Constitution, “to promulgate rules concerning pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics
I. PRACTICE OF LAW
A. Concept of Law
1. In re Edlion: A.C. No. 1928
 In this case, the lawyer was removed from the roll of attorneys
for his “stubborn refusal to pay for his membership dues”. The
lawyer in this case argues that there is a violation of his
constitutional right The property” and that the Court has NO
JURISDICTION to compel him to become a member of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
 The Court ruled in this case that to compel a lawyer to be a
member of the Integrated Bar is not violative of Edillon’s
constitutional freedom to associate. Bar integration does not
compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to
attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter
or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only
compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual
dues. The Supreme Court, in order to further the State’s
legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional legal
services, may require that the cost of improving the profession
in this fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of
the regulatory program — the lawyers. But, assuming that the
questioned provision does in a sense compel a lawyer to be a
member of the Integrated Bar, such compulsion is justified as
an exercise of the police power of the State
o Police power is always justified if it was
implemented for through reasonable means, and is
for the general welfare of the public
 Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the Court, to promulgate
rules concerning the admission to the practice of law and the
integration of the Philippine Bar (Article X, Section 5 of the
1973 Constitution) — from requiring members of a privileged
class, such as lawyers are, to pay a reasonable fee toward
defraying the expenses of regulation of the profession to which
they belong. It is quite apparent that the fee is indeed imposed
as a regulatory measure, designed to raise funds for carrying
out the objectives and purposes of integration.
 The practice of law is NOT a property right but a mere
privilege and must thus, bow to the inherent regulatory power
of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyer’s public
responsibilities
 Matters of admission, suspension and disbarment and
reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation and
supervision have been and are indisputably recognized as
inherent judicial functions and responsibilities, and the
authorities holding such are legion.
2. In the matter of the integrated bar of the Philippines
 “Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification
of the entire lawyer population of the Philippines. This
requires membership and financial support (in reasonable
amount) of every attorney as conditions sine qua non to the
practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of
Attorneys of the Supreme Court.” The term “Bar” refers to the
collectivity of all persons whose names appear in the Roll of
Attorneys. An Integrated Bar (or unified Bar) perforce must
include all lawyers
o Meaning kailangan nila magbayad (?) like
membership dues etc.
 The Court is of the view that it may integrate the Philippine Bar
in the exercise of its powers, under Art VIII, Sec 13 of the
MTACS
practice of law.” The power to integrate is an inherent part of
the Court’s constitutional authority over the Bar. RA 6397
neither confers a new power nor restricts the Court’s inherent
power, but it is a mere legislative declaration that the
integration of the Bar will promote public interest or, more
specifically, will “raise the standards of the legal profession,
improve
 the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge
its public responsibility more effectively.”
 Integration is not violative of freedom of association because it
does not compel a lawyer to become a member of any group of
which he is not already a member. All that it does is "to provide
an official national organization for the well-defined but
unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is
already a member." The lawyer too is not compelled to attend
meetings, participate of activities, etc. The only compulsion is
the payment of annual dues. Assuming, however, that it does
compel a lawyer to be a member of an integrated bar, the court
held that "such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the
police power of the state"
 Integration is also not violative of the freedom of speech just
because dues paid b the lawyer may be used for projects or
programs, which the lawyer opposes. To rule otherwise would
make every government exaction a "free speech issue."
Furthermore, the lawyer is free to voice out his objections to
positions taken by the integrated bar.
 The dues exacted from lawyers is not in the nature of a levy but
is purely for purposes of regulation
 Thus, the integration of the bar was allowed and is ruled as
CONSTITUTIONAL in accordance with Art VIII, Sec 13 of
the constitution.
3. Philippine Lawyers v. Agrava
 In this case, the Director of the patent office requires Lawyers
to submit to another examination before they are allowed to
participate in proceedings in the patent office. The court in this
case ruled that the Practice of law includes such appearance
before the Patent Office, the representation of applicants,
oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their
applications for patent, their oppositions thereto, or the
enforcement of their rights in patent cases
 members of the Philippine Bar authorized by this Tribunal to
practice law, and in good standing, may practice their
profession before the Patent Office, for the reason that much of
the business in said office involves the interpretation and
determination of the scope and application of the Patent Law
and other laws applicable, as well as the presentation of
evidence to establish facts involved; that part of the functions
of the Patent director are judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so
that appeals from his orders and decisions are, under the law,
taken to the Supreme Court
 Thus the respondent Director is hereby prohibited from
requiring members of the Philippine Bar to submit to an
examination or tests and pass the same before being permitted
to appear and practice before the Patent Office.
4. Cayetano v. Monsod
 The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or
litigation in court. In general, all advice to clients, and all action
taken for them in matters connected with the law
incorporation services, assessment and condemnation
services, contemplating an appearance before judicial body,
the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim
 in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting
proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and
guardianship have been held to constitute law practice.
 Practice of law means any activity, in or out 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.
In general, a practice of law requires a lawyer and client
relationship, it is whether in or out of court. As such, the
petition is dismissed.
5. Bonifacio v. Eera
 Practice of law is the rendition of services requiring the
knowledge and the application of legal principles and
technique to serve the interest of another with his consent.
 It is not limited to the conduct of cases in court.
 It is one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the
business of advising clients as to their rights under the
law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either
in court or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in
the practice of law.”
 It 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.”
 The lawyer in this case was suspended from the practice of
law, but still participated in the auction proceedings which
needs the training of the legal mind and thus, constituted
practice of law. Hence, a disciplinary sanction is in order.
 Atty. Bragas has knowledge of Atty. Era’s suspension from
the practice of law and yet, she allowed herself to
participate in Atty. Era’s unauthorized practice.
● CANON 9 – A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice
of law.
 Indeed, it is a lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very
least not to assist in, the unauthorized practice of law.
Such duty is founded upon public interest and policy,
which requires that law practice be limited only to
individuals found duly qualified in education and character.
6. Lingan v. Baliga
o In this case, Atty. Baliga was suspended from the
practice of law but even after the suspension he still
engaged in the practice of law by working in the
government as the commissioner/attorney of the
commissioner of human rights
o Working in the government is still considered as
practice of law as it involves human knowledge as
the CHR is an independent office created under the
Constitution with the power to investigate “all forms
of human rights violations involving civil and
political rights”
o This court has the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate
the practice of law. When this court orders a lawyer
suspended from the practice of law, the lawyer must
desist from performing all functions requiring the
application of legal knowledge within the... period of
suspension. This includes desisting from holding a
position in government requiring the authority to
practice law.
7. Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty to the supreme court on
the allegations of Plagiarism and minstinterpretation
MTACS
 Applying by analogy the Court's past treatment of the "free
speech" defense in other bar discipline cases, academic
freedom cannot be successfully invoked by respondents in this
case. The implicit ruling in the jurisprudence discussed above
is that the constitutional right to... freedom of expression of
members of the Bar may be circumscribed by their ethical
duties as lawyers to give due respect to the courts and to
uphold the public's faith in the legal profession and the justice
system. To our mind, the reason that freedom of expression
may be so... delimited in the case of lawyers applies with
greater force to the academic freedom of law professors.
 The practice of law also includes teaching as law professors
 The lawyers who were given show cause resolutions in this
case were undermining the power the supreme court and did
not give respect to the decision of the highest court of land and
further argued that there was PLAGIARISM on the part of the
decision of the supreme court. This constitutes more or less a
violation of the ethical and moral standards of lawyers
8. Santiago vs Sagucio
 Atty. Saguico was a public prosecutor during the time he
rendered his services to Taggam. Being a government lawyer,
he was not allowed to perform such acts and he was even
under a retainer fee. Thus, Atty. Sagucio clearly violated the
prohibition in RA 6713. Under Civil Service Law and rules, the
penalty for government employees engaging in unauthorized
private practice of profession is suspension for six months and
one day to one year. The Supreme Court find this penalty
appropriate for Atty. Sagucio’s violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
9. Punla v Ona
 It cannot be stressed enough that once a lawyer takes up the
cause of a client, that lawyer is duty-bound to serve the latter
with competence and zeal, especially when he/she accepts it
for a fee. The lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must
always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon
him/her. Moreover, a lawyer's failure to return upon demand
the monies he/she holds for his/her client gives rise to the
presumption that he/she has appropriated the said monies for
his/her own use, to the prejudice and in violation of the trust
reposed in him/her by his/her client.
 Atty Maravilla-Ona had several cases filed against him. And in
one of the earlier cases, he was already disbarred. Thus, in the
resolution of the latter cases only fines shall be attributed to
him as penalty since the supreme court cannot impose and is
not allowed to impose double disbarment in this jurisdiction.
10. Dizon v. R De Taza
 Atty. De Taza should be held administratively liable for issuing
bouncing checks, demanding money from her clients under the
guise of having the proceedings before the court expedited.
 Disciplinary proceedings are investigations by the Court to
ascertain whether a lawyer is fit to be one. There is neither a
plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. Such are sui generis. They
are investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its
officers.Public interest is their primary objective, and the real
question for determination is whether or not the attorney is
still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such.
 Based on the documentary evidence, it appears that Atty. De
Taza manifested a propensity for borrowing money, issuing
bouncing checks and incurring debts which she left unpaid
without any reason.Such conduct, while already off-putting
 when attributed to an ordinary person, is much more
abhorrent when the same is exhibited by a member of the Bar.
It indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and confidence
reposed on her. It shows a lack of personal honesty and good
moral character as to render her unworthy of public
confidence.
 Atty. De Taza’s actions towards the complainant were even
worse, as she had the intent to make it appear to them that the
proceedings before the Court can be expedited and ruled in
their favor in exchange for an exorbitant amount of money. Her
actions are reprehensible and her greed more than apparent
when she even used the name of the Court to defraud her
client.In this case, the purpose for which Atty. De Taza
demanded money is baseless and non-existent. Thus, her
demand should not have even been made in the first place.
11. Pichon v. AGleron
 Atty. Agleron admitted his failure to file the complaint against
the Municipality of Caraga, Davao Oriental, despite the fact that
it was already prepared and signed. He attributed his non-filing
of the appropriate charges on the failure of complainant to
remit the full payment of the filing fee and pay the 30% of the
attorney's fee. Such justification, however, is not a valid excuse
that would exonerate him from liability. As stated, every case
that is entrusted to a lawyer deserves his full attention
whether he accepts this for a fee or free. Even assuming that
complainant had not remitted the full payment of the filing fee,
he should have found a way to speak to his client and inform
him about the insufficiency of the filing fee so he could file the
complaint. Atty. Agleron obviously lacked professionalism in
dealing with complainant and showed incompetence when he
failed to file the appropriate charges
 In a number of cases,8 the Court held that a lawyer should
never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, otherwise his
negligence renders him liable for disciplinary action such as
suspension ranging from three months to two years. In this
case, the Court finds the suspension of Atty. Agleron from the
practice of law for a period of three (3) months sufficient.
12. Brunet v. Guaren
 The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which
duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration.
Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making
venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily
yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary
consideration. The duty to public service and to the
administration of justice should be the primary consideration
of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or
what they owe to themselves.
 Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him and a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence, respectively.
 Atty. Guaren admitted that he accepted the amount of
₱7,000.00 as partial payment of his acceptance fee. He,
however, failed to perform his obligation to file the case for the
titling of complainants' lot despite the lapse of 5 years. Atty.
Guaren breached his duty to serve his client with competence
and diligence when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to
him.Consequently, the Supreme Court adopts the findings of
the IBP Board of Governors on the unethical conduct of Atty.
Guaren, except as to the penalty.
13. Sanchez v. Aguilos
MTACS
 The respondent lawyer in this case, overcharged his client for
the payment of fees. A reasonable fee is dependent upon the
circumstances of each case (case to case basis)
 The lawyer was also negligent in distinguishing the grounds
for legal separation and annulment of marriage and failed to
conduct himself with courtesy, fairness towards his colleagues
and for using offensive or improper language in his pleading,
which was filed right before the Commission On Bar discipline,
he must also be sanctioned and disciplined in order to avoid
repetition of his conduct
14. Pacao v. Limos
 The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by
the State upon those who show that they possess, and continue
to possess, the qualifications required by law for the
conferment of such privilege. Membership in the bar is a
privilege burdened with... conditions."
 The disbarment case is proper because the lawyer (Atty.
Limos) had already been a repeated offender
 In this case, she pretended to have authority to enter into a
compromise agreement with her client wherein fact, she had
no authority to so. Her purpose was to extract money from her
client, this practice is unbecoming for one of the members of
the bar
15. Plumptre v. Rivera
 By implying that he can negotiate a favourable ruling for the
sum of 8,000 pesos the respondent lawyer trampled upon the
integrity of the judicial system and eroded confidence on the
judiciary. This gross respect of the judicial system shows that
he is wanting in moral fiber and betrays the lack of integrity of
his character
 A lawyer must serve his client with fidelity, competence and
diligence
 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance
of the law or at lessening the confidence in the legal system.
Further, a lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to
influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body
16. Pimentel vs LEB
 When the PhiLSAT is used to exclude, qualify, and restrict
admissions to law schools, as its present design mandates, the
PhiLSAT goes beyond mere “supervision and regulation,”
violates institutional academic freedom, and becomes
unconstitutional.
 The LEB’s imposition of another requirement, i.e., completion
of a law internship program, for taking the bar examinationsis
a direct encroachment upon [1] the Court’s exclusive authority
to promulgate rules concerning admissions to the bar, as well
as [2] the schools’ right to determine for themselves their
respective curricula.
 Inasmuch as the LEB is authorized to compel mandatory
attendance of practicing lawyers in such courses and for such
duration as the LEB deems necessary, the same encroaches
upon the Court’s power to promulgate rules concerning the
Integrated Bar which includes the education of “lawyer-
professors,” as the teaching of law is practice of law.
B. Qualifications
 1. In the matter of admission to the Bar and Oath Taking of
Successful bar applicant Al C. Agrosino
 In this case, Mr. Agrosino was allowed to take the bar even
after the conviction for reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide after beating up a certain person who ended up dead.
Mr. Agrosino has shown that he is a changed man, and the
father of the deceased even forgave him for the death of his
son.
 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. It is the sworn duty of this Court not
only to "weed out" lawyers who have become a disgrace to the
noble profession of the law but, also of equal importance, to
prevent "misfits" from taking the lawyer's oath, thereby
further tarnishing the public image of lawyers which in recent
years has undoubtedly become less than irreproachable.
 After a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve to allow
petitioner Al Caparros Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign
the Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal profession with the
following admonition:
 In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, the Court
recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad moral
fiber. On the contrary, the various certifications show that he is
a devout Catholic with a genuine concern for civic duties and
public service. The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has
exerted all efforts to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. We
are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, taking
judicial notice of the general tendency of youth to be rash,
temerarious and uncalculating.
 We stress to Mr. Argosino that the lawyer's oath is NOT a mere
ceremony or formality for practicing law. Every lawyer should
at ALL TIMES weigh his actions according to the sworn
promises he makes when taking the lawyer's oath. If all
lawyers conducted themselves strictly according to the
lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
administration of justice will undoubtedly be faster, fairer and
easier for everyone concerned.
 The Court sincerely hopes that Mr. Argosino will continue with
the assistance he has been giving to his community. As a
lawyer he will now be in a better position to render legal and
other services to the more unfortunate members of society.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, petitioner Al Caparros Argosino is
hereby ALLOWED to take the lawyer's oath on a date to be set
by the Court, to sign the Roll of Attorneys and, thereafter, to
practice the legal profession.
2. Alawi v. Alauya
 As regards Alauya's use of the title of "Attorney," this Court has
already had occasion to declare that persons who pass the
Shari'a Bar are not full-fledged members of the Philippine Bar,
hence may only practice law before Shari'a courts. While one
who has been admitted to the Shari'a Bar, and one who has
been admitted to the Philippine Bar, may both be considered
"counsellors," in the sense that they give counsel or advice in a
professional capacity, only the latter is an "attorney."
 The title of "attorney" is reserved to those who, having
obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and
successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been admitted
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members
thereof in good standing; and it is they only who are
authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction.
 Alawi is subject to a standard of conduct more stringent than
for most other government workers, he may not use language
which is abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing, or otherwise
improper. As a judicial employee, it is expected that he accord
respect for the person and the rights of others at all times, and
that his every act and word should be characterized by
prudence, restraint, courtesy, dignity. His radical deviation
MTACS
from these salutary norms might perhaps be mitigated, but
cannot be excused, by his strongly held conviction that he had
been grievously wronged.
3. Agguirre v Rana
 Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an
attorney-at-law. Rana should know that two essential requisites
for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his
lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and his signature
in the Roll of Attorneys
 The Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the OBC
that Rana engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and thus
does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar. the records
show that Rana appeared as counsel for Bunan prior to 22 May
2001, before Rana took the lawyers oath. Clearly, Rana
engaged in the practice of law without being a member of the
Philippine Bar.
4. In re Dacannay
 The practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigners. The
Constitution provides that the practice of all professions in
the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens save in
cases prescribed by law. Since Filipino citizenship is a
requirement for admission to the bar, loss there of terminates
membership in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the
privilege to engage in the practice of law. In other words, the
loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to
practice law in the Philippines.
 Exception to this is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason
of naturalization as a citizen of another country but
subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is because
"all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country
shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship
under the conditions of RA 9225." Therefore, a Filipino lawyer
who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to
have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in
accordance with RA 9225.
 However, this is not an automatic right to resume law practice.
Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal
profession in the Philippines and he reacquires his Filipino
citizenship pursuant to its provisions "he shall apply with
the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in
such practice." He must comply with the provisions provided
for by the law, which are the following: (a) the updating and
payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP;(b)
the payment of professional tax;(c) the completion of at least
36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education; this
is specially significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s
knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal
developments and(d) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which
will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a
lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge
to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.Hence,
before Dacanay can reacquire hismembership in the Philippine
bar, he was ordered to comply with the conditions provided
under RA 9225.
5. Llunar v Ricafor
 The respondent is guilty of Grave Misconduct in his
dealings with his client and in engaging in the practice of
law while under indefinite suspension, and thus impose
upon him the ultimate penalty of DISBARMENT.
 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
The respondent was negligent in handling the case.
 the respondent failed to return, upon demand, the amounts
given to him by the complainant for handling the latter's case.
 These facts confirm that the respondent violated Canon 16 of
the CPR, which mandates every lawyer to "hold in trust all
moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession" and to "account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client."
 Third, the respondent committed dishonesty by not being
forthright with the complainant that he was under indefinite
suspension from the practice of law. Canon 15 of the CPR states
that "a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
his dealings and transactions with his clients." The respondent
lacked the candor expected of him as a member of the Bar
when he accepted the complainant's case despite knowing that
he could not and should not practice law.
 Lastly, the respondent was effectively in the practice of law
despite the indefinite suspension imposed on him. The
respondent is not an ordinary violator of the profession's
ethical rules; he is a repeat violator of these rules. In Nunez v.
Atty. Ricafort, he was adjudged liable for grave misconduct in
failing to turn over the proceeds of the sale of a property
owned by his client and in issuing bounced checks for violation
of Batas PambansaBlg. 22 filed against him by his client. Under
his current liability - which is no different in character from his
previous offense - we have no other way but to proceed to
decree his disbarment
6. Caronan v Caronan
 No applicant for admission to the Bar Examination shall be
admitted unless he had pursued and satisfactorily completed a
pre-law course,
 Good moral character is essential in those who would be
lawyers.
 Respondent made a mockery of the legal profession by
pretending to have the necessary qualifications to be a lawyer.
 In the case at hand, respondent never completed his college
degree. While he enrolled at the PLM in 1991, he left a year
later and entered the PMA where he was discharged in 1993
without graduating. Clearly, respondent has not completed the
requisite pre-law degree.
 The Court does not discount the possibility that respondent
may later on complete his college education and earn a law
degree under his real name. However, his false assumption of
his brother's identityrenders him unfit for admission to the
Bar. The practice of law, after all, is not a natural, absolute or
constitutional right to be granted to everyone who demands
it. Rather, it is a privilege limited to citizens of good moral
character
7. Petillo v Maramot
 A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his
admission to the Bar that he will do no falsehood nor consent
to the doing of any in court and he shall conduct himself as a
lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion
with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients. He
should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his high
vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the
facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at
correct conclusion. The courts, on the other hand, are entitled
to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and
pleading before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to
defend his client's rights and is expected to display the utmost
zeal in defense of his client's cause, his conduct must never be
at the expense of truth.
 In this case, the lawyer prepared a deed of donation in favor of
two minors whom he knows were still minors but indicated
that they were of legal age. The defense of good faith is not a
valid reason on the part of the donees in this case
 Further, he also notarized the document when the proper
requisites were lacking, such as there was only one witness
MTACS
8. De leon v Geronimo
 The relationship between a lawyer and a client is imbued with
utmost trust and confidence. Lawyers are expected to exercise
the necessary diligence and competence in managing cases
entrusted to them. They commit not only to review cases or
give legal advice, but also to represent their clients to the best
of their ability without the need to be reminded by either the
client or the court
 CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF
HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
 CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
 Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
 Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed
of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to client's request for information.
 Atty. Geronimo's negligence cost De Leon her entire case and
left her with no appellate remedies. Her legal cause was
orphaned, not because a court of law ruled on the merits of her
case, but because a person privileged to act as her counsel
failed to discharge his duties with the requisite diligence. Atty.
Geronimo failed to exhaust all possible means to protect his
client's interest, which is contrary to what he had sworn to do
as a member of the legal profession.
 Thus, the relationship between a lawyer and her client is
regarded as highly fiduciary. Between the lawyer and the
client, it is the lawyer that has the better knowledge of facts,
events, and remedies. While it is true that the client chooses
which lawyer to engage, he or she usually does so mostly on
the basis of reputation. It is only upon actual engagement that
the client discovers the level of diligence, competence, and
accountability of the counsel that he or she chooses. In some
cases, such as this one, the discovery comes too late. Between
the lawyer and the client, therefore, it is the lawyer that should
bear the full cost of indifference or negligence
 Because of his negligence, and clinging on to previous
jurisprudence, Atty. Geronimo was suspended from the
practice of law for 6 months
9. Sanidad v Aguas
 In this case, Atty. Aguas verbally entered into a contract of sale
of his land to Sanidad. Sanidad paid the instalments in full but
Aguas denied the payment, and event sent fake demand letters
to Sanidad. However, later Sanidad filed a case before Aguas
and Aguas settled it by turning over the title of property to
land, which the Court found to be inconsistent with the stand
of Aguas, that Sanidad never paid for such properties. Hence,
Aguas was suspended from the practice of law for one year.
 Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or
unauthorized by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or
disregards the law is "unlawful." "Unlawful" conduct does not
necessarily imply the element of criminality although the
concept is broad enough to include such element. To be
"dishonest" means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive,
defraud or betray; be unworthy; lacking in integrity,
honesty, probity, integrity in principle, fairness and straight
forwardness while conduct that is "deceitful" means the
proclivity for fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation,
artifice or device that is used upon another who is ignorant of
the true facts, to the prejudice and damage of the party
imposed upon
  The Court cannot overstress the duty of a lawyer to at all times enrolled in a recognized law school's clinical legal education
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. He can program approved by the Supreme Court, may appear without
do this by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, compensation in any civil, criminal or administrative case
before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer, to represent
to the courts and to his clients. The ethics of the legal
indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school.
profession rightly enjoin lawyers to act with the highest
standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the course of
- Thus appearance of a law student is allowed so
his practice of law. A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended
long as the latter statement below will be
for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private followed
capacity. Public confidence in the law and lawyers may be
eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a
 The appearance of the law student authorized by this rule,
member of the Bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and comport
shall be under the direct supervision and control of a member
himself in such a manner that would promote public
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the
confidence in the integrity of the legal profession
law school. Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda
 Clearly, respondent failed to live up to the high standard of
or other papers to be filed, must be signed by the supervising
morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing required of him as
attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic
a member of the legal profession. Instead, he employed his
 Thus, a law student may appear before an inferior court as an
knowledge and skill of the law and took advantage of Sanidad
agent or friend of a party without the supervision of a member of
to secure undue gains for himself
the bar.

4. PAFLU v. Binalbagan Isabela sugar co

C. Appearance of Non-Lawyers
 Moreover, the permission for a non-member of the bar to
1. In re: JoaquinT. Borromero
represent or appear or defend in the said court on behalf of a
 The respondent in this case, Joaquin T. Borromeo, is not a
party-litigant does not by itself entitle the representative to
lawyer but has apparently read some law books, and ostensibly
compensation for such representation. As Section 24, Rule 138,
come to possess some superficial awareness of a few
Rules of Court imports the existence of attorney-client
substantive legal principles and procedural rules. Incredibly,
relationship as a condition for the recovery of attorney’s fee.
with nothing more than this smattering of learning, the
Such relationship cannot exist unless the representative is a
respondent has, for some sixteen (16) years now, from 1978 to
lawyer. Since respondent Muning is not one, he cannot
the present, been instituting and prosecuting legal proceedings
establish an attorney-client relationship with Enrique Entila
in various courts, dogmatically pontificating on errors
and VictorinoTenezas or with PAFLU, and he cannot, therefore,
supposedly committed by the courts, including the Supreme
recover attorney's fees.Certainly public policy demands that
Court.
legal work in representation of parties litigant should be
 Joaquin T. Borromeo is found and declared GUILTY of
entrusted only to those possessing tested qualifications and
constructive contempt repeatedly committed over time,
who are sworn to observe the rules and the ethics of the
despite warnings and instructions given to him, and to the end
profession, as well as being subject to judicial disciplinary
that he may ponder his serious errors and grave misconduct
control for the protection of courts, clients and thepublic.
and learn due respect for the Courts and their authority, he is
 Attorney’s fees cannot be given to non-lawyers EVEN if they
hereby sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of TEN (10)
appeared to have represented their clients in court. The award of
DAYS in the City Jail of Cebu City and to pay a fine of ONE
attorney’s fees requires that there is an attorney-client
THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00). He is warned that a repetition
relationship. Such cannot exist betty an attorney-in-fact and the
of any of the offenses of which he is herein found guilty, or any
person he is representing
similar or other offense against courts, judges or court
employees, will merit further and more serious sanctions.
D. Sanctions for appearance without authority
 Borromeo’s ignorant battling with the courts ended in a
1. Villahermosa v. Caracol
contempt charged against him for “abuse of and interference
 In this case, Atty Caracol represented Efren without
with judicial rules and processes, gross disrespect to courts
proper authority, and could not be given any because at
and judges and improper conduct directly impding, the time he assumed the case of Efren he was already
obstructing, and degrading the administration of justice”. dead. Thus, the oppositor of Efren’s case filed the
disbarment case against Atty. Caracol for wilfully
2. Catimbuhan v. Cruz appearing in court without authority. In this case, he was
 Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that, in the found guilty
municipal court, a party may conduct his litigation in person  Lawyers must be mindful that an attorney has no power
to act as counsel for a person without being retained nor
with the aid of an agent appointed by him for the purpose.
may he appear in court without being employed unless by
leave of court.
 We may add that if a non-lawyer can appear as defense counsel  If a lawyer corruptly or willfully appears as an attorney
or as friend of the accused in a case before the municipal trial for a party to a case without authority, he may be
court, with more reason should he be allowed to appear as disciplined or punished for contempt as an officer of the
private prosecutor under the supervision and control of the court who has misbehaved in his official transaction.
trial fiscal.  A lawyer is not even required to present a written
authorization from the client. In fact, the absence of a
3. Cruz v Mina formal notice of entry of appearance will not invalidate
the acts performed by the counsel in his client’s name.
 A law student who has successfully completed his 3rd year of However, [a] court, on its own initiative or on motion of
the regular four-year prescribed law curriculum and is the other party may require a lawyer to adduce
authorization from the client
MTACS
  Lawyers must be mindful that an attorney has no power
to act as counsel for a person without being retained nor
may he appear in court without being employed unless by
leave of court. If an attorney appears on a client’s behalf
without a retainer or the requisite authority neither the
litigant whom he purports to represent nor the adverse
party may be bound or affected by his appearance unless
the purported client ratifies or is estopped to deny his
assumed authority. If a lawyer corruptly or willfully
appears as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority, he may be disciplined or punished for
contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved
in his official transaction

E. Public Officials and Practice of Law

1. Ramos v. Manalac
 “appearance” includes not only arguing a case before any
such body but also filing a pleading in behalf of a client as
“by simply filing a formal motion, plea or answer”

2. In re: David
 Atty. Felix P. David was suspended from the practice of
law for misappropriating funds entrusted to him by his
client for a period of five years from November 9, 1949.
However, he continued practicing law during the period
of his suspension
 As his defense, respondent maintains he presented the
pleadings as an agent of Tan Tek Sy and not as a
practicing lawyer.Respondent explains that he did not
intend to disregard the suspension of the Supreme Court.
He argues that he did not even identify himself as the
attorney for the Tan Tek Sy and that in good faith, he
signed for and in behalf of Tan Tek Sy without designating
that he is practicing as attorney-at-law.

 The fact that the lawyer had not put in his motion asking
for execution that he acted as a lawyer but as an agent
and employee of the plaintiff, does not alter the nature of
his services, which are certainly professional lawyer
services.

 Respondent’s actions are not justified by presenting the

pleadings on behalf of his client as agent.When
respondent presented the pleadings with the following
words "For and in behalf of the Appellee", he violated the
rule that an agent or a proxy or a suspended Forum
member may not appear for a litigator.

MTACS

3. People v. Villanueva
 GR: “when an attorney had been appointed to the
position of Assistant Provincial Fiscal or City Fiscal and
therein qualified, by operation of law, he ceased to engage
in private law practice.” The counsel for the accused also
invoked Section 32, Rule 27 (now, Sec. 35, Rule 138) of
the Rules of Court. This rule bars certain attorneys form
engaging private practice and giving professional advice
to clients.
 This case falls however under the exception:
 The Court defined practice as more than an isolated
appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary
actions, a succession of acts of the same kind. The practice
of law by attorneys employed in the government, to fall
within the prohibition of statute has been interpreted as
customarily or habitually holding one’s self out to the
public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such
services. The appearance as counsel on one occasion, is
not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the
private practice of law. The word private practice of law
implies that one must have presented himself to be in the
active and continued practice of the legal profession and
that his professional services are available to the public
for a compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in
consideration of his said services. Hence, the isolated
appearance of City Attorney Fule did not constitute
private practice, within the meaning and contemplation
of the Rules.
 Furthermore, it must be noted that Fule had been
given permission by his immediate supervisor, the
Secretary of Justice, to represent the complainant in the
case.
 Section 35. Certain attorneys not to practice. — No judge
or other official or employee of the superior courts or of
the Office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private
practice as a member of the bar or give professional
advice to clients.
 CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS
IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF
THEIR TASKS.
 Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in
public prosecution is not to convict but to see that justice
is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of
witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the
accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for
disciplinary action.
 Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not
use his public position to promote or advance his private
interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public
duties.
 Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government
service, accept engagement or employment in connection
with any matter in which he had intervened while in said
service.
4. Noriega v. Sison
 Noriega filed a case against Atty Sison on the ground of
malpractice through gross misrepresentation and
falsification as Atty sison was a hearing officer in the civil
MTACS
service commission and is a government employee and
cannot engage in the practice of his private profession.
 We hold that the allegations in the complaint do not
warrant disbarment of the respondent. There is no
evidence that the respondent has committed an act
constituting deceit, immoral conduct, violation of his oath
as a lawyer, wilful disobedience of any lawful order of the
court, or corruptly and willfully appearing as an attorney
to a part to a case without attorney to do so
 There is no violation of the Civil Service Rules and
Regulations for his appearance as counsel for the
defendant in the JDRC Case No. E-01978 was with
authority given by the Associate Commisioner Of SEC,
Julio A. Sulit, Jr.
5. Lingan v. Baliga
 This court has the exclusive jurisdiction to
regulate the practice of law. When this court
orders a lawyer suspended from the practice of
law, the lawyer must desist from performing all
functions requiring the application of legal
knowledge within the... period of
suspension. This includes desisting from
holding a position in government requiring the
authority to practice law.
6. Eustaquio v. Navales
 When the court orders a lawyer to be
suspended from the practice of law, he must
desist from performing all functions requiring
the application of legal knowledge within the
period of suspension. This includes desisting
from holding a position in the government
requiring the authority to practice law.
 In this case, Respondent never heeded the
suspension order against him as he continued
discharging his functions as Assistant City
Prosecutor. Under Republic Act No. 10071
(Prosecution Service Act of 2010), an Assistant
City Prosecutor requires its holder to be
authorized to practice law. In this case,
Respondent’s continuous discharge of his
functions as an Assistant City Prosecutor
constitutes practice of law and thus, a clear
defiance of the court’s order of suspension
against him.
7. Fajardo v. Alvarez
 Respondent is a public officer, an employee of
government. The Office of the Ombudsman is
part of government. By appearing against the
Office of the Ombudsman, respondent is going
against the same employer he swore to serve.
 Likewise, we find that respondent violated the
Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility when he communicated to or, at
the very least, made it appear to complainant
that he knew people from the Office of the
Ombudsman who could help them get a
favorable decision... in complainant's case.
 Thus, respondent violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Canon 1, Rules
1.01, and 1.02 prohibit lawyers from engaging
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
conduct. Respondent's act of ensuring that the
case... will be dismissed because of his personal
relationships with officers or employees in the
Office of the Ombudsman is unlawful and
 dishonest. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility requires lawyers to always
"uphold the integrity and dignity... of the legal
profession."
 In relation, Canon 13 mandates that lawyers
"shall rely upon the merits of his [or her] cause
and refrain from any impropriety which tends
to influence, or gives the appearance of
influencing the court."
 A lawyer that approaches a judge to try to gain
influence and receive a favorable outcome for
his or her client violates Canon 13 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
 Nevertheless, as found by the Investigating
Commissioner and as shown by the records, we
rule that there is... enough proof to hold
respondent guilty of influence peddling.
 Respondent Arty. Nicanor C. Alvarez is guilty of
violating the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees,
the Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for one (1)... year with
a WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Respondent is ORDERED to return the amount
of P500,000.00 with legal interest to
complainant Teresita P. Fajardo.
II. Lawyer’s Oath
1. Ong v. De los Santos
 Every lawyer is an officer of the Court. He has the duty and
responsibility to maintain his good moral character. In this
regard, good moral character is not only a condition precedent
relating to his admission into the practice of law, but is a
continuing imposition in order for him to maintain his
membership in the Philippine Bar. The Court unwaveringly
demands of him to remain a competent, honorable, and
reliable individual in whom the public may repose
confidence. Any gross misconduct that puts his moral character
in serious doubt renders him unfit to continue in the practice
of law.
 The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the
private interests of the parties directly involved in the
transaction and touches the interests of the community at
large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee
or holder, but also an injury to the public. The harmful practice
of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation,
multiplied a thousandfold, can very well pollute the channels of
trade and commerce, injure the banking system and eventually
hurt the welfare of society and the public interest.
 lawyers may be disciplined for any conduct, whether in their
professional or in their private capacity, if such conduct
renders them unfit to continue to be officers of the court.
 That his act involved a private dealing with Ong did not matter.
His being a lawyer invested him – whether he was acting as
such or in a non-professional capacity – with the obligation to
exhibit good faith, fairness and candor in his relationship with
others. There is no question that a lawyer could be disciplined
not only for a malpractice in his profession, but also for any
misconduct committed outside of his professional capacity. His
being a lawyer demanded that he conduct himself as a person
of the highest moral and professional integrity and probity in
his dealings with others.
2. Madrid v. De Alca
 Rule 1.03 A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
MTACS
 Atty. Dealca must be mindful of his mission to assist the courts
in the proper administration of justice. He disregarded his
mission because his filing of the unfounded complaints,
including this one against Judge Madrid, increased the
workload of the Judiciary.
 Although no person should be penalized for the exercise of the
right to litigate, the right must nonetheless be exercised in
good faith. Atty. Dealca's bringing of the numerous
administrative and criminal complaints against judges, court
personnel... and his fellow lawyers did not evince any good
faith on his part, considering that he made allegations against
them therein that he could not substantially prove, and are
rightfully deemed frivolous and unworthy of the Court's
precious time and serious consideration.
 Canon 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due
to the courts and to the judicial officers and should insist on
similar conduct by others.
 xxxx
 Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not
supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.
 In light of the foregoing canons, all lawyers are bound to
uphold the dignity and authority of the courts, and to promote
confidence in the fair administration of justice. It is the respect
for the courts that guarantees the stability of the judicial
institution; elsewise, the... institution would be resting on a
very shaky foundation.
 Worth stressing, too, is that the right of a party to seek the
inhibition or disqualification of a judge who does not appear to
be wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent in
handling the case must be balanced with the latter's sacred
duty to decide cases without... fear of repression. Thus, it was
incumbent upon Atty. Dealca to establish by clear and
convincing evidence the ground of bias and prejudice in order
to disqualify Judge Madrid from participating in a particular
trial in which Atty. Dealca was participating as a... counsel. The
latter's bare allegations of Judge Madrid's partiality or hostility
did not suffice,because the presumption that Judge Madrid
would undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to
law and the evidence... and without fear or favor should only be
overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. As
such, Atty. Dealca clearly contravened his duties as a lawyer as
expressly stated in Canon 11 and Rule 11.04, supra.
3. Salabano v. Villaruel
 While it is true that lawyers owe "entire devotion" to the cause
of their clients,... it cannot be emphasized enough that their
first and primary duty is "not to the client but to the
administration of justice."
 Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that
"A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice."
 Thus, in the use of Court processes, the lawyer's zeal to win
must be... tempered by the paramount consideration that
justice be done to all parties involved, and the la|wyer for the
losing party should not stand in the way of the execution of a
valid judgment.
 It is quite clear that respondent has made a mockery of the
judicial process by abusing Court processes, employing
dilatory tactics to frustrate the execution of a final judgment,
and feigning ignorance of Ms duties as an officer of the court.
He has breached his sworn duty to... assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice, and violated the Lawyer's
Oath, Rules 10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and Rule 138, Sec. 20 (c) and (g) of the Rules of
Court. In so doing, he is administratively liable for his... actions.
4. Nulada v. Paulma
 Clearly, the issuance of worthless checks in violation of BP Blg.
22 indicates a lawyer's unfitness for the trust and confidence
reposed on him, shows such lack of personal honesty and good
 moral character as to render him unworthy of public
confidence, and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action.
 respondent's conviction for violation of BP 22, a crime
involving moral turpitude, had been indubitably established.
Such conviction has, in fact, already become final.
Consequently, respondent violated the lawyer's oath, as well as
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, as aptly found by the IBP and,
thus, must be subjected to disciplinary action.
 Accordingly, and in view of the foregoing instances when the
erring lawyer was suspended for a period of two (2) years for
the same violation, the Court finds it appropriate to mete the
same penalty to respondent in this case.
 respondent Atty. Orlando S. Paulma is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective
upon his receipt of this Resolution. He is warned that a
repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more
severely.
5. Kruysel v. Abion
 A disbarment case was filed against the respondent in this
case. However, she did her very best to avoid the service of
summons to her house. The NBI even tried to get a hold of her,
but she was nowhere to be found.
- In this connection, lawyers must update their
records with the IBP by informing the IBP
National Office or their respective chapters of
any change in office or residential address and
other contact details. In case such change is not
duly updated, service of notice on the office or
residential address appearing in the records of
the IBP National Office shall constitute
sufficient notice to a lawyer for purposes of
administrative proceedings against him
 The lawyer in this case even forged the signature of a
verification against forum shopping in one of the cases she was
handling
- Deception and other fraudulent acts by a
lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable. They
reveal moral flaws in a lawyer. They are
unacceptable practices. A lawyer's relationship
with others should be characterized by the
highest degree of good faith, fairness and
candor. This is the essence of the lawyer's oath.
The lawyer's oath is not mere facile words,
drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must
be upheld and keep inviolable. The nature of
the office of an attorney requires that he
should be a person of good moral character.
This requisite is not only a condition precedent
to admission to the practice of law, its
continued possession is also essential for
remaining in the practice of law. We have
sternly warned that any gross misconduct of a
lawyer, whether in his professional or private
capacity, puts his moral character in serious
doubt as a member of the Bar, and renders him
unfit to continue in the practice of law
 Respondent's acts amount to deceit, malpractice, or gross
misconduct in office as an attorney. She violated her oath to
"do no falsehood" and to "conduct [her] self as a lawyer . . .
with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to; [her]
clients." She also violated the following provisions of the Code
of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
MTACS
. . . .
CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND
SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
. . . .
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he,
whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
.
CANON 15. A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS
AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS
WITH HIS CLIENT.
. . . .
CANON 17. A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS
CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON 18. A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
. . . .
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep his elient informed of the
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to
the client's request for information.
 Respondent's transgressions are grave and serious. She abused
her legal knowledge and training. She took undue advantage of
the trust reposed on her by her client. Her misconduct exhibits
a brazen disregard of her duties as a lawyer. The advocate for
justice became the perpetrator of injustice.
Aside from defrauding her client, respondent recklessly put
Arty. Soriano's career in jeopardy by fabricating an order, thus
making a mockery of the judicial system. That a lawyer is not
merely a professional but also an officer of the court cannot be
overemphasized. She owes the courts of justice and its judicial
officers utmost respect. Her conduct degrades the
administration of justice and weakens the people faith in the
judicial system. She inexorably besmirched the entire legal
profession.
III. Duty of the lawyer to society
A. Duty to obey the constitution and obey the laws of the land
1) Agno vs Cagatan
 [The] rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary
proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not
in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff
and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary
proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress
for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted
solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the
purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official
ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney
is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of
the court. The complainant or the person who called the
attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in
no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome
except as all good citizens may have in the proper
administration of justice.
- So this means that anyone can be a complainant
in a disbarment case
 Canon 1. A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.
Canon 7. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity
of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated
Bar.chanrobles virtual law library
 Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public
or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.
 The afore-cited canons emphasize the high standard of honesty and
fairness expected of a lawyer not only in the practice of the legal
profession but in his personal dealings as well. A lawyer must
conduct himself with great propriety, and his behavior should be
beyond reproach anywhere and at all times. For, as officers of the
courts and keepers of the public's faith, they are burdened with the
highest degree of social responsibility and are thus mandated to
behave at all times in a manner consistent with truth and
honor. Likewise, the oath that lawyers swear to impresses upon
them the duty of exhibiting the highest degree of good faith, fairness
and candor in their relationships with others. Thus, lawyers may be
disciplined for any conduct, whether in their professional or in their
private capacity, if such conduct renders them unfit to continue to
be officers of the court.
 Hence, in this case, we are in accord with the findings of the IBP
Commissioner, as affirmed by the IBP Board of Governors. What is
more, we find respondent to be guilty of gross misconduct for
issuing a worthless check.chanrobles virtual law library
 The respondent did not fully reveal the true condition of the
corporation regarding the reinstatement of the corporation's license
to operate. Likewise the issuance of a check in favor of the
complainant on 30 March 1994 against a closed account shows the
respondent had no desire to return the money entrusted to him for
the reinstatement of the license of the corporation. The letter of the
POEA dated 24 May 1994 xxx clearly show that the payment of
surety bond will not suffice to reinstate the license of the
corporation in view of several cases of violations of recruitment
pending before the POEA against said corporation. This fact was not
disclosed to complainant when the Memorandum of Agreement was
entered into by the parties.
 Thus, the Commissioner's recommendation: Given all the foregoing,
it is submitted that respondent manifested lack of candor, when he
knowingly failed to provide the complainant with accurate and
complete information due her under the circumstances. It is
respectfully recommended that respondent be SUSPENDED from
the practice of law in the maximum period prescribed by law and to
return the money received from the complainant.
2) Jimenez vs Verano
 We emphasize at the outset thatthe Court may conduct its own
investigation into charges against members of the bar, irrespective
of the form of initiatory complaints brought before it. Thus, a
complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to the case,
but a witness who brought the matter to the attention of the
Court. By now, it is basic that there is neither a plaintiff nor a
prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. The real
question for determination in these proceedings is whether or not
the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of a
member of the bar.
 The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly
executed by complainant does not, in any way, exonerate the
respondent. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed
regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What
matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record,
the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been duly
proven x x x. The complainant or the person who called the
attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no
MTACS
sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as
all good citizens may have in the proper administration of
justice.Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent
may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of
complainant or his withdrawal of the charges. (Emphasis supplied)
 After a careful review of the records,we agree with the IBP in finding
reasonable grounds to hold respondent administratively liable.
Canon 13, the provision applied by the Investigating Commissioner,
states that "a lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and
refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the
appearance of influencing the court." We believe that other
provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility likewise
prohibit acts of influence-peddling not limited to the regular courts,
but even in all other venues in the justice sector, where respect for
the rule of law is at all times demanded from a member of the bar.
 The way respondent conducted himself manifested a clear intent to
gain special treatment and consideration from a government
agency. This is precisely the type of improper behavior sought to be
regulated by the codified norms for the bar. Respondentis duty-
bound to actively avoid any act that tends to influence, or may be
seen to influence, the outcome of an ongoing case, lest the people’s
faith inthe judicial process is diluted.
 The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the
administration of justice.1âwphi1 To that end, their clients’ success
is wholly subordinate. The conduct of a member of the bar ought to
and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics.
Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to
bythe lawyer, even inthe pursuit of his devotion to his client’s cause,
is condemnable and unethical.
 Rule 1.02 states: "A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed
at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system."
Further, according to Rule 15.06, "a lawyer shall not state or imply
that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative
body." The succeeding rule, Rule 15.07, mandates a lawyer "to
impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles
of fairness."
 Zeal and persistence in advancing a client’s cause must always be
within the bounds of the law. A self-respecting independence in the
exercise of the profession is expected if an attorney is to remain a
member of the bar. In the present case, we find that respondent fell
short of these exacting standards. Given the import of the case, a
warning is a mere slap on the wrist that would not serve as
commensurate penalty for the offense.
3) Foster vs Agtang
 Rule 1.0, Canon 1 of the CPR, provides that “[a] lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” It is
well-established that a lawyer’s conduct is “not confined to the
performance of his professional duties. A lawyer may be disciplined
for misconduct committed either in his professional or private
capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in
moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it
renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.”27
In this case, respondent is guilty of engaging in dishonest and
deceitful conduct, both in his professional and private capacity. As a
lawyer, he clearly misled complainant into believing that the filing
fees for her case were worth more than the prescribed amount in
the rules, due to feigned reasons such as the high value of the land
involved and the extra expenses to be incurred by court employees.
In other words, he resorted to overpricing, an act customarily
related to depravity and dishonesty. He demanded the amount of
P150,000.00 as filing fee, when in truth, the same amounted only to
P22,410.00.
 The lawyer in this case also violated the fiduciary relationship
between him and his client, he was not able to return the money he
has obtained from his client
 Further, the lawyer in this case was guilty of representing
conflicting interests. The representation of conflicting interests is
 prohibited “not only because the relation of attorney and client is the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected
one of trust and confidence of the highest degree, but also because or received for or from his client. Thus, a lawyer’s failure to return
of the principles of public policy and good taste. An attorney has the upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client, as in this
duty to deserve the fullest confidence of his client and represent him case, gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the
with undivided loyalty. Once this confidence is abused or violated same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his
the entire profession suffers client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of
o The Court cannot brush aside the dissatisfied professional ethics
observations of the complainant as to the allegations
lacking in the complaint against Tierra Realty and the
clear admission of respondent that he was the one who
notarized the assailed document. Regardless of whether it
was the validity of the entire document or the intention of
the parties as to some of its provisions raised, respondent
fell short of prudence in action when he accepted
complainant’s case, knowing fully that he was involved in
the execution of the very transaction under question.
Neither his unpaid notarial fees nor the participation of a
collaborating counsel would excuse him from such
indiscretion. It is apparent that respondent was retained
by clients who had close dealings with each other. More
significantly, there is no record of any written consent
from any of the parties involved.

4) Agot vs Rivera
 respondent misrepresented himself as an immigration lawyer,
which resulted to complainant seeking his assistance to facilitate the
issuance of her US visa and paying him the amount of ₱350,000.00
as downpayment for his legal services. In truth, however,
respondent has no specialization in immigration law but merely had
a contact allegedly with Pineda, a purported US consul, who
supposedly processes US visa applications for him. However,
respondent failed to prove Pineda’s identity considering that the
photographs and e-mails he submitted were all self-serving and
thus, as correctly observed by the Investigating Commissioner,
bereft of any probative value and consequently cannot be given any
credence. Undoubtedly, respondent’s deception is not only
unacceptable, disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal profession;
it reveals a basic moral flaw that makes him unfit to practice law
o A Lawyer must not engage in unlawful, immoral or
deceitful conduct
 CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not
neglecta legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
 Under Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, once a lawyer takes up the
cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with
competence, and to attend to such client’s cause with diligence, care,
and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes
fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed upon him. Therefore, a lawyer’s neglect of a
legal matter entrusted to him by his client constitutes inexcusable
negligence for which he must be held administratively liable, 17 as in
this case.
 Furthermore, respondent violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16
of the CPR when he failed to refund the amount of ₱350,000.00 that
complainant paid him, viz.:
 CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND
PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENTTHAT MAY COME INTO HIS
POSSESSION.
 Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client.

 Rule 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his
client when due or upon demand.
 Verily, the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly
fiduciary and prescribes on a lawyer a great fidelity and good
faith. The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon
MTACS