be discharged as counsel even without the client’s
consent.

It must be noted that client’s death ipso facto


terminates the relationship, unless, the personal
representatives of the deceased gives counsel
authority to appear. The lawyer has the duty to
inform the court immediately of the death of his client
and to give the names and residence of his executor,
administrator or the legal heirs. On the otherhand,
dissolution of the firm or partnership does not
terminate relations. Also, client can terminate counsel
at any time. The attorney may only withdraw by
written consent of the client or with court permission
after due notice and hearing.

See: Sec. 21, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court – an attorney is


presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause
in which he appears and no written power of attorney is
required to authorize him to appear in court. Judge however
may require counsel on reasonable ground to produce or
prove his authority to appear for a client. Note that it is
d

contemptuous to appear for a party without having been


engaged as counsel.

See: Sec. 22, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court – a lawyer who
appears de parte in a case before a lower court is presumed
to continue representing his client on appeal unless he files a
formal petition withdrawing his appearance in the appeal
court.

Cases to Read:

1. Orcino vs. Atty. Gaspar, AC#3773, 9/24/1997


2. Chang vs. Atty. Hidalgo, AC#6934, 4/6/2016
3. Lopez vs. Atty. Cristobal, AC#12146, 10/10/2018

______________________________________________

II. DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS

A. Objectives of Disbarment and Suspension – (a)


compel attorney to deal fairly and honestly with his client;
(b) remove from the profession, a person whose misconduct
has proved him UNFIT to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney; (c)
punish lawyer although not so much as to safeguard the
administration of justice; (d) set as an example or warning
for other members of the Bar; (e) safeguard the
administration of justice from incompetence and dishonesty
of lawyers; (f) protect the public.

Cases to Read:

1. Paras vs. Atty. Paras, AC#4947, 6/7/2007


2. Angeles vs. Atty. Lina-ac, AC#12063, 1/8/2019
3. Salazar vs. Atty. Quiambao, AC#12401, 3/12/2019
4. Mendoza vs. Atty. Deciembre, AC#5338, 2/23/2009
5. Buntag vs. Atty. Toledo, AC#12125, 2/11/2019
6. Dagohoy vs. Atty. San Juan, AC#7944, 6/3/2013

______________________________________________

B. Nature of Disbarment Proceedings – It is a judicial


inquiry in the nature of an administrative proceeding that
looks into the fitness of a lawyer to continue in the practice
of law. It is SUI GENERIS meaning (a) it is neither civil or
d

criminal; (b) double jeopardy cannot be availed; (c) can be


initiated by the Court motu proprio or the IBP even without a
complainant; (d) can proceed regardless of interest or lack
thereof, if facts proven warrant; (e) imprescriptible; (f)
confidential in nature; (g) is itself due process; and (h)
decision in disbarment case is not a source of right that may
be enforced in another action like reconveyance or damages.

Cases to Read:

1. Arnobit vs. Atty. Arnobit, AC#1481, 10/17/2008


2. Cambaliza vs. Atty. Cristal-Tenorio, AC#6290, 7/14/2004
3. Sevilla vs. Atty. Millo, AC#10697, 3/25/2019
4. Judge Dumlao vs. Atty. Camacho, AC#10498, 9/4/2018
5. Flora III vs. Atty. Luna, AC#11486, 10/17/2018
6. Dumanlag vs. Atty. Blanco, AC#8825, 8/3/2016
7. Saberon vs. Atty. Larong, AC#6567, 4/16/2008
8. Advincula vs. Atty. Macabata, AC#7204, 3/7/2007
9. De Leon vs. Atty. Pedrena, AC#9401, 10/22/2013
10. Spouses Boyboy vs. Atty. Yabut, Jr., AC#5225, 4/29/2003
11. Lopez vs. Atty. Cristobal, AC#12146, 10/10/2018
12. Yoshimura vs. Atty. Panagsagan, AC#10962, 9/11/2018
13. Yabut vs. Atty. Manalo, AC#10295, 8/30/2017
14. Sevilla vs. Atty. Millo, AC#10697, 3/25/2019
15. Sps. Zialcita vs. Atty. Latras, AC#7169, 3/11/2019
16. Dizon vs. Atty. De Taza, AC#7676, 6/10/2014
17. Judge Lacurom vs. Attys. Jacoba, AC#5921, 3/10/2006
18. Riboya vs. Atty. Lawsin, AC#7965, 11/13/2013
19. Cojuangco vs. Atty. Palma, AC#2474, 6/30/2005
20. Chan vs. Atty. Cabrera, AC#10439, 9/3/2019
21. Calub vs. Atty Suller, AC#1474, 1/28/2000
22. Tiong vs. Atty. Florendo, AC#4428, 12/12/2011
23. Pobre vs. Sen. Defensor-Santiago, AC#7399, 8/25/2009
24. Boto vs. Fiscal Villena, AC#9684, 3/16/2016
25. Advincula vs. Advincula, AC#9226, 6/14/2016
26. Cojuangco vs. Atty. Palma, AC#2474, 9/15/2004

______________________________________________

C. Grounds for Disbarment

See: Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court for grounds for
disbarment.

Cases to Read:
d

1. Sps. Asuncion vs. Atty. Bassig, AC#11830, 7/30/2019


2. Muntuerto vs. Atty. Alberto, AC#12289, 4/2/2019
3. Paras vs. Atty. Paras, AC#4947, 6/7/2007
4. Justice Peralta vs. Atty. Ramon, AC#12415, 3/5/2019
5. Atty. Paguia vs. Atty. Molina, AC#9881, 6//4/2014
6. Guevarra vs. Atty. Eala, AC# 7136, 8/1/2007
7. Zaguirre vs. Atty. Castillo, AC#4921, 3/6/2003
8. Cojuangco vs. Atty. Palma, AC#2474, 9/15/2004
9. Advincula vs. Atty. Macabata, AC#7204, 3/7/2007
10. Barrios vs. Atty. Martinez, AC#4585, 11/12/2004
11. Soriano vs. Atty. Dizon, AC#6792, 1/25/2006
12. Turla vs. Atty. Caringal, AC#11641, 3/12/2019
13. Atty. Agustin vs. Atty. Laeno, AC#8124, 3/19/2019
14. Re: March 17, 2011 Decision in Crim. Case No. SB-28361
(People vs. Barrozo), AC#10207, 7/21/2015
Lim vs. Atty. Rivera, AC#12156, 6/20/2018
Andres vs. Atty. Nambi, AC#7158, 3/9/2015
Santeco vs. Atty. Avance, AC#5834, 2/22/2011
Fr. Zafra vs. Atty. Pagatpatan, AC#12457, 4/2/2019
Feliciano vs. Atty. Lozada, AC#7593, 3/11/2015
In Re: Suspension from Law Practice in the Territory of Guam
of Atty.Leon Maquera, BM#793, 7/30/2004
Lingan vs. Atty. Calubaquib & Baliga, AC#5377, 6/30/2014

______________________________________________

D. Disbarment Proceedings in the Supreme Court –


disbarment may be initiated by the Supreme Court motu
proprio or, in other proceedings when interest of justice so
requires, the Supreme Court may refer the case for
INVESTIGATION to the Solicitor General or any officer of the
Supreme Court like the OCA or a judge of a lower court.

See: Bar Matter No. 1645 effective October 13, 2017


amended Secs. 1, 5, 12 13 and 15 of Rule 139-B of the Rules
of Court.

Cases to Read:

1. Yap vs. Atty. Dantes, AC#11741, 6/19/2019


2. The Christian Spiritists in the Phils. (CSP) vs. Atty.
Mangallay, AC#10483, 3/16/2016
3. Santiago vs. Atty. Santiago, AC#3921, 6/11/2018
4. Lingan vs. Atty. Calubaquib & Baliga, AC#5377, 6/30/2014
5. Cojuangco vs. Atty. Palma, AC#2474, 6/30/2005
6. Atty. Guanzon vs. Atty. Dojillo, AC#9850, 8/6/2018
d

______________________________________________

E. Reinstatement – The restoration to a disbarred lawyer of


the privilege to practice law.

Cases to Read:

1. Atty. Bartolome vs. Atty. Basilio, AC#10783, 1/31/2018


2. Dumadag vs. Atty. Lumaya, AC#2614, 6/29/2000
3. Maniago vs. Atty. De Dios, AC#7472, 3/30/2010
4. Reyes, vs. Atty. Vitan, AC#5835, 8/10/10
5. Richards vs. Asoy, AC#2655, 10/12/10
6. Re: Bar Exams 2003, BM#1222, 4/24/2009
7. Re: Petition of Rolando Torres, AC#5161, 8/25/2015
8. Petition of Rolando Torres, AC#5161, 7/11/2017
9. Tan vs. Atty. Gumba, AC#9000, 1/10/2018
10. Pena vs. Atty. Aparicio, AC#7298, 6/25/2007
11. Tabon vs. Atty. Bathan, AC#10202, 7/11/2018
12. Santos vs. Atty. Arrojado, AC#8502, 6/27/2018
13. Macarrubo vs. Atty. Macarrubo, AC#6148, 1/22/2013
14. Bernardo vs. Atty. Mejia, AC#2984, 8/31/2007
15. Cojuangco vs. Atty. Palma, AC#2474, 6/30/2005
16. Narag vs. Atty. Narag, AC#3405, 3/18/2014
17. Domingo vs. Atty. Revilla, AC#5473, 1/23/2018

______________________________________________

III. JUDICIAL ETHICS

A. Judicial Ethics, defined – branch of moral science which


treats of the right and proper conduct to be observed by all
judges in trying and deciding controversies brought before
them for adjudication which conduct must be demonstrative
of IMPARTIALITY, INTEGRITY, COMPETENCE, INDEPENDENCE
& FREEDOM FOR IMPROPRIETY.

______________________________________________

B. Sources of Judicial Ethics – (a) New Code of Judicial


Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (effective June1, 2004);
(b) Code of Judicial Conduct (effective October 20, 1989); (c)
Constitutional provisions (Article VIII, Article XI, Article III of
the Constitution); (d) provisions of the rules of court; (e)
Revised Penal Code provisions; (f) RA 3019; (g) Canons of
d

Judicial Ethics; (h) (vii) Code of Professional Responsibility; (i)


Judiciary Act of 1948; (j) BP 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act
of 1980); and (k) Supreme Court decisions

______________________________________________

C. Qualifications of Justices and Judges – (a) Justices of


the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court – natural-born
Filipino citizen, at least 40 years of age, 15 years in the
practice of law [Section 7(1) of Article VIII of the
Constitution]; (b) judges of lower courts – natural-born
Filipino citizen, at least 35 (for RTC) and 30 (for MTC) years
of age, 10 years (for RTC) and 5 years (for MTC) in the
practice of law [Section 7(2) of Article VIII of the
Constitution].

See: Sec. 7(3), Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution – a member


of the Judiciary must be a person of proven COMPETENCE,
INTEGRITY, PROBITY and INDEPENDENCE.

______________________________________________

D. CANON 1. INDEPENDENCE. Judicial independence is a


pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee
of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify
judicial independence in both its individual and institutional
aspects.

Sec. 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently on the


basis of their assessment of the facts and in accordance with a
conscientious understanding of the law, free of any extraneous
influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or
indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.
Sec. 2. In performing judicial duties, Judges shall be independent from
judicial colleagues in respect of decisions which the judge is obliged to
make independently.
Sec. 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the
outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or
administrative agency.
Sec. 4. Judges shall not allow family, social or other relationships to
influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office
shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor
convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a
special position to influence the judge.
Sec. 5. Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections
with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of
government, but must also appear to be free therefrom to a
reasonable observer.
d

Sec. 6. Judges shall be independent in relation to society in general


and in relation to the particular parties to a dispute which he or she
has to adjudicate.
Sec. 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the
discharge of judicial duties in order to maintain and enhance the
institutional and operational independence of the judiciary.
Sec. 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial
conduct in order to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary which is
fundamental to the maintenance of judicial independence.

DISCUSSION: Judges must carry out their judicial


functions on the basis of their own discernment and
judgment and free from any undue outside influence.
They must assert their judicial independence and
promptly reject any attempt at extraneous influence.

Every judge must independently decide a case n the


basis of his own judgment. This being the case, a
judge also has the duty not to meddle with another
court or administrative body.

Furthermore, relationships with the judge may be


used for ulterior reasons. Hence, the judge should not
allow friendly or cordial relations to be used by
friends and relatives to protect the image that he
cannot be influenced.

Cases to Read:

1. Vidal vs. Judge Dojillo, AM#MTJ-05-1591, 7/14/2005


2. Sps. Decena vs. Judge Malanyaon, AM#RTJ-10-2217,
4/8/2013
3. Tobias vs. Judge Limsiaco, AM#MTJ-09-1734, 1/19/11
4. Carriaga vs. Judge Baldado, AM#RTJ-03-1810, 10/21/2004

______________________________________________

E. CANON 2. INTEGRITY.Integrity is essential not only to


the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the
personal demeanor of judges.

Sec. 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above
reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable
observer.
Sec. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the
people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely
be done but must also be seen to be done.
d

Sec. 3. Judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary


measures against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional
conduct of which the judge may have become aware.

DISCUSSION: The people’s confidence in our justice


system is founded on the highest standard of
integrity and moral uprightness judges are expected
to possess. Hence, this Canon and its rules puts
emphasis on the duty to be beyond reproach and to
appear to be above reproach. A judge must not only
appear to be a good judge, he must also appear to be
always a good person.

Cases to Read:

1. Lee vs. Abastillas, AM#RTJ-92-863, 7/11/1994


2. Kaw vs. Judge Osorio, AM#RTJ-03-1801, 2004
3. Mondala vs. Judge Mariano, AM#RTJ-06-2010, 1/25/2007
4. Canada vs. Suerte, AM#RTJ-04-1884, 2/22/2008
5. Nabhan vs. Judge Calderon, AM#MTJ98-1164, 2/4/2000
6. Perfecto vs. Judge Esidera, AM-RTJ-11-2270, 1/31/11
7. Atty. Seludo vs. Judge Fineza, AM#RTJ-04-1864,
12/16/2004
8. P/Insp. Fidel vs. Judge Caraos, AM#MTJ-99-1224,
12/12/2002
9. Casimiro vs. Judge Fernandez, AM#MTJ-04-1525,
1/29/2004
10. Simbajon vs. Judge Esteban, AM#MTJ-98-1162,
8/11/1999
11. Re: Compliance of Judge Rosete, AM#04-5-118-MTCC,
7/29/2004
12. Re: Anonymoust Complainant vs. Judge Contreras,
AM#RTJ-16-2452, 3/9/2016
13. Vda. de Nepomuceno vs. Judge Bartolome, AM#MTJ-03-
1482, 7/25/2003

______________________________________________

F. CANON 3. IMPARTIALITY. Impartiality is essential to the


proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to
the decision itself but also to the process by which the
decision is made.

Sec. 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or
prejudice.
d

Sec. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of
court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal
profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the
judiciary.
Sec. 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so conduct themselves as
to minimize the occasions on which it will be necessary for them to be
disqualified from hearing or deciding cases.
Sec. 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before, or
could come before them make any comment that might reasonably be
expected to affect the outcome of such proceeding or impair the
manifest fairness of the process. Nor shall judges make any comment
in public or otherwise that might affect the fair trial of any person or
issue.
Sec. 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any
proceedings in which they are unable to decide the matter impartially
or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are
unable to decide the matter impartially. Such proceedings include, but
are not limited to, instances where (a) the judge has actual bias or
prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of dispute
evidentiary facts concerning proceedings; (b) the judge previously
served as a lawyer or was a material witness in the matter in
controversy; (c) the judge, or a member of his or her family, has an
economic interest in the outcome of the matter in controversy; (d) the
judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in
the case or matter in controversy, or a former associate of the judge
served as counsel during their association, or the judge or lawyer was
a material witness therein; (e) the judge’s ruling in a lower court is the
subject of review; (f) the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to
a party litigant within the 6th civil degree or to counsel within the 4 th
civil degree; or (g) the judge knows that his or her spouse or child has
a financial interest, as heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in
the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or
any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome
of the proceedings.
Sec. 6. A judge disqualified as stated above may, instead of
withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the records the basis of
disqualification. If based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers
independently of the judge’s participation, all agree in writing that the
reason for the inhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial, the judge may
then participate in the proceeding. The agreement, signed by all
parties and lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record of the
proceedings.

DISCUSSION: This Canon and its rules stress upon the


duty to be objective which is essential to an
independent judiciary. This duty applied to the
decision itself and the decision-making process.

A judge must be impartial, independent and honest


and should also be believed and perceived to be such.
He must be cautious with his public conduct and
speech and remarks to others so as not to stir up
suspicions of bias and unfairness. Like the saying
d

goes, like Caesar’s wife, he must not only be pure but


above suspicion. He must display the “cold-neutrality
of an impartial magistrate.

In order to avoid any perception of bias, the Canon


provides for the instances when the judge should
inhibit or recuse himself.
T
Cases to Read:

1. Dialo vs. Judge Macias, AM#RTJ-04-1859, 7/13/2004


2. Rallos vs. Judge Gako, AM#RTJ-99-1484, 3/17/2000
3. Burias vs. Judge Valencia, GR#176464, 2/4/2010
4. Tormis vs. Judge Paredes, AM#RTJ13-3266, 2/4/2015
5. Versoza vs. Judge Contreras, AM#MTJ-06-1636, 3/12/2007
6. Ortiz vs. Judge Jacube, AM#RTJ-04-1833, 6/28/2005
7. Tiggangay vs. Judge Wacas, AM-OCA IPI#09-3243-RTJ,
4/1/2013
8. Sison vs. Caoibes, AM#RTJ-03-1771, 5/27/2004

______________________________________________

G. CANON 4. PROPRIETY. Propriety and the appearance of


propriety are essential to the performance of all the
activities of a judge.

Sec. 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of


impropriety in all of their activities.
Sec. 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept
personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the
ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular,
judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the
dignity of the judicial office.
Sec. 3.Judges shall, in their personal relations with individual
members of the legal profession who practice regularly in their court,
avoid situations which might reasonably give rise to the suspicion or
appearance of favoritism or partiality.
Sec. 4.Judges shall not participate in the determination of a case in
which any member of their family represents a litigant or is associated
in any manner with the case.
Sec. 5.Judges shall not allow the use of their residence by a member
of the legal profession to receive clients of the latter or of other
members of the legal profession.
Sec. 6.Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of
expression, belief, association and assembly, but in exercising such
rights, they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to
preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and
independence of the judiciary.
d

Sec. 7.Judges shall inform themselves about their personal fiduciary


financial interests and shall make reasonable efforts to be informed
about the financial interests of members of the family.
Sec. 8.Judges shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to
advance their private interests, or those of a member of their family or
of anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit others to convey the
impression that anyone is in a special position improperly to influence
them in the performance of judicial duties.
Sec. 9.Confidential information acquired by judges in their judicial
capacity shall not be used or disclosed by for any other purpose
related to their judicial duties.
Sec. 10.Subject to the proper performance of judicial duties, judges
may (a) write, lecture, teach and participate in activities concerning
the law, the legal system, the administration of justice or related
matters; (b) appear at a public hearing before any official body
concerned with matters relating to the law, the legal system, the
administration of justice or related matters; (c) engage in other
activities if such activities do not detract from the dignity of the judicial
office or otherwise interfere with the performance of judicial duties.
Sec. 11.Judges shall not practice law whilst the holder of judicial
office.
Sec. 12.Judges may form or join association of judges or participate in
other organizations representing the interests of judges.
Sec. 13.Judges and members of their families shall neither ask for, nor
accept, any gift, bequest. Loan or favor in relation to anything done or
to be done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the
performance of judicial duties.
Sec. 14. Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or others
subject to their influence, direction or authority, to ask for, or accept,
any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be
done or omitted to be done in connection with their duties or functions.
Sec. 15.Subject to law and to any legal requirements of public
disclosure, judges may receive a token gift, award or benefit as
appropriate to the occasion on which it is made, provided that gift,
award or benefit might not be reasonably perceived as intended to
influence the judge in the performance of official judicial duties or
otherwise give rise to an appearance of partiality.

DISCUSSION: A judge is the visible representation of


that intangible concept that is justice. Hence, his
appearance is the embodiment of society’s aspiration
for justice itself. He must avoid any and all
improprieties in his personal and public life lest the
people’s confidence in the judicial system be
impaired. The Canon and its numerous rules are
measures set up to instill and demand propriety from
one who holds the exulted position of a judge.

Cases to Read:

1. Decena vs. Judge Malanyaon, AM#RTJ-02-1669, 4/14/2004


2. Reyes vs. Judge Duque, AM#RTJ-08-2136, 9/21/10
d

3. Dr. Alday vs. Judge Cruz, Jr., AM#RTJ00-153, 3/14/2001


4. Concerned RTC-Dagupan City Employees vs. Judge
Aliposa, AM#RTJ-1446, 3/9/2000
5. Anonymous vs. Judge Achas, AM#MTJ-11-1801, 2/27/2013
6. Galang vs. Judge Santos, AM#MTJ-99-1197, 5/26/1999
7. Rosauro vs. Judge Kallos, AM#RTJ-03-1796, 2/10/2006
8. Lagidon vs. Judge Garong, AM#MTJ-08-1712, 8/20/2008
9. Perez vs. Judge Costales, AM#RTJ-04-1876, 2/23/2005
10. Dionisio vs. Hon. Escano, AM#RTJ98-1400, 2/1/1999
11. Abesa vs. Judge Nacional, AM#MTJ-05-1605, 6/8/2006
12. Oca vs. Judge Aventurado, AM#RTJ-09-2212, 4/18/2017

______________________________________________

H. CANON 5. EQUALITY. Ensuring equality of treatment to


all before the courts is essential to the performance of the
judicial office.

Sec. 1.Judges shall be aware of and understand diversity in society


and differences arising from various sources, including but not limited
to race, color, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age,
marital status, sexual orientation, social and economic status and
other like causes.
Sec. 2. Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by word
or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group on
irrelevant grounds.
Sec. 3. Judges shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate
consideration for all persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers,
court staff and judicial colleagues, without differentiation on any
irrelevant ground, immaterial to the proper performance of such
duties.
Sec. 4.Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or others subject
to his or her influence, direction or control to differentiate between
persons concerned, in a matter before the judge, on any irrelevant
ground.
Sec. 5.Judges shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to
refrain from manifesting, by word or conduct, bias or prejudice based
on irrelevant grounds, except such as are legally relevant to an issue
in proceedings and may be the subject of legitimate advocacy.

DISCUSSION: Bias and prejudice have no place in


judicial proceedings as they are immaterial and
irrelevant. A judge must therefore avoid social bias
and prejudice. His functions must be carried out in an
orderly manner free from any extraneous influences.
Acts of inconsiderateness, disrespect and discourtesy
disrupts judicial proceedings and unduly hampers the
judges task which will ultimately prejudice the
administration of justice.
d

Cases to Read:

1. Mendoza vs. Judge Diasen, Jr., AM#MTJ-17-1900, 8/9/2017


2. Atty. Correa vs. Judge Belen, AM#RTJ-10-2242
3. Nunez vs. Judge Ibay, AM#RTJ-06-1984, 6/30/2009
4. Re: Anonymous Complaint vs. Judge Acuna, AM#RTJ-04-
1891, 7/28/2005

______________________________________________

I. CANON 6. COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Competence


and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of
judicial office.

Sec. 1. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other
activities.
Sec.2.Judges shall devote their professional activity to judicial duties,
which include not only the performance of judicial functions and
responsibilities in court and the making of decisions, but also other
tasks relevant to the judicial office or the court’s operations.
Sec. 3.Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance
their knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for the proper
performance of judicial duties, taking advantage for this purpose of the
training and other facilities which should be made available, under
judicial control, to judges.
Sec. 4.Judges shall keep themselves informed about relevant
developments of international law, including international conventions
and other instruments establishing human rights norms.
Sec. 5.Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including delivery of
reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.
Sec. 6.Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings
before the court and be patient, dignified and courteous in relation to
litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in
an official capacity. Judges shall require similar conduct of legal
representatives, court staff and other subject to their influence,
direction or control.
Sec. 7.Judges shall not engage in conduct incompatible with the
diligent discharge of judicial duties.

DISCUSSION: This Canon requires optimal efficiency


from judges to ensure speedy administration of
justice. A good judge must be an efficient court
manager to maximize not just his time, but his
proceedings and staff as well. Just like lawyers,
judges must diligently keep abreast with legal
developments and jurisprudence. They must exhibit
more than just a cursory knowledge of statutes and
rules of procedure moreso with rules so elementary
d

and basic as not to know them would constitute gross


ignorance of the law.

Pursuant to the constitutional prescription under


Art. VII, judges have to resolve cases within the
reglementary period. Failure to do so would make
them liable for gross inefficiency and dereliction of
duties. On meritorious grounds, judges can ask for
more time to resolve cases.

Cases to Read:

1. Tugot vs. Judge Colliflores, AM#MTJ-00-1332, 2/16/2004


2. Atty. Arnado vs. vs. Judge Buban, AM#MTJ-04-1543,
5/31/2004
3. Sps. Cabico vs. Judge Querijero, AM#RTJ-02-1735,
4/27/2007
4. Manzano vs. Judge Sanchez, AM#MTJ00-1329, 3/8/2001
5. Pantilo III vs. Judge Canoy, AM#RTJ-11-2262, 2/9/11
6. Achacoso vs. Judge Garces, AM#MTJ-19-1923, 9/4/2019
7. Tan vs. Judge Usman, AM#RTJ-11-2666, 2/15/11
8. OCA vs. Judge Bagundang, AM#RTJ-05-1937, 1/22/2008
9. Prosecutor Visbal vs. Judge Buban, AM#MTJ02-1432,
9/3/2004
10. Raymundo vs. Judge Andoy, AM#MTJ-09-1738, 10/6/2010
11. OCA vs. Judge Estrada, AM#RTJ-09-2173, 1/18/11
12. Jimenez vs. Judge Amdengan, AM#MTJ-12-1818,
2/13/2013
13. Juson vs. Judge Mondragon, AM#MTJ-07-1685, 10/3/2007
14. Sevilla vs. Judge Lindo, AM#MTJ-08-1714, 2/9/11
15. Atty. Descallar vs. Hon. Ramas, AM#RTJ-06-2015,
12/15/10
16. Monticalbo vs. Judge Macaraya, AM#RTJ-09-2197,
4/13/11
17. Navarro vs. Judge Del Rosario, AM#MTJ-96-1091,
3/21/1997
Caneda vs. Judge Menchavez, AM#RTJ-06-2026, 3/4/2009
18. Ruiz vs. Judge Bringas, AM#MTJ-00-1266, 4/6/2000
19. Atty. Dalawampu vs. Judge Yrastorza, AM#RTJ-03-1793,
2/5/2004
20. Rallos vs. Judge Gako, AM#RTJ-99-1484, 3/17/2000
21. Gaspar vs. Judg Adaoag, AM#MTJ-04-1565, 8/16/2006
22. Orbe vs. Judge Gumarang, AM#MTJ-11-1792, 9/26/2011
23. Atty. Gacal vs. Judge Infante, AM#RTJ-04-1845,
10/5/2011
24. Beso vs. Judge Daguman, AM#MTJ-99-1211, 1/28/2000
25. OCA vs. Judge Espanol, AM#RTJ-04-1872, 10/18/2004
d

26. Caneda vs. Judge Menchavez, AM#RTJ-06-2026, 3/4/2009

______________________________________________

J. Administrative Proceedings against Judges

See: A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC amending Rule 140 of the Rules of


Court.

Cases to Read:

1. Dialo vs. Judge Macias, AM#RTJ-04-1859, 7/13/2004


2. Canada vs. Judge Suerte, AM#RTJ-04-1884, 2/22/2008
3. Achacoso vs. Judge Garces, AM#MTJ-19-1923, 9/4/2019
4. OCA vs. Judge Ruiz, AM#RTJ-13-2361, 2/2/2016
5. Batic vs. Judge Galapon, AM#MTJ-99-1239, 7/29/2005
6. De la Paz vs. Judge Adiong, AM#RTJ-04-1857, 7/29/2005
7. Liwanag vs. Judge Lustre, AM#MTJ98-1168, 4/21/1999
8. OCA VS. Former Judge Leonida, AM#RTJ-09-2198, 1/18/11
9. Marcos vs. Judge Pamintuan, AM#RTJ-07-2062, 1/18/11
10. Conquilla vs. Judge Bernardo, AM#MTJ-09-1737, 2/9/11
11. Heck vs. Judge Santos, AM#RTJ-01-1657, 2/23/2004
12. Santos vs. Judge Chua, AM#RTJ-07-2093, 2/13/2009
13. Palon vs. Judge Villarta, AM#MTJ-04-1530, 3/7/2007
14. Alcaraz vs. Judge Lindo, AM#MTJ-04-1539, 4/14/2004
15. Junio vs. Judge Rivera, AM#MTJ-91-565, 10/5/2005
16. Ali vs. Hon. Pacalna, AM#MTJ-03-1505, 11/27/2013
17. Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan vs. Judge Pornilloas,
AM#RTJ-09-2183, 2/14/2017
18. Edao vs. Judge Asdala, AM#RTJ-06-1974, 7/26/2007
19. PO1 Marcelo vs. Judge Barcillano, AM#RTJ-16-2450,
6/7/2017
20. Re: Complaint of Ongjoco vs. Hon. Enriquez, AM-OCA-
IPI#11-184-CA-J, 1/31/2012
21. Palma vs. Judge Omelio, AM#RTJ-10-2223, 8/30/2017
22. Castillo vs. Judge Calanog, AM#RTJ-90-447, 7/12/1991
23. OCA vs. Ret. Judge Echavez, AM#RTJ-10-2219, 8/1/2017
24. Fajardo vs. Judge Natino, AM#RTJ-16-2479, 12/13/2017
25. Abiog vs. Hon. Canete, AM#MTJ-18-1917, 10/8/2018
26. Atty. Dalawampu vs. Judge Yrastorza, AM#RTJ-03-1793,
2/5/2004
27. Anonymous vs. Judge Buyucan, AM#MTJ-16-1879,
7/24/2018
28. OCA vs. Judge White, AM#RTJ-15-2440, 9/4/2018
29. Campos vs. Judge Campos, AM#MTJ-10-1761, 2/8/2012
d

30. Re: Anonymous Complaint vs. Judge Bandong, AM#RTJ-


17-2507, 10/9/2017
31. Anonymous vs. Judge Dagala, AM#MTJ-16-1886,
7/25/2017
32. Carpio vs. Judge Dimaguila, AM#MTJ-17-1897,
11/21/2018
33. Gov. Tallado vs. Hon. Racoma, AM#RTJ-18-236,
10/10/2018
34. Prosecutor Cahanap vs. Judge Quinones, AM#RTJ-16-
2470, 1/10/2018

FINAL REQUIREMENT

Choose one case for every topic listed under, digest


the chosen case/s and email to:
romking75@yahoo.com

Canon 17 (CPR)
Canon 18, (CPR)
Canon 20,(CPR)
Canon 22,(CPR)
Canon 1 (NCJC)
Canon 2 (NCJC)
Canon 3 (NCJC)
Canon 4 (NCJC)
Canon 5 (NCJC)
Canon 6 (NCJC)

Note: Case Digest to include: Title of the Case,


Citation, one-paragraph Brief Facts, Court Decision
and one-paragraph Ratio Decidendi.

Note: send all 10 digest as one file only

Note: Deadline for submission is Friday March 27,


2020

STAY SAFE EVERYONE!!!!