PALE (Problem Areas in Legal Ethics)
Slides By: Judge Alona Labtic-Pioquinto
Transcribed By: E.E.
“You delight in laying down laws, yet you delight more in
breaking them. Like children playing by the ocean who build
sand-towers with constancy and then destroy them with
laughter.” –Kahlil Gibran
What is Legal Ethics?
 It is the embodiment of all principles of morality and
refinement that should govern the conduct of every
member of the bar. (Chief Justice Manuel V. Moran)
Sources of Legal Ethics
1. Constitution
2. Code of Professional Responsibility
3. New Code of Judicial Conduct of the Philippine
Judiciary
4. Jurisprudence
5. Rule on Notarial Practice
6. MCLE
7. Rule of Court
8. SC Issuances
Lawyer’s Oath
“I, ___________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support the
Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of
the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of any court; I will not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful
suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man
for money or malice, and I will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all
good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I
impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.”
2019 Bar A.4.
Q: L sought Atty. M to be his lawyer for the annulment of his
marriage. M discussed the annulment procedure and his fees.
L signed the service contract and gave M his lawyer’s fee in
full. L casually mentioned that he had the resources because
he received a huge kickback last week from a favoured
supplier in relation to his work as member for his
Municipality’s BAC (Bids and Awards Committee). After
hearing this revelation, what must M do as a lawyer to L?
(2%)
A: M must terminate relationship with his client. L committed
an offense against RA 3019 S3 (b) or the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act.
Under the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed
at defiance of law x x x.
Rule 15.07 – A lawyer shall impress upon his client
compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness.
Rule 19.02 – A lawyer who has received information that his
client has, in the course of representation, perpetrated a fraud
upon a person x x x shall promptly call upon the client to
rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate the
relationship with such client x x x.
January 11, 2020. Discussion.
1987 Constitution, Article IX, Section 3
All educational institutions shall… strengthen ethical and
spiritual values; develop moral character and personal
discipline…
Who are the members of the Bar?
Members of the Bar –
Rule 138, Section 2 of the Rules of Court:
1. At least twenty-one (21) years old;
2. Resident of the Philippines;
3. Citizen of the Philippines.
The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be
limited to the Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by
law.
(Article X11, Sec. 14, Par 2, 1987 Constitution)
CASE: Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law,
Benjamin Dacanay BM No. 1678, December 17, 2007.
 Atty. Benjamin Dacanay became a Canadian citizen in
2004. But he reacquired Filipino citizenship under RA
9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of
2003) and took his oath of allegiance in July 2006. May he
resume his practice of law in the Philippines?
 YES. When he became a Canadian Citizen, he ceased to be
a member of the Philippine bar since Filipino Citizenship
is a requirement for admission to the bar. When he
reacquired Filipino citizenship under RA 9225, he is
deemed not to have terminated his bar membership. But
there would be no automatic right to resume law practice.
 In the same case, the SC said that the practice of law is a
privilege burdened with conditions that is the duty of the
State through the Court to control and regulate it. Why is it
so?
 Answer: To protect and promote the public welfare.
Members of the Bar –
Rule 138, Section 5 & 6 of the Rules of Court:
4. Successfully completed the prescribed course (LLB
or JD)
5. Satisfactorily completed a four year course
6. Of Good Moral Character and that no charges against
him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are
pending in any court in the Philippines.
7. Must produce before the SC satisfactory evidence of
good moral character, and that no charges against
him, involving moral turpitude have been filed or are
pending in any court in the Philippines.
CASE: In the Matter of Disqualification of Bar Examinee
Haros S. Meling in the 2002 Bar Examinations and for
Disciplinary Action as Member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar,
BM No. 1154, June 8, 2004
 Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar
Exam his three (3) pending criminal cases (Slander and
Less Serious Physical Injury). Can he be disqualified?
 YES. The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court
to determine good moral character. The nature of whatever
cases are pending would aid the Court in determining
moral fitness. By concealing the existence of such cases,
the applicant flunks the test of fitness even if the cases are
ultimately proven to be unwarranted or insufficient to
impugn or affect the good moral character of the applicant.
 Good Moral Character is what a person really is, the
estimate in which he is held by the public in the place
where he is known. Good moral character includes at least
common honesty.
CASE: Garrido vs. Atty. Garrido & Valencia, AC No. 6593,
February 4, 2010
 Purposes of Good Moral Character:
1. To protect the public;
2. To protect the public image of lawyers;
3. To protect prospective clients;
4. To protect errant lawyers from themselves.
CASE: Petition of Socorro Ladrera, 1954 Successful Bar
Examinee to Take the Lawyer’s Oath, BM No. 135, January
29, 1987
 Person of Good Moral Character is necessarily a leader of
the community, looked up to as a model citizen. X x x He
sets an example to his fellow citizens not only for his
respect for the law, but also for his clean living.

CASE: In the matter of the admission to the Bar and Oath-

taking of Successful Bar Applicant Al Argosino, BM No. 712,
July 13, 1995?
 Good Moral Character is something more than an absence
of bad character. It is the good name which the applicant
has acquired, or should have acquired, through association
with his fellows. It means that he must have conducted
himself as a man of upright character ordinarily would, or
should, or does. Such character expresses itself, in the will,
and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong.

What is Moral Turpitude?

CASE: De Jesus-Paras vs. Vailoces, AC No. 439, April 12,
1961
 No Exact Definition
 Includes everything done contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty or good morals.
 Q: In addition to falsification, what other crimes are
considered “Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude”?
A: Abduction with consent, Seduction, Rape, Bigamy,
Adultery, Smuggling, Bribery, Profiteering, Murder,
Homicide, Reckless Imprudence resulting to Homicide, Theft,
Fencing, Arson, Violation of BP 22, Intriguing against Honor,
Libel, Perjury, Violation of Dangerous Drugs Law, and
Evasion of Income Tax.

Q: Crimes Not Involving Moral Turpitude? [MIDTERM COVERAGE] – 1st Discussion

A: Minor Transgressions (ex. speeding), Slight Physical
Injuries, Carrying Deadly Weapon, Illegal Possession of
Firearms, and Indirect Contempt.
Rule 138, Sec. 9, Rules of Court
 Applicants shall be subjected to examinations in the
following subjects: Civil Law; Labor and Social
Legislation; Mercantile Law; Criminal Law; Political Law;
(Constitutional law, Public Corporations, and Public
Officers); International law (Private and Public); Taxation;
Remedial Law (Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and
Evidence); LEGAL ETHICS and Practical Exercises (In
Pleadings and Covevancing).
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.
Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed
at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
system.
Rule 1.03 – A lawyer shall not for any corrupt motive or
interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s
cause.

Rule 1.04 – A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end

or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.

Canon 2 – A lawyer shall make his legal services available in

an efficient and convenient manner compatible with the
independence, integrity and effectiveness of the profession.

Q: What makes an effective legal service? Must a lawyer be

INTELLIGENT to be effective?

A: [People vs. Liwanag, et al., GR No. 120468, August 15,

2001] Constitution, Article 3, Sec 14 (2) , in all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved and shall enjoy the right to be heard by
himself and counsel x x x = right to an effective assistance of
counsel.

Earmarks of an EFFECTIVE counsel:

 To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as

appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he
believes to be honestly debatable under the law (R 138 S
20, ROC)
 To employ means only as are consistent with truth and
honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial
 officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law (R
138 S 20, ROC)
 To present every defense that the law permits, to the end
that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by
due process of law. (R 138 S 20, ROC)
 To exert every effort to assist ion the speedy and efficient
administration of justice (Canon 12, CPR)
 To serve his client with competence and diligence (Canon
16, CPR)
The test used under People vs. Liwanag:
1. The proper measure of an attorney’s performance is
reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.
2. There is a presumption that counsel’s performance
was reasonable.
3. If the trial is fair [ = the accused was accorded due
process ] then the lawyer is EFFECTIVE.
Rule 2.01 – A lawyer shall not reject except for valid reasons,
the case of the defenceless or the oppressed.
Q: What does “DEFENSELESS” mean?
A: [Rodica vs. Atty. Lazaro, et al. AC No. 9529, August 23,
2012] Rodica (a businesswoman) cannot be considered as
defenseless or oppressed considering that she is properly
represented by counsel in the RTC case. Needless to state, her
rights are amply safeguarded. It would have been different had
Rodica not been represented by any lawyer, which, however,
is not the case.
DEFENSELESS = WITHOUT COUNSEL [Rodica vs. Atty.
Lazaro, et al.]
Rule 2.02 – In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a
case he shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person
concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the
latter’s rights.
CASE: Pacana , Jr. vs. Atty. Pascual-Lopez, AC No. 8243,
July 24, 2009
 Having problems with his company’s investors, X sought
the advice of Y, both were CFC members. From then on, Y
would give regular advice, helped prepare quitclaims,
solicited money & properties from X to pay the creditors
and even discussed a collection case for the company, but
no Retainer Agreement was signed. Months after & no
update about a collection case, X sued Y. Y argued that
she wasn’t lawyering for X and that her act in helping X
was according to Rule 2.02, CPR.
 Question: When Y advised X, was there lawyer-client
relationship formed?
 SC ruled: YES. The absence of a written contract will not
preclude the finding that there was a professional
relationship between the parties. Documentary formalism
is not an essential element in the employment of an
attorney; the contract may be express or implied. To
establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice and
assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any
matter pertinent to his profession.
 Question: Where do you draw the line bet “giving legal
advice” and “accepting the case”?
Canon 14 – A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the
needy.
1987 Constitution Bill of Rights, Article 3, Section 11:
 Free access to the courts and quasi0judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person
by reason of poverty.
 Question: Who are the poor?
Bar Matter No. 2012, February 10, 2009, THE RULE ON
MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE.
The Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service
 Mandatory requirement for practising lawyers to render
free legal aid services in all cases in civil, criminal or
admin cases involving indigent and pauper litigants.
 Every practicing lawyer is required to render a minimum
of sixty (60) hours of free legal aid services to indigent
litigants in a year.
 Failure = Declaration as “not in good standing” for three
(3) months [cannot appear in court/quasi-judicial body]
AM No. 17-03-09-SC RULE ON COMMUNITY LEGAL
AID SERVICE (SC suspended the implementation as of
September 17, 2019)
RULE ON COMMUNITY LEGAL AID SERVICE
 Mandatory requirement for new lawyers starting 2018 to
render one hundred twenty (120) hours of free legal
services; assistance to indigent parties; pauper litigants;
persons of limited means; groups within twelve (12)
months from signing in the roll.
RA 9999 – Free Legal Assistance Act of 2010
 A lawyer or professional partnerships rendering actual free
legal services shall be entitled to an allowable deduction
from the gross income, the amount that could have been
collected for the actual free legal services rendered or up to
ten (10%) per cent of the gross income derived from the
actual performance of the legal profession, whichever is
lower.
RULE 141, Section 19, ROC = INDIGENT-LITIGANTS
a) Whose gross income and that of their immediate
family do not exceed an amount double the monthly
minimum wage of an employee and;
b) Who do not own real property with a fair market
value as stated in the current tax declaration of more
than three hundred thousand (Php 300,000.00) pesos.
(as provided in the case of Algura vs. LGU of the
City of Naga, GR No. 150135, October 30, 2006)
Rule 14.02 – A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious
sufficient cause, an appointment as counsel de officio or as
amicus curiae, or a request from the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines or any of its chapters for rendition of free legal aid.
SEC. 31, RULE 138, ROC – Counsel de Oficio:
 A court may assign an attorney to render professional aid
free of charge to any party in a case, if upon investigation
it appears that the party is destitute and unable to employ
an attorney, and that the services of counsel are necessary
to secure the ends of justice and to protect the rights of the
party.
SEC. 7, RULE 116, ROC – Counsel de Oficio:
 The Court, considering the gravity of the offense and the
difficulty of the questions that may arise, shall appoint as
counsel de oficio only such members of the bar in good
standing who, by reason of their experience and ability,
can competently defend the accused.
SEC. 36, RULE 138, ROC. – Amicus Curiae:
 Experienced and impartial attorneys may be invited by the
Court to appear as Amici Curiae to help in the disposition
of issues submitted to it.
Counsel de Parte
 A lawyer engaged by a party to represent him in a case,
without the court’s intervention.
Counsel of Record
 The lawyer listed in the court records to whom notices
shall be made.
CASE: Atty. Ledesma vs. Judge Climaco, GR No. L-23815,
June 28, 1974.
 X was appointed Election Registrar so he filed a motion to
withdraw in a criminal case which was due for hearing two
days after his appointment, where he was counsel de parte
for one of the accused. Not only did the Judge deny the
motion, but he also appointed X as counsel de oficio for
the two other accused. Was the judge correct in denying
the motion to withdraw?
 ANSWER: YES. X was less than mindful of his obligation
as counsel. He ought to have known that membership in
the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. Law is
indeed a profession dedicated to the ideal of service and
not a mere trade. It is understandable then why a high
degree of fidelity to duty is required of one so designated.
BAR 1996. NO. 9.
 In a homicide case, Atty. M was appointed by the Court as
counsel de Officio for F, the accused. After trial, F was
acquitted.
a) Atty. M sent F a bill for attorney’s fees. Can F be
compelled to pay? Explain.
b) Can F employ a counsel de parte to collaborate with
Atty. M, his counsel de officio? Explain.
Rule 14.03 – A lawyer may refuse to accept representation of
an indigent client if:
a) He is not in a position to carry out the work
effectively or competently;
b) He labors under a conflict of interest between him
and the prospective client or between a present client
and the prospective client.
CASE: People vs. Rio, GR No. 90294, September 24, 1991.
 The defense of the accused in a rape case, in the lower
court with the 1st counsel de oficio, was alibi. On appeal
with the second counsel de oficio, the accused alleged
consensual sex. Did the coundel de oficio violate the CPR?
Ambulance Chasing
 The solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an
attorney, personally or through an agent in order to gain
employment.
Barratry
 The act of frequently stirring up quarrels or suits.
Champerty
 An agreement between the party suing (plaintiff) and
another person, usually an attorney, who agrees to finance
an carry the lawsuit in return for a percentage of the
recovery.
Champertous Contract
 One where the lawyer agrees to conduct the litigation on
his own account and to pay the expenses thereof, and to
receive as his fee a portion of the proceeds of the
judgment. In effect, he is investing in the case with the
expectation of making profit. Hence, prohibited. The
practice of law is a profession and not a business venture.
Contingent Fee Contract
 An agreement in which the lawyer’s fee is fixed upon what
may be recovered in the action. It is a valid agreement
because the lawyer does not undertake to shoulder the
expenses of the litigation.
BAR 2011, No. 29:
 Atty. Melissa witnessed the car accident that resulted in
injury to Manny, a friend of hers. While visiting him at the
hospital, she advised him about what action he needed to
take regarding the accident. Is Atty. Melissa subject to
disciplinary action if she eventually handles the case for
him?
a) No, because Melissa did not directly volunteer her
services.
b) No, because Manny happened to be a friend.
c) Yes, she engaged in typical ambulance chasing.
d) Yes, because she should have offered her services for
free.
Canon 3 – A lawyer in making known his legal services shall
use only true, honest, fair dignified and objective information
or statement of facts.
Rule 3.01 – A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any
false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-
laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his
qualification or legal services.
PROBLEM #1:
Published in the Sunday Tribune of June 13, 1943:
Marriage license promptly secured thru our assistance and
the annoyance of delay or publicity avoided if desired, and
marriage arranged to wishes of parties. Consultation on any
matter free for the poor. Everything confidential.
Legal Assistance Service
12 Escolta Manila Room 105
Tel No.: 2-41-60
Q: Is there a violation of the CPR?
A: In the case of The Director of Religious Affairs vs. Atty.
Bayot, AC No. L-1117, March 20, 1944.
PROBLEM #2:
Election Material:
LUIS B. TAGORDA
Attorney
Notary Public
CANDIDATE FOR THIRD MEMBER
Province of Isabela
(NOTE – As notary public, he can execute for you a deed of
sale for the purchase of land as required by the cadastral
office; can renew lost documents of your animals; can make
your application and final requisites for your homestead; and
can execute any kind of affidavit. As a lawyer, he can help you
collect your loans although long overdue, as well as any
complaint for or against you. Come or write to him in his
town, Echague, Isabela. He offers free consultation, and is
willing to help and serve the poor.)
Q: Is there a violation of the CPR here?
A: In the case of LUIS B TAGORDA, March 23, 1929. Apply
Rule 3.01.
A letter sent to a Barrio Lieutenant by Atty. Tagorda;
MY DEAR LIEUTENANT: x x x I would request your kind
favor to transmit this information to your barrio people in any
of your meetings or social gatherings so that they may be
informed of my desire to live and too serve with you in my
capacity as lawyer and notary public. If the people in your
locality have not as yet contracted the services of other
lawyers in connection with the registration of their land titles,
I would be willing to handle the work in court and would
charge only three pesos for every registration.
Was there any violation of the CPR?
PROBLEM #3:
Front side of the calling card:
ICOMEDES TOLENTINO
LAW OFFICE
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES WITH
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Fe Marie L. Labiano
 Paralegal
Address: Tel. No.:
5th Avenue, Caloocan City. 362-7820
Q: Is there a violation of the CPR?
2012 BAR, NO. 21:
Atty. Nelson recently passed the bar and wanted to specialize
in marine labor law. He gave out his calling cards with his
name, address and telephone number in front and the
following words at the back “We provide legal assistance to
overseas seaman who are repatriated due to accident, injury or
death. We also offer FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE”. Does this
constitute ethical misconduct?
a) No, clients have freedom in the selection of their
counsel.
b) No, use of professional card is a lawful way of
announcing his legal services.
c) Yes, because the offer of the financial assistance is an
undignified way of luring clients.
d) Yes, because the offer of assistance is stated at the
back.
CASE: A former judge now private practitioner used the title
“Judge” in his office letterhead, correspondences and
billboards erected in several areas within the San Jose
Subdivision sometime in October 2011. Was there a violation
of the CPR?
ANSWER: in the case of San Hose Homeowners Association,
Inc. vs. Atty. Romanillos, Ac No. 5580, June 15, 2005. x x x
the title “Judge” should be served only to judges, incumbent
and retired, and not to those who were dishonourably
discharged from the service. x x x the right to retain and use
said title applies only to the aforementioned members of the
bench and no other, and certainly not to those who were
removed or dismissed from the judiciary, such as the
respondent.
CASE: Atty. Khan, Jr. vs. Atty. Simbillo, AC No. 5299,
August 19, 2003.
Published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer & Buy and Sell
Free Ads Newspaper
ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/ 521-
26672
Q: Is there a violation of the CPR here?
A: Legal profession is different from a business:
1. The duty of public service, and emolument is a by-
product; but one may attain the highest eminence
without making much money.
2. The relation as an “officer of the court” to the
administration of justice involves sincerity, integrity
and reliability.
3. The relation to clients must be in the highest degree
of fiduciary.
4. The relation to colleagues is characterized by candor,
fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current
business methods of advertising and encroachment on
their practice, or dealing directly with their clients.
CASE: Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, Inc. BM No. 553, June 17,
1993.
Published in a newspaper:
SECRET MARRIAGE?
Php 560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE ABSENCE, ANNULMENT, and VISA.
Please call: 521-0767, 8:30am-6:00pm., 7th floor, Victoria
Bldg., UN Ave., Manila.
Q: Is there a violation of the CPR here?
A: As a General Rule – ADVERTISEMENT IS
PROHIBITED.
Exception:
1. Publication in Reputable Law Lists of brief informative
data: lawyer’s name, professional associates; addresses,
telephone numbers, cable addresses; branches of law
practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the
bar; schools attended with dates of graduation, etc.
2. Simple Professional Card with name, the name of the law
firm, address, telephone number, and special branch of
law practiced;
3. A Simple Announcement of the Opening of the Law firm
or of changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or
office address;
4. Listing in the Telephone Directory;
5. Advertisements or Simple Announcement of the
existence of a lawyer or his law firm posted anywhere it
is proper such as his place of business or residence
except courtrooms and government buildings.
“GOOD REPUTATION IS THE BEST FORM OF
ADVERTISEMENT” – Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, Inc.
CASE: Intestate Estate of Jose Uy vs. Atty. Maghari III, AC
No. 10525, September 1, 2015.
Q: A lawyer copied the IBP Receipt number, PTR number,
Roll number of another lawyer in his pleading. Is there a
violation here?
A: In using false information taken from another, a lawyer
misleads courts, parties, and colleagues into believing that he
is faithfully, truthfully, and decently discharging his functions.
Rule 3.04 – A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value
to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in
return for, publicity to attract legal business.
Rule 3.02 – In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading
or assumed name shall be used. The continued use of the name
of a deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm
indicated in all its communications that said partner is
deceased.
BAR 1994, No. 3:
 The law firm of Rodriguez, Delfin, and Zafra had been in
existence for almost 25 years and had built up an excellent
reputation and a well-heeled clientele. Sometime last year,
partner Zafra died of coronary disease but Rodriguez and
Delfin refused to drop his name from the firm name. May
Rodriguez and Delfin insist on keeping the name of Zafra
as part of the firm’s name?
CASE: Atty. Dacanay vs. Baker and McKenzie, et al. ACNo
2131, May 10, 1985.
 Practising law under a foreign law firm is unethical
because it is not authorized to practice law here in the
Philippines.
Canon 4 – A lawyer shall participate in the development of
the legal system by initiating or supporting efforts in law
reform and in the improvement of the administration of
justice.
CASE: Atty. Magno vs. Atty. Velasco-Jacoba, AC No. 6296,
November 22, 2005.
 Atty. X filed a complaint against her uncle. At the
barangay conciliation Atty. Y appeared as Attorney-in-fact
of the uncle accompanied by the uncle’s son. Atty. X
objected but Atty. Y said that the uncle is entitled to be
 represented (attorney-in-fact) by a lawyer inasmuch as
complainant is herself a lawyer. Did Atty. Y violate Canon
4?
 ANSWER: She did not support the development of the
legal system.
 The personal appearance of the parties is required in
katarungan pambarangay conciliation proceedings,
unassisted by counsel or representative x x x the exception
being in case where minors or incompetents are parties.
There can be no quibbling that laymen of goodwill can
easily agree to conciliate and settle their disputes between
themselves without what sometimes is the unsettling
assistance of lawyers whose presence could sometimes
obfuscate and confuse issues. Worse still, the participation
of lawyers with their penchant to use their analytical skills
and legal knowledge tend to prolong instead of expedite
settlement of the case.
CASE: Ortigas Plaza Dev. Corp. vs. Atty. Timulak, AC No.
11385, March 14, 2017.
 Atty. Tumulak used a Spanish title to assert his client’s
claim over a piece of property and to enter the property
with guards. How did Atty. Tumulak violate Canon 5?
 He ought to know, that property claims based on Spanish
title can no longer be cited as legitimate basis for
ownership as of February 16, 1976, under PD No. 892. He
is also presumed to know that the SC promulgated a case
specifically addressing the fake titles arising from spurious
“Deed of Assignment” of the supposed Estate of Don
Hermogenes Rodriguez.
 Atty. Tumulak is presumed to know the developments in
SP No. IR 1110 not only by virtues of his becoming an
assignee of the estate but also because of his being a
lawyer with the constant responsibility of keeping abreast
of legal developments.
CASE: Sps. Williams vs. Atty. Enriquez, AC No. 6353,
February 27, 2006
 Atty. Enriquez charged Marissa Williams with falsification
of public documents (TCT) and alleged that Marisa
“automatically lost her Filipino citizenship when she
married an American, and was this prohibited to own land
in the Philippines.” How did Atty. Enriquez violate Canon
5?
 YES. As a retired judge, he should have known that it is
his duty to keep himself well-informed of the latest rulings
of on the issues and legal problems confronting his client.
In this case, he apparently misconstrued is no less than the
Constitution.
BAR MATTER 850, October 2, 2001, MANDATORY
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION: To ensure that the
lawyers keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the
ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the
practice of law.
 1st Compliance Period: April 15, 2001 up to April 14,
2004.
 6th Compliance Period: April 15, 2016 up to April 14,
2019.
 The initial compliance period after admission or
readmission shall begin on the first day of the month of
admission or readmission and shall end on the same day as
that of all other members in the same Compliance Group.
IBP Members unless exempt shall complete every three (3)
years at least thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal
education activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the
thirty-six (36) hours:
 Six (6) hours = Legal Ethics
 Four (4) hours = Trial & Pre-trial Skills
 Five (5) hours = Alternative Dispute Resolution
 Nine (9) hours = Substantive & Procedural Laws or
Jurisprudence
 Four (4) hours = Legal Writing & Oral Advocacy
 Two (2) hours = International Law & Conventions
 Six (6) hours = MCLE prescribed subjects
(Technology & the Law, Law & Economics,
Environmental Law International Legal Processes,
Transnational Business Transactions, Law Reforms in
Specific Areas, Law as a Means of Social Control)
Exempted from the MCLE:
a) President, Vice-President, Secretary, and U-
Secretary;
b) Senators, Congressmen;
c) Incumbent or retired members of the judiciary,
incumbent members of the JBC & incumbent court
lawyers covered Philja;
d) Chief state counsel, Chief state prosecutor, DOJ
Asec;
e) SolGen and the Asst SolGen;
f) Gov’t corporate counsel, Dep & Asst. Gov Corporate
Counsel;
g) Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional
Commission;
h) Ombudsman, Dep Ombudsman, Special Prosecutor;
i) Head of gov’t agencies exercising quasi-judicial
functions;
j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers & professors of law
who have teaching experience for at least ten (10)
years in accredited law schools;
k) Chancellor, VC & professors or lecturers of Philja;
and
l) Governors & mayors.
Other parties exempted:
a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public;
and
b) Those who have retired from law practice with the
approval of the IBP Board of Governors.
CASE: Arnado vs. Atty. Adaza, AC No. 9834, August 26,
2015
 Atty. Adaza was wondering why his exemption was not
granted by the MCLE Governing Board despite his fifty
(50) years of experience and being counsel of famous
political figures.
 SC: His requests for exemption were late. He does not
qualify to be an expert. Also, the Court notes the
lackadaisical attitude of respondent towards complying
with the requirement of BM No. 850. He assumed that his
application for exemption, filed after the compliance
periods, would be granted.
BAR 2011, No. 1:
 Atty. Mike started teaching Agrarian Reform in June 2001
at the Arts and Sciences Dept. In 2005, he moved to the
College of Law teaching Political Law. Is Atty. Mike
exempt from complying with the MCLE for the 4 th
compliance period in April 2013?
a) No, since he has yet to complete the required
teaching experience to be exempt.
b) No, because he is not yet a bar reviewer.
c) Yes, since by April 2013, he will have been teaching
law for more than ten (10) years.
d) Yes, since he updated himself in law by engaging in
teaching.
Sanctions:
 A member who, for whatever reason, is in non-compliance
at the end of the compliance period shall pay a non-
compliance fee.
 A member who fails to comply with the requirements after
the sixty (60) day period for compliance has expired, shall
be listed as a delinquent member of the IBP upon the
recommendation of the MCLE Committee.
AM No. 17-03-09-SC Rule on Community Legal Aid
Service:
 A lawyer who successfully complies with this rule is given
thirty-six (36) MCLE units for the three (3) year period of
compliance.
attempted homicide of Mario C. Macato.” --- he violated
the CPR Rule 14.01 directs lawyers not to discriminate
clients as to their belief of the guilt of the latter. Though he
might think of his clients as that, still it is unprofessional to
be labelling an event as such.

QUIZ #1: BAR 1996, Question #2(3):

 A lawyer advertised in the newspaper the following:
“Expert in annulment of marriage. Fast and sure. Consult
anytime.”
Is the advertisement proper? Explain.
(CASE: The Director of Religious Affairs vs. Atty. Bayot,
AC No. L-1117, March 20, 1944)
 ANSWER: Law is a profession and not a trade. The
lawyer degrades himself and his profession who stoops to
and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his
services or offering them to the public.
QUIZ #2:
 What preparations must a law student make so that when
he becomes a lawyer he can be effective in his profession?
Describe.
Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence
and diligence.
Canon 18, Rule 18.01 – A lawyer shall not undertake a legal
service which he knows or should know that he is not
qualified to render. However, he may render such service if,
with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating
counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.
Canon 18, Rule 18.02 – A lawyer shall not handle any legal
matter without adequate preparation.
Canon 18, Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
Canon 18, Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the client’s request for information.
Canon 15, Rule 15.05 – A lawyer when advising his client,
shall give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and
probable results of the client’s case, neither overstating nor
understating the prospects of the case.
Canon 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal
within the bounds of the law.
 Should a lawyer (as counsel de parte) represent an accused
in a losing criminal case?
BAR 1990, Question #2:
 Your services as a lawyer are engaged by John Dizon to
defend him from the charges of Malversation of public
funds before the Sandiganbayan. John confessed to you
that he actually misappropriated the amount charged but he
said it was out of extreme necessity to pay for the
emergency operation of his wife. Will you agree to defend
him? State your reason.
Canon 19, Rule 19.02 – A lawyer who has received
information that his client has, in the course of the
representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal,
shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and
failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such
client in accordance with the Rules of Court.
Article 208 - Prosecution of offenses; negligence and
tolerance, Revised Penal Code:
 The penalty of prisional correccional in its minimum
period and suspension shall be imposed upon any public
officer, or officer of the law, who, in dereliction of the
duties of his office, shall maliciously refrain from
instituting prosecution for the punishment of violators of
the law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses.
CASE: Dalisay vs. Atty. Mauricio, Jr. AC No. 5655, January
23, 2006
 A engaged Atty X to represent her in a civil case. She her
documents and paid him his fees. But failed to file her
Answer. So she terminated his services and asked for the
documents and payment back. Atty. X refused. So she sued
him. During the pendency of the admin case, Atty. X sued
A for falsification using the document she gave him and
alleged in the admin case that he refused to render legal
service because of A’s fraudulent act.
 Q: Would the filing of the criminal case against A excuse
Atty. X in the admin case?
 SC: No. He should have confronted complainant and ask
her to rectify her fraudulent representation before the
lawyer-client relationship terminated. If complainant
refuses, then he should terminate his relationship with
her under Rule 19.02.

Canon 19, Rule 19.01 – A lawyer shall employ only fair and Retaining Lien Charging Lien
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and Also called as possessory or Also called special lien.
shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to general lien.
present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper Passive right; cannot be May be enforced.
advantage in the any case or proceeding. enforced.
Right to retain the documents Atty’s specific lien for
Canon 15, Rule 15.07 – A lawyer shall impress upon his and papers as against the compensation on the fund or
client compliance with the laws and principles of fairness. client, until the attorney is judgment which he has
fully paid, the exception recovered by means of his
[MIDTERM COVERAGE] – 2nd Discussion being that funds of the client professional services for his
in the attorney’s possession client in a particular case.
Canon 14, Rule 14.01 – A lawyer shall not decline to may be applied to the
represent a person solely on account of the latter’s race, sex, satisfaction of his fees.
creed, or status of life, or because of his own opinion For the balance of the Atty has secured a favorable
regarding the guilt of said person. account, and attaches to the money judgment for his client
client’s documents and funds in a specific case.
CASE: Francisco, et al. vs. Atty. Portugal, AC No. 6155, in the atty’s possession
March 15, 2006. regardless of the outcome,
 When Atty. Portugal described his clients as: “the accused favorable or adverse, of any
police officers who had been convicted of homicide for the cases he may have handled
salvage of Froilan G. Cabiling and Jose M. Chua and for his client.
Rules under the CPR that governs the behaviour of the
lawyer in relation to the Court:
a) Canon 10 – A lawyer owed candor, fairness and good
faith to the court;
b) Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
c) Rule 10.02 – A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or
misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the
argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or
authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already
rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert
as a fact that which has not been proved.
d) Canon 11 – A lawyer shall observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and
should insist on similar conduct by others.
e) Rule 11.01 – A lawyer shall appear in court properly
attired.
f) Rule 11.02 – A lawyer shall punctually appear at court
hearings.
g) Rule 11.03 – A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language or behaviour before the
courts.
h) Rule 11.04 – A lawyer shall not attribute to a judge
motive not supported by the record or have no materiality
to the case.
i) Rule 11.05 – A lawyer shall submit grievances against a
Judge to the proper authorities only.
j) Rule 12.04 – A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case,
impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court
processes.
k) Rule 12.05 – A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his
witness during a break or recess in the trial, while the
witness is still under examination.
Rule 20.01 - A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors
in determining his fees:
a) The time spent and the extent of the service rendered or
required;
b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
c) The importance of the subject matter;
d) The skill demanded;
e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of
acceptance of the proffered case;
f) The customary charges for similar services and the
schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs;
g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits
resulting to the client from the service;
h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;
i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or
established; and
j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
[FINAL EXAM COVERAGE]
Canon 12, Rule 12.08 – A lawyer shall avoid testifying in
behalf of his client, except:
a) On formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication
or custody of an instrument, and the like; or
Note: In the term “matters”, P.I., if trial is proper,
must withdraw as Counsel.
b) On substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is
essential to the ends of justice, in which event he must,
during his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to
another counsel.
CASE: Santiago vs. Atty. Rafanan, AC No. 6252, October 5,
2004.
 The reason behind such rule is the difficulty posed upon
lawyers by the task of dissociating their relation to their
clients as witnesses from that as advocates. Witnesses are
expected to tell the facts as they recall them. In
contradistinction, advocates are partisans – those who
actively plead and defend the cause of others. It is difficult
to distinguish the fairness and impartiality of a
disinterested witness from the zeal of an advocate. The
question is one of propriety rather than of competency of
the lawyers who testify for their clients.
BAR 2014 VII:
 The court ordered Atty. Z to testify as a witness for his
client in the very case he is handling, by the refused on the
ground that it would violate the rule on privileged
communication. Atty. Z is guilty of: (1%)
a) Direct Contempt
b) Indirect Contempt
c) Violation of his duty to the Court
Canon 13 – A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause
and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or
gives the appearance of influencing the court.
CASE: Vantage Lightning Phils, et al. vs. Atty. Dino, Jr.
A.C. No 7389, July 2, 2019.
 Vantage engaged Atty. Dino to file a complaint. Days after
it was filed, Atty. Dino informed Vantage to pay Php150K
to the judge for the issuance of a TRO.
 As an officer of the Court, Atty. Dino has a paramount
duty to protect the court’s integrity and assist it in the
administration of justice according to law. He should not
espouse a belief that the judicial system can be bought,
much less contribute to the perpetuation of such belief.
Unfortunately, instead of relying on the merits of his
clients’ cause, Atty. Dino represented to his clients that the
judicial system can be bribed. This inexcusable, shameful
and unlawful act constituting gross misconduct.
CASE: Domingo vs. Atty. Revilla, Jr. AC No. 5473, January
23, 2018.
 Domingo engaged Atty. Revilla to sue his cousin and to
work on the settlement of the estate of his late mother.
Atty. Revilla later told Domingo: That the Judge x x x
handling the case for the cancellation of the adoption
[would] rule in petitioner’s favor only if he would give to
the Judge 10% of the value of the property in Better Living
Subdivision, Parafiaque City; That the Judge agreed on x
x x Php 200,000.00 but he (respondent) needed an
additional Php 50,000.00 “for the boys” in the CA and
SC.
 Members of the Bench are tasked with ensuring the ends of
justice are served. Such negative imputations against them
and the collegial bodies of the Judiciary on the part of the
respondent tended to erode the trust and confidence of the
people in our judicial system. Court must severely reprove
the respondent.
Rule 15.06 – A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able
to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.
Canon 13, Rule 13.01 – A lawyer shall not extend
extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity
for cultivating familiarity with Judges.
CASE: Judge Paas vs. Almarvez, AM No. P-03-1690, April 4,
2003.
 Atty. Paas used hi judge-wife’s office as his return address
for notices and orders of his two crim cases, lodged at the
Pasay City RTC.
 His reason: convenience.
 He was suspended. He had no purpose other than to try to
impress either the court in which his cases are lodged, or
his client, that he has close ties to a member of the
judiciary.
Canon 13, Rule 13.02 – A lawyer shall not make public
statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to
arouse public opinion for or against a party.
Example: When the Solicitor General asks for gag order on
plea to cancel ABS-CBN’s franchise.
SUB JUDICE RULE: Gag Order
Re: Show Cayse Order, AM No 18-06-01-SC, July 17, 2018.
 Sub Judice is a Latin term which refers to matters under or
before a judge or court; or matters under judicial
consideration. In essence, the sub judice rule restricts
comments and disclosures pertaining to pending judicial
proceedings. The restriction applies to litigants and
witnesses, the public in general, and most especially to
members of the Bar and the Bench.
 There is no specific rule on sub judice but it finds support
in provision on INDIRECT CONTEMPT under S 3 R 71
ROC;
Sec. 3: Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and
hearing. – x x x, a person guilty of any of the following
acts may be punished for indirect contempt:
xxxx
c ) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the
processes or proceedings of a court not constituting direct
contempt under Section1 of this Rule;
d ) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;
CASE: Re: Suspension of Atty. Bagabuyo, AC No. 7006,
October 9, 2007.
 After the denial of a demurrer, Judge Tan fixed the bond of
the Accused. Prosecutor Bagabuyo moved for a recon but
was denied. Then he caused the holding of a press confab
which was the source of an article in a newspaper “Senior
prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder
suspect to bail out”. When he was investigated about this
article, he appeared for a radio interview and discussed his
disappointments about judges who to him were ignorant.
 SC: The Court is not against lawyers raising grievances
against erring judges but the rules clearly provide for the
proper venue and procedure for doing so, precisely because
respect for the institution must always be maintained.
CASE: Foodsphere, Inc. vs. Atty. Mauricio, AC No. 7199,
July 22, 2009.
 For threatening to publish articles against CDO (a party in
the BFAD case); later, for publishing the articles against
CDO because CDO did not accede to his solicitation for
advertisement; for continuing to publish articles against
CDO or discussing the issues on his radio program, despite
the pendency of cases against him, Atty. Mauricio was
suspended for three (3) years.
CASE: In the Matter of Proceedings for Disciplinary Action
Against Atty. Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654, February 18, 1970.
 Atty. Almacen filed a “Petition to Surrender lawyer’s
Certificate of Title” in protest against what he therein
asserts as “a great injustice committed against his client by
the SC, in his own phrase, as a tribunal “people by men
who are calloused to our please for justice, who ignore
without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit
culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. He
ridiculed the SC as “that justice as administered by the
present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind,
but also deaf and dumb.” He then vows to argue the cause
of his client “in the people’s forum,” so that “the people
may know of the silent injustices committed by this
Court.” He then disclosed to the press the contents of the
petitions or appeals without any reason.
 SC: We know that it is natural for a lawyer to express his
dissatisfaction each time he loses what he sanguinely
believes to be a meritorious case. That is why lawyers are
given ‘wide latitude to differ with, and voice their
disapproval of, not only the courts’ rulings but, also the
manner in which they are handed down.
 Like any other Government entity in a viable democracy,
the Court is not, and should not be, above criticism. But a
critique of the Court must be intelligent and discriminating,
fitting to its high function as the court of last resort. And
more than this, valid and healthy criticism is by no means
synonymous to obloquy, and requires detachment and
disinterestedness, real qualities approached only through
constant striving to attain them. Any criticism of the Court
must, possess the quality of judiciousness and must be
informed –by perspective and infused by philosophy.
BAR 2015 XVI:
 Atty. Luna Tek maintains an account in the social media
network called Twitter and has 1,000 followers there,
including fellow lawyers and some clients. Her Twitter
account is public so even her non-followers could see and
read her posts, which are called tweets. She oftentimes
takes to Twitter to vent about her daily sources of stress
like traffic or to comment about current events. She also
tweets her disagreement and disgust with the decisions of
the Supreme Court by insulting and blatantly cursing the
individual Justices and the Court as an institution.
 Q: Does Atty. Luna Tek act in a manner consistent with
the CPR? Explain. (3%)
Canon 13, Rule 13.03 – A lawyer shall not brook or invite
interference by another branch or agency of the government in
the normal course of judicial proceedings.
Canon 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the
integrated bar. (Integrated Bar of the Philippines, est:
January, 1973.)
RULE 139-A: Integrated Bar of the Philippines
 IBP is composed of all persons whose names now appear
or may hereafter be included in the Roll of Attorneys of the
Supreme Court.
 Fundamental purposes:
o Elevate the standards of the legal profession;
o Improve the administration of justice;
o Enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility
more effectively.
Note:
 The IBP is governed by a Board of Governors. Nine (9)
Governors shall be elected by the House of Delegates from
the nine (9) regions.
 The IBP is non-political. The Integrated Bar shall be
strictly non-political, and every activity tending to impair
this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be
penalized accordingly.
CASE: Tabuzo vs. Atty. Gomos, AC No. 12005, July 23,
2018.
 The IBP is a sui generis public institution deliberately
organized, by both the legislative and judicial branches of
government and recognized by the present and past
Constitutions, for the advancement of the legal profession.
 But the IBP Commissioners are not “public officers” in the
context of Sec. 3(b) of RA No. 6713, Art. 203 of the RPC,
Sec. 4€38 of RA No. 9485, or even Sec. 2(b)40 of RA No.
3019. They may be held administratively liable only in
relation to their functions as IBP officers not as
government officials.
Note:
 No lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or
prosecutor office in the Government or any political
subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be eligible for
election of appointment to any position in the Integrated
bar od any Chapter thereof shall be considered ipso facto
resigned from his position as of the moment he files his
certificate of candidacy for any elective public office or
accepts appointment to any judicial, quasi-judicial, or
prosecutor office in the Government or any political
subdivision or instrumentality thereof.
BAR 2014 XVIII
 The IBP may intervene in a case involving a matter of
public law or professional concern as: (1%)
a) Friend of the Court
b) Amicus par Excellence
c) Amicus Curiae
 Answer: Amicus Curiae Par Excellence
BAR 2012 No. 27
 During the IBP Chapter elections, the candidates for
President were Atty. EJ, a labor arbiter of the NLRC,
Fiscal RJ of the DOJ and Atty. Gani of the PAO. After
canvass, Fiscal RJ garnered the highest number of votes,
followed by Arbiter EJ and Atty. Gani. The winning Vice
President moved for the annulment of the election for
President because all the candidates for President are
government officials and are disqualified. Choose your
answer:
a) The election for presidency is invalid, and the elected
VP shall assume the presidency by succession.
b) The election is a failure, and new elections should be
held.
c) Fiscal RJ and Arbiter EJ are disqualified. Atty. Gani
should be declared winner.
d) All the candidates who are government officials are
deemed resigned upon their acceptance of
nomination; and so, Fiscal RJ is the winner.
Canon 7, 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.
CASE: Tumbaga vs Atty Teoxon, AC No5573 November 21,
2017
 For engaging in an extra marital affair, denying his son
with his other woman; filing a replevin case just so he
could retrieve his clothes and furniture from this woman;
refuting his signatures in the Acknowledgment of Birth,
Atty. Teoxon violated the CPR and was suspended for
three (3) years.
CASE: Vasco-Tamaray vs Atty Daquis AC No.10868 Jan 26,
2016
 Pretending to be counsel for the W in an annulment case;
encouraging the W not to oppose the case; and using a
forged signature of the W in a pleading merit Atty Daquis,
the penalty of disbarment.
 The practice of law is imbued with public interest. The
lawyer takes part in one of the most important functions of
the State --- the administration of justice as an officer of
the court. Accordingly, lawyers must maintain a high
standard of legal proficiency, morality, honest, integrity
and fair dealing.
Canon 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,
fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and
shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
CASE: Tabuzo vs Atty Gomos AC No. 12005 July 23, 2018
 Complainant averred that respondent was very cruel and
heartless to an inexperienced lawyer when he mutilated
statements made in her pleadings in CBD Case No. 12-
3457; and that he maliciously cropped and pasted portions
of complainant's statement in her position paper to give the
wrong impression before the IBP-Board of Governors
(Board) that the introductory heading was an act of name
calling against respondent, thereby violating Rules 1.01
and 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rules 3.01, 3.02, and 3.04 of
Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
 Lawyers are reminded to treat their fellow members of the
legal profession and even their non-lawyer adversaries
with utmost candor, respect and dignity. More importantly,
the primary purpose of administrative disciplinary
proceedings against delinquent lawyers is to uphold the
law and to prevent the ranks of the legal profession from
being corrupted by unscrupulous practices—not to shelter
or nurse a wounded ego. Such is the reason why lawyers
should always set a good example in not using the law and
the rules as weapons or tools of malicious vindication
during petty squabbles as it degrades the credibility of the
legal profession and tarnishes its integrity.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings,
use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper.
CASE: Canete vs Atty Puti AC No. 10949 August 14, 2019
 In her complaint, Canete claimed that her husband was a
victim in a criminal case for kidnapping for ransom with
double murder filed against Atty. Puti's client. Canete
averred that Atty. Puti had, in numerous occasions,
appeared in court while he was intoxicated and made
discourteous and inappropriate remarks against the public
and private prosecutors as well as the judge.
 Canete claimed that Atty. Puti provoked her private
counsel, Atty. Arturo Tan (Atty. Tan), by calling him
"bakla" in open court during the hearing.
 To recall, Atty. Puti called Atty. Tan "bakla" in a
condescending manner. To be sure, the term "bakla" (gay)
itself is not derogatory. It is used to describe a male person
 who is attracted to the same sex. Thus, the term in itself is
not a source of offense as it is merely descriptive.
However, when "bakla" is used in a pejorative and
deprecating manner, then it becomes derogatory. Such
offensive language finds no place in the courtroom or in
any other place for that matter.
CASE: Foodsphere Inc vs Atty Mauricio AC No.7199 July
22, 2009
 Foodsphere filed a complaint for disbarment against the
defendant for (1) grossly immoral conduct; (2) violation of
lawyer’s oath and (3) disrespect to the courts and to
investigating prosecutors.
 This is because during the respondent, in his radio program
Double B- Batas ng Bayan at radio station DZBB,
announced the holding of a supposed contest sponsored by
said program, which announcement was transcribed as
follows:, ‘aling liver spread ang may uod?’ and “aling liver
spread ang may uod at anong companya ang gumagawa
nyan? Itawag po ninyo sa 433-7549 st 433-7553. Open po
an[g] contest na ito sa lahat ng ating tagapakinig.” And
many more.
 Apropos is the following reminder in Saberon v. Larong:
To be sure, the adversarial nature of our legal system has
tempted members of the bar to use strong language in
pursuit of their duty to advance the interests of their
clients.
However, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with
vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use
of offensive and abusive language. Language abounds with
countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but
respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but
not offensive.1awphi1
 On many occasions, the Court has reminded members of
the Bar to abstain from all offensive personality and to
advance no fact prejudicial to the honor and reputation of a
party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause
with which he is charged. In keeping with the dignity of
the legal profession, a lawyer’s language even in his
pleadings must be dignified. Atty. Maurico was suspended.
CASE: Atty Barandon Jr vs Atty Ferrer Sr AC No.5768
March 26, 2010
 When Atty. Ferrer said, “Laban kung lakban, patayan kung
patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang
magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte, ang abogado na
rito ay mga taga Camarines Sur, umuwi na kayo sa
Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito,” he did so to annoy,
and discredit Atty. Barandon in public. These language is
unbecoming a member of the legal profession.
 Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic,
it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the
dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate
language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity
of judicial forum.
CASE: Washington vs Atty Dicen AC No.12137 July 9, 2018
 Complainant alleged Washington went to her house in
Dumaguete City, then occupied by the family of her niece,
Roselyn R. Toralde (Roselyn), in order to perform
necessary repairs thereon after discovering that said house
was in a dilapidated state and badly infested by
termites. The repairs, however, did not push through as
planned because the police arrived in the premises and
arrested complainant and her companions. Complainant
claimed that it was Atty. Dicen, Roselyn's uncle and her
first cousin, who had ordered her to be arrested for
trespassing even though she was the lawful owner of the
property in question.
 In his defense, Atty. Dicen strongly denied that he had
given the police officers an order to arrest complainant, as
he had no power or authority to do so. He argued that
complainant was arrested after she was caught in flagrante
delicto committing acts of coercion by removing the G.I.
sheet roofing of Roselyn's house to force the latter and her
family to move out.
 It is the observation of the respondent that complainant is
no longer thinking on her own but has become fixated on
her illicit and immoral, if not adulterous relationship with
her ex-husband, Martin Vince, (while current husband is in
the [United States] reportedly recuperating from a
surgery), a foreigner who by the latter's manipulation
caused her to be estranged from the entire Flores-Dicen
clan.
 The IBP thus concluded that Atty. Dicen had failed to
adhere to the duty imposed upon lawyers not to use
language "which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper." It noted that Atty. Dicen's use of offensive
language "and his resort to gossip to prove a point, fell
short of the gracious, gentlemanly, courteous, dignified,
civil and temperate (even if forceful) language required of
him as a lawyer."
CASE: Pobre vs Sen. Defensor-Santiago AC No.7399 August
25, 2009
 Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s speech delivered on
the Senate floor: “ x x x I am no longer interested in the
position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by
idiots. I would rather be in another environment but not in
the Supreme Court of idiots x x x.” For doing so, the SC
called her actions offensive and unparliamentary. But
because of Article VI, Section 11 [No member shall be
questions nor be held liable x x x for any speech in
Congress]; the case against her is dismissed.
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach
upon the professional employment of another lawyer,
however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to
give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief
against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
CASE: Linsangan vs Atty Tolentino AC No.6672 Sept 4,
2009
 For convincing the clients of Linsangan, Linsangan &
Linsangan Law Office, through paralegal Fe Maria
Labiano, to transfer representation to Atty. Tolentino, the
latter committed an unethical, predatory overstep into
another’s legal practice.
 A lawyer should not steal another lawyer’s client nor
induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better
service, good result or reduced fees for his services.
CASE: Garcia vs Atty Lopez AC No. 6422 August 28, 2007
 Complainant Atty. Wilfredo T. Garcia charged respondent
Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez with violation of his oath as a
member of the bar and officer of the court, and
misrepresentation, amounting to perjury and prayed that
respondent be suspended or disbarred.
 Complainant was the counsel of Sarmiento, the original
applicant. Upon her death, the attorney-client relationship
was terminated. However, complainant was retained as
counsel by Gina Jarviña and Alfredo Ku. In filing an
entry of appearance with motion of postponement in behalf
of the "compulsory heirs of the late Angelita Sarmiento"
when in truth he was merely representing some of the heirs
but not all of them, respondent was guilty of
misrepresentation which could have deceived the court. He
had no authorization to represent all the heirs.
 Respondent failed to observe the foregoing rules (Rule
8.02). He made it appear that he was entering his
appearance as counsel for all the heirs of Sarmiento which
was highly unfair to complainant who had worked on the
case from the very beginning (i.e. since 1996) and who had
not been discharged as such. It is true that without the
formal withdrawal of complainant as counsel of record,
respondent would merely be considered as collaborating
counsel. Nevertheless, by being less than candid about
 whom he was representing, respondent undeniably
encroached upon the legal functions of complainant as the
counsel of record. law library
 We cannot casually brush aside what respondent did. Even
assuming that it was not a calculated deception, he was still
remiss in his duty to his fellow lawyer and the court. He
should have been more careful about his actuation since
the court was relying on him in its task of ascertaining the
truth.
 WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez is
hereby SUSPENDED.
Canon 9 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in
the unauthorized practice of law.
Review: What are the requirements before one can practice
law? or Continue to practice law?
Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified
person the performance of any task which by law may only be
performed by a member of the bar in good standing.
Non-lawyers who may practice law
Rule 138 Sections 1 and 34 Rules of Court
 Section 1. Who may practice law. — Any person
heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or
hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the
provisions of this rule, and who is in good and regular
standing, is entitled to practice law.
 Section 34. By whom litigation conducted. — In the court
of a justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation
in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by
him for the purpose, or with the aid an attorney. In any
other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or
by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either
personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.
Rule 138-A Rules of Court Law Student Practice AM 19-03-
24-SC
 Please read the amendments online.
Rule 116 Section 7 Rules of Court
 Sec. 7. Appointment of counsel de officio. – The court,
considering the gravity of the offense and the difficulty of
the questions that may arise, shall appoint as counsel de
officio such members of the bar in good standing who, by
reason of their experience and ability, can competently
defend the accused. But in localities where such members
of the bar are not available, the court may appoint any
person, resident of the province and of good repute for
probity and ability, to defend the accused.
Art 222 Labor Code of the Philippines
 Non-lawyers may appear before the Commission or any
Labor Arbiter only:
 
1. If they represent themselves; or
2. If they represent their organization or members
thereof.
 No attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of
any kind arising from any collective bargaining agreement
shall be imposed on any individual member of the
contracting union: Provided, However, that attorney’s fees
may be charged against union funds in an amount to be
agreed upon by the parties. Any contract, agreement or
arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall be null and
void.
Section 9 Act 2259
 Sec. 9. Any person claiming any interest in any part of the
lands, whether named in the notice or not, shall appear
before the Court by himself, or by some person in his
behalf and shall file an answer on or before the return day
or within such further time as may be allowed by the
Court. The answer shall be signed and sworn to by the
claimant or by some person in his behalf, and shall state
whether the claimant is married or unmarried, and, if
married, the name of the husband or wife and the date of
the marriage, and shall also contain:
a) The age of the claimant.
b) The cadastral number of the lot or lots claimed, as
appearing on the plan filed in the case by the Director
of Lands, or the block and lot numbers, as the case
may be.
c) The name of the barrio and municipality, township,
or settlement in which the lots are situated.
d) The names of the owners of the adjoining lots as far
as known to the claimant.
e) If the claimant is in possession of the lots claimed
and can show no express grant of the land by the
Government to him or to his predecessors in interest,
the answer shall state the length of time he has held
such possession and the manner in which it has been
acquired, and shall also state the length of time, as far
as known, during which his predecessors, if any, held
possession.
f) If the claimant is not in possession or occupation of
the lands, the answer shall fully set forth the interest
claimed by him and the time and manner of its
acquisition.
g) If the lots have been assessed for taxation, their last
assessed value.
h) The encumbrance, if any, affecting the lots and the
names of the adverse claimants as far as known.
CASE: Ang vs Atty Gupana AC No.4545 February 5, 2014
 In merely relying on his clerical staff to determine the
completeness of documents brought to him for
notarization, limiting his participation in the notarization
process to simply inquiring about the identities of the
persons appearing before him, and in notarizing an
affidavit executed by a dead person, Atty. Gupana violated
Rule 9.01.
BAR 2014 VIII:
 C and D are law partners using the firm name C and D –
Attorneys-at-law. In an administrative case filed against C,
the SC found that C was not entitled to admission to the
practice of law in the Philippines and ordered his name
stricken-off from the Roll of Attorneys. As a result, C and
D changed their firm name to Law Office of D – Attorney-
at-Law, C –Counsellor, with C handling purely counselling
and office work while D is the law practitioner. Are C and
D liable for contempt of Court? Explain your answer. (5%)
CASE: Santos vs Judge Lacurom AM No RTJ-04-1823
Aug28, 2006
 The complaint stemmed from respondent judge's alleged
bias and partiality in favor of one Rogelio R. Santos, Sr.
("Santos"), who had three pending cases 1 before
respondent judge's sala.
 Respondent judge allowed Santos, a non-lawyer, to appear
in court and litigate personally the three cases.
Complainant pointed out that Santos was already
represented by counsels2 who have not withdrawn their
appearances. Complainant alleged that respondent judge is
guilty of gross misconduct and grave abuse of judicial
discretion for having allowed a non-lawyer to engage in
the practice law.
 The Rules recognize the right of an individual to represent
himself in any case in which he is a party. The Rules state
 that a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid
of an attorney, and that his appearance must be either
personal or by a duly authorized member of the Bar. The
individual litigant may personally do everything in the
progress of the action from commencement to the
termination of the litigation. A party's representation on his
own behalf is not considered to be a practice of law as "one
does not practice law by acting for himself, any more than
he practices medicine by rendering first aid to himself."
 Therefore, Santos can conduct the litigation of the cases
personally. Santos is not engaged in the practice of law if
he represents himself in cases in which he is a party. By
conducting the litigation of his own cases, Santos acts not
as a counsel or lawyer but as a party exercising his right to
represent himself. Certainly, Santos does not become a
counsel or lawyer by exercising such right.
CASE: Cruz vs Judge Mijares GR No.154464 September 11,
2008
 On March 5, 2002, Ferdinand A. Cruz (petitioner) sought
permission to enter his appearance for and on his behalf,
before the RTC, Branch 108, Pasay City, as the plaintiff in
Civil Case No. 01-0410, for Abatement of Nuisance.
Petitioner, a fourth year law student, anchors his claim on
Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court that a non-
lawyer may appear before any court and conduct his
litigation personally.
 In a motion for reconsideration, petitioner reiterated that
the basis of his appearance was not Rule 138-A, but
Section 34 of Rule 138. He contended that the two Rules
were distinct and are applicable to different circumstances,
but the respondent judge denied the same, still invoking
Rule 138-A, in an Order dated July 31, 2002.
 From the clear language of this provision of the Rules, it
will have to be conceded that the contention of the
petitioner has merit. It recognizes the right of an individual
to represent himself in any case to which he is a party. The
Rules state that a party may conduct his litigation
personally or with the aid of an attorney, and that his
appearance must either be personal or by a duly authorized
member of the Bar. The individual litigant may personally
do everything in the course of proceedings from
commencement to the termination of the
litigation. Considering that a party personally conducting
his litigation is restricted to the same rules of evidence and
procedure as those qualified to practice law, petitioner, not
being a lawyer himself, runs the risk of falling into the
snares and hazards of his own ignorance. Therefore, Cruz
as plaintiff, at his own instance, can personally conduct the
litigation of Civil Case No. 01-0410. He would then be
acting not as a counsel or lawyer, but as a party exercising
his right to represent himself.
CASE: Cabalida vs Attys Lobrido Jr & Pondevilla AC
No.7972 October 3, 2018
 The Supreme Court (SC) has suspended lawyers Danny
Pondevilla and Solomon Lobrido, Jr., after the former
negotiated a settlement with the latter’s client despite the
lack of legal assistance.
 In a recent 25-page decision, the SC 1st Division imposed
a suspension of one year on Pondevilla and six months on
Lobrido for violating Canons 8 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, respectively.
 The SC said this case articulated the ethical rules that
should “serve as a guide to all legal practitioners.”
 Lobrido’s client Angelito Cabalida, who did not finish high
school, filed a complaint against two accusing them of
colluding so that he would lose the house that was the
subject of his ejectment complaint against the house help
of his late Australian partner.
 When Cabalida negotiated and signed the settlement with
Pondevilla—the lawyer of the house help and his lessee—
he was not assisted by his lawyer Lobrido.
 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of
Governors (BOG) dismissed Cabalida’s complaint on
December 29, 2012, though the SC frowned up its
resolution for being only one paragraph long and failing to
state the legal basis.
 The SC reversed its IBP-BOG action and said Lobrido’s
gross neglect and indifference, as well as Pondevilla’s
disregard of his colleague’s duty was established by the
investigation of IBP Commissioner Wilfredo Reyes
 It pointed out that Pondevilla, “whether by design or
because of oversight,” failed to give notice to Lobrido that
he was approached by the latter’s client to pursue a
compromise.
 Pondevilla argued that a notary public explained to
Cabalida what he was signing, but the SC said the notary
public was only obligated to ensure the authenticity and
due execution of the agreement.
 Pondevilla’s liability was compounded by his unauthorized
practice of law, since he was at the time the city legal
officer of Talisay City, Negros Occidental. This was in
violation of Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
 “Perhaps this is the best time as any for this Court to
remind members of the Philippine Bar the wordings of a
covenant in the Magna Carta. ‘To no man will we sell, to
no man will we refuse, or delay, right or justice,’” read the
decision penned by then-Chief Justice Teresita Leonardo-
de Castro.
Canon 6 - These canons shall apply to lawyers in government
services in the discharge of their tasks.
CASE: Lim-Santiago vs Atty Sagucio AC No.6705 March 31,
2006
 Ruthie Lim-Santiago filed a disbarment complaint against
Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio for violating Rule 15.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and for defying the
prohibition against private practice of law while working
as government prosecutor. The complainant is the daughter
of one of the stockholder and former President of Taggat
Industries Inc where the respondent worked as a Personnel
Manager and Retained Counsel before his appointment as
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor.
 Sometime in July 1997, 21 employees of Taggat filed a
criminal complaint. They alleged that complainant, who
took over the management and control of Taggat after the
death of her father, withheld payment of their salaries and
wages without valid cause from 1 April 1996 to 15 July
1997. Respondent, as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, was
assigned to conduct the preliminary investigation. He
resolved the criminal complaint by recommending the
filing of 651 Informations for violation of Article 288 in
relation to Article 116 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines.
 Complainant now charges respondent with the following
violations:
1. Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Complainant contends that respondent is guilty of
representing conflicting interests. Respondent, being
the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of
Taggat, knew the operations of Taggat very well and
should have inhibited himself from hearing,
investigating and deciding the case filed by Taggat
employees.
2. Engaging in the private practice of law while working
as a government prosecutor
Complainant also contends that respondent is guilty of
engaging in the private practice of law while working
as a government prosecutor. Complainant presented
 evidence to prove that respondent received retainer's
fee.
 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 court finds this penalty appropriate
for respondent’s violation in this case of Rule 1.01, Canon
1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
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.
CASE: Cuenca vs CA & People GR No. 109870 December 1,
1995
 After his petition for review of the Court of Appeals'
judgment affirming his conviction for violation of the
"Trust Receipts Law" (Presidential Decree No. 115) was
denied by this Court.
 Notwithstanding, petitioner on August 8, 1994 filed a
"MOTION TO ADMIT ATTACHED MOTION FOR
NEW TRIAL", and a "MANIFESTATION AND
SECOND MOTION TO ADMIT" on August 17, 1994.
The Court thereafter required the Solicitor General to
comment on said motion and manifestation within ten (10)
days from notice, in a Resolution dated September 7, 1994.
 In the Comment filed after three (3) extensions of time
were given by the Court,[8] the Solicitor General himself
recommends that petitioner be entitled to a new trial,
proceeding from the same impression that a certain
Rodolfo Cuenca's (petitioner's brother) sworn statement is
an admission against interest which may ultimately
exonerate petitioner from criminal liability.
 ISSUE: WON NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE GRANTED?
 HELD: "The above duty is well founded on the instruction
of the U.S. Supreme Court in Berger v. United States, 295
U.S. 78 (1935) that prosecutors represent a sovereign
`whose obligation to govern impartially is compelling as
its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore
in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but
that justice shall be done (Time to Rein in the Prosecution,
by Atty. Bruce Fein, published on p. 11, The Lawyers
Review, July 31, 1994). (Italics supplied.)"
 Although in "Goduco v. CA" (14 SCRA 282 [1965])
decided some twenty (20) years ago, this Court ruled that it
is not authorized to entertain a motion for reconsideration
and/or new trial predicated on allegedly newly discovered
evidence the rationale of which being:
"The judgment of the Court of Appeals is conclusive as to
the facts, and cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, in an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme
Court, the latter has no jurisdiction to entertain a motion
for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence,
for only questions of fact are involved therein", the rule
now appears to have been relaxed, if not abandoned, in
subsequent cases like "Helmuth, Jr. v. People" and
"People v. Amparado".
 In both cases, the Court, opting to brush aside
technicalities and despite the opposition of the Solicitor
General, granted new trial to the convicted accused
concerned on the basis of proposed testimonies or
affidavits of persons which the Court considered as newly
discovered and probably sufficient evidence to reverse the
judgment of conviction. Being similarly circumstanced,
there is no nagging reason why herein petitioner should be
denied the same benefit. It becomes all the more plausible
under the circumstances considering that the "People" does
not raise any objection to a new trial, for which reason the
Solicitor General ought to be specially commended for
displaying once again such statesmanlike gesture of
impartiality. The Solicitor General's finest hour, indeed.
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.
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall
withdrawal from the firm and his name shall be dropped from
the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law
currently.
Government lawyers’ practice
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:
 ARTICLE 6, SECTION 14. No Senator or Member of
the House of Representatives may personally appear as
counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral
Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative
bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested
financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or
special privilege granted by the Government, or any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including
any government-owned or controlled corporation, or its
subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene
in any matter before any office of the Government for his
pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on
account of his office.
 ARTICLE 7, SECTION 13. The President, Vice-
President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies
or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this
Constitution, hold any other office or employment during
their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or
indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any
business, or be financially interested in any contract with,
or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the
Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid
conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity
within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not
during his tenure be appointed as members of the
Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the
Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen
or heads of bureaus or offices, including government-
owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.
 ARTICLE 9-A, SECTION 2. No Member of a
Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold
any other office or employment. Neither shall he engage in
the practice of any profession or in the active management
or control of any business which in any way be affected by
the functions of his office, nor shall he be financially
interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in
any franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any
of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including
government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries.
 ARTICLE 11, SECTION 8. The Ombudsman and his
Deputies shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines,
and at the time of their appointment, at least forty years
old, of recognized probity and independence, and members
of the Philippine Bar, and must not have been candidates
for any elective office in the immediately preceding
election. The Ombudsman must have for ten years or more
been a judge or engaged in the practice of law in the
Philippines.
During their tenure, they shall be subject to the same
disqualifications and prohibitions as provided for in
Section 2 of Article IX-A of this Constitution.

Rule 138 Section 35 Rules of Court
 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.
Secs 90, 91 RA 7160
 SECTION 90. Practice of Profession. – (a) All governors,
city and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing
their profession or engaging in any occupation other than
the exercise of their functions as local chief executives.
(b) Sanggunian members may practice their professions,
engage in any occupation, or teach in schools except
during session hours: Provided, That sanggunian members
who are also members of the Bar shall not:
(1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case
wherein a local government unit or any office, agency, or
instrumentality of the government is the adverse party;
(2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer
or employee of the national or local government is accused of
an offense committed in relation to his office.
(3) Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative
proceedings involving the local government unit of which he
is an official; and
(4) Use property and personnel of the government except
when the sanggunian member concerned is defending the
interest of the government.
(c) Doctors of medicine may practice their profession even
during official hours of work only on occasions of
emergency: Provided, That the officials concerned do not
derive monetary compensation therefrom.
 SECTION 91. Statement of Assets and Liabilities. – (a)
Officials and employees of local government units shall
file sworn statements of assets, liabilities and net worth,
lists of relatives within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity in government service, financial
and business interests, and personnel data sheets as
required by law.
Sec 1 RA 910 (as amended)
AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE RETIREMENT OF
JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS, FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE PROVISIONS HEREOF BY THE GOVERNMENT
SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, AND TO REPEAL
COMMONWEALTH ACT NUMBERED FIVE
HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SIX
 Section 1. When a Justice of the Supreme Court or of the
Court of Appeals who has rendered at least twenty years'
service either in the judiciary or in any other branch of the
Government, or in both, (a) retires for having attained the
age of seventy years, or (b) resigns by reason of his
incapacity to discharge the duties of his office, he shall
receive during the residue of his natural life, in the manner
hereinafter provided, the salary which he was receiving at
the time of his retirement or resignation. And when a
Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals
has attained the age of fifty-seven years and has rendered
at least twenty-years' service in the Government, ten or
more of which have been continuously rendered as such
Justice or as judge of a court of record, he shall be likewise
entitled to retire and receive during the residue of his
natural life, in the manner also hereinafter prescribed, the
salary which he was then receiving. It is a condition of the
pension provided for herein that no retiring Justice during
the time that he is receiving said pension shall appear as
counsel before any court in any civil case wherein the
Government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof
is the adverse party, or in any criminal case wherein and
officer or employee of the Government is accused of an
offense committed in relation to his office, or collect any
fee for his appearance in any administrative proceedings to
maintain an interest adverse to the Government, insular,
provincial or municipal, or to any of its legally constituted
officers.
Sec 3 & Sec 7b RA 6713
Section 3. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the term:
(a) "Government" includes the National Government, the local
governments, and all other instrumentalities, agencies or
branches of the Republic of the Philippines including
government-owned or controlled corporations, and their
subsidiaries.lawphi1.net
(b) "Public Officials" includes elective and appointive officials
and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the career
or non-career service, including military and police personnel,
whether or not they receive compensation, regardless of
amount.
(c) "Gift" refers to a thing or a right to dispose of gratuitously,
or any act or liberality, in favor of another who accepts it, and
shall include a simulated sale or an ostensibly onerous
disposition thereof. It shall not include an unsolicited gift of
nominal or insignificant value not given in anticipation of, or
in exchange for, a favor from a public official or employee.
(d) "Receiving any gift" includes the act of accepting directly
or indirectly, a gift from a person other than a member of his
family or relative as defined in this Act, even on the occasion
of a family celebration or national festivity like Christmas, if
the value of the gift is neither nominal nor insignificant, or the
gift is given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor.
(e) "Loan" covers both simple loan and commodatum as well
as guarantees, financing arrangements or accommodations
intended to ensure its approval.
(f) "Substantial stockholder" means any person who owns,
directly or indirectly, shares of stock sufficient to elect a
director of a corporation. This term shall also apply to the
parties to a voting trust.
(g) "Family of public officials or employees" means their
spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of
age.
(h) "Person" includes natural and juridical persons unless the
context indicates otherwise.
(i) "Conflict of interest" arises when a public official or
employee is a member of a board, an officer, or a substantial
stockholder of a private corporation or owner or has a
substantial interest in a business, and the interest of such
corporation or business, or his rights or duties therein, may be
opposed to or affected by the faithful performance of official
duty.
(j) "Divestment" is the transfer of title or disposal of interest in
property by voluntarily, completely and actually depriving or
dispossessing oneself of his right or title to it in favor of a
person or persons other than his spouse and relatives as
defined in this Act.
(k) "Relatives" refers to any and all persons related to a public
official or employee within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity, including bilas, inso and balae.
 Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition
to acts and omissions of public officials and employees
now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the
following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions
of any public official and employee and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:
x x x (c) Disclosure and/or misuse of confidential information.
- Public officials and employees shall not use or divulge,
confidential or classified information officially known to them
by reason of their office and not made available to the public,
either:
 (1) To further their private interests, or give undue
advantage to anyone; or
(2) To prejudice the public interest.
CASE: PCGG vs SB, et.al. GR Nos. 151809-12 April 12,
2005
 Whether Rule 6.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility applies to respondent
Mendoza. The prohibition states: “A lawyer shall not, after
leaving government service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in the said service.”
 HELD: The case at bar does not involve the “adverse
interest” aspect of Rule 6.03. Respondent Mendoza, it is
conceded, has no adverse interest problem when he acted
as SolGen and later as counsel of respondents et.al. Before
the Sandiganbayan. However there is still the issue of
whether there exists a “congruent-interest conflict”
sufficient to disqualify respondent Mendoza from
representing respondents et. al. The key is unlocking the
meaning of “matter” and the metes and bounds of
“intervention” that he made on the matter. Beyond doubt
that the “matter” or the act of respondent Mendoza as
SolGen involved in the case at bar is “advising the Central
Bank, on how to proceed with the said bank’s liquidation
and even filing the petition for its liquidation in CFI of
Manila.
 The Court held that the advice given by respondent
Mendoza on the procedure to liquidate GENBANK is not
the “matter” contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. ABA Formal Opinion No.
342 is clear in stressing that “drafting, enforcing or
interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations
and laws, or briefing abstract principles of law are acts
which do not fall within the scope of the term “matter” and
cannot disqualify. Respondent Mendoza had nothing to do
with the decision of the Central Bank to liquidate
GENBANK. He also did not participate in the sale of
GENBANK to Allied Bank. The legality of the liquidation
of GENBANK is not an issue in the sequestration cases.
Indeed, the jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the
dissolution and liquidation of banks. Thus, the Code 6.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility cannot apply to
respondent Mendoza because his alleged intervention
while SolGen is an intervention on a matter different from
the matter involved in the Civil case of sequestration. In
the metes and bounds of the “intervention”. The applicable
meaning as the term is used in the Code
of Professional Ethics is that it is an act of a person who
has the power to influence the subject proceedings. The
evil sought to be remedied by the Code do not exist where
the government lawyer does not act which can be
considered as innocuous such as “ drafting, enforcing, or
interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations
or laws or briefing abstract principles of law.” The court
rules that the intervention of Mendoza is not significant
and substantial. He merely petitions that the court gives
assistance in the liquidation of GENBANK. The role of
court is not strictly as a court of justice but as an agent to
assist the Central Bank in determining the claims
of creditors. In such a proceeding the role of the SolGen is
not that of the usual court litigator protecting the interest of
government.
Petition assailing the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan is
denied.
 Relevant Dissenting Opinion of Justice Callejo:
Rule 6.03 is a restatement of Canon 36 of
the Canons of Professional Ethics: “ A lawyer, having once
held public office or having been in the public employ,
should not after his retirement accept employment in
connection with any matter which he has investigated or
passed upon while in such office or employ.”
Indeed, the restriction against a public official from using
his public position as a vehicle to promote or advance his
private interests extends beyond his tenure on certain
matters in which he intervened as a public official. Rule
6.03 makes this restriction specifically applicable to
lawyers who once held public office.” A plain reading
shows that the interdiction 1. applies to a lawyer who once
served in the government and 2. relates to his accepting
“engagement or employment” in connection with any
matter in which he had intervened while in the service.
CASE: PNB vs Atty Cedo AC No.3701 March 28, 1995
 PNB filed a complaint against Atty. Cedo for violation of
Rule 6.02 that states: A lawyer shall not, after leaving
gov’t. service, accept engagement or employment in
connection with any matter which he had intervened with
in said service. Cedo was the former Asst. Vice-President
of the Asset management Group of PNB.
 During Cedo’s stint with PNB, he became involved in 2
transactions: 1.) sale of steel sheets to Ms. Ong and 2.)
intervened in the handling of a loan of spouses Almeda.
When a civil action arose because of #1, Cedo, after
leaving the bank appeared as one of the counsel of Ms.
Ong. Also, when #2 was involved in a civil action, the
Almedas were represented by the law firm Cedo, Ferrer,
Maynigo & Associates of which Cedo was a Senior
Partner.
 Cedo claims that he did not participate in the litigation of
Ms. Ong’s case. He also claims that even if it was his law
firm handling the Almeda case, the case was being handled
by Atty. Ferrer.
 Issue: W/N violated Rule 6.02.
 Ruling: Cedo violated Rule 6.02.
 In the complexity of what is said in the course of dealings
between the atty. and the client, inquiry of the nature
suggested would lead to the revelation, in advance of the
trial, of other matters that might only further prejudice the
complainant cause. Whatever may be said as to w/n the
atty. utilized against his former client information given to
him in a professional capacity, the mere fact that their
previous relationship should have precluded him from
appearing as counsel for the other side.
 It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests,
except by express consent of all the parties concerned after
the disclosure of facts. A lawyer represents conflicting
interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to
contend for that which duty to another client requires him
to oppose.
CASE: Query of Atty Buffe AM NO.08-6-352-RTC August
19, 2009
 The query, as originally framed, related to Section 7(b)(2)
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713, as amended (or the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
and Employees). This provision places a limitation on
public officials and employees during their
incumbency, and those already separated from
government employment for a period of one (1) year
after separation, in engaging in the private practice of
their profession.
 These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of
one (1) year after resignation, retirement, or separation
from public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b)
(2) above, but the professional concerned cannot practice
his profession in connection with any matter before the
office he used to be with, in which case the one-year
prohibition shall likewise apply.
 The query arose because Atty. Buffe previously worked
as Clerk of Court VI of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 81 of Romblon; she resigned from her
position effective February 1, 2008. Thereafter (and
within the one-year period of prohibition mentioned in
the above-quoted provision), she engaged in the private
 practice of law by appearing as private counsel in
several cases before RTC-Branch 81 of Romblon.
 Issue: Whether or not Atty. Karen Silverio-Buffe may
appear as private counsel before RTC-Branch 81 of
Romblon within the 1 year prohibition? NO.
 Where a conflict of interest exists, may reasonably
appear to exist, or where the outside employment
reflects adversely on the integrity of the Judiciary, the
court personnel shall not accept outside employment.
[Emphasis supplied]
 In both the above discussed aspect of R.A. No. 6713 and
the quoted Canon 3, the practice of law is covered; the
practice of law is a practice of profession, while Canon 3
specifically mentions any outside employment requiring
the practice of law. In Cayetano v. Monsod, we defined the
practice of law as any activity, in and out of court, that
requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. Moreover, we ruled
that to engage in the practice of law is to perform those
acts which are characteristics of the profession; 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. Under both provisions, a common
objective is to avoid any conflict of interest on the part
of the employee who may wittingly or unwittingly use
confidential information acquired from his
employment, or use his or her familiarity with court
personnel still with the previous office.
 After separation from the service, Section 5, Canon 3 of
the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel ceases to apply
as it applies specifically to incumbents, but Section 7 and
its subsection (b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 continue to apply to
the extent discussed above. Atty. Buffe's situation falls
under Section 7.
 A distinctive feature of this administrative matter is Atty.
Buffe's admission that she immediately engaged in
private practice of law within the one-year period of
prohibition stated in Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713.
 As we discussed above, a clerk of court can already
engage in the practice of law immediately after her
separation from the service and without any period
limitation that applies to other prohibitions under
Section 7 of R.A. No. 6713. The clerk of court's
limitation is that she cannot practice her profession
within one year before the office where he or she used
to work with. In a comparison between a resigned,
retired or separated official or employee, on the one
hand, and an incumbent official or employee, on the
other, the former has the advantage because the
limitation is only with respect to the office he or she
used to work with and only for a period of one year.
The incumbent cannot practice at all, save only where
specifically allowed by the Constitution and the law and
only in areas where no conflict of interests exists. This
analysis again disproves Atty. Buffe's basic premises.
 By acting in a manner that R.A. No. 6713 brands as
"unlawful," Atty. Buffe contravened Rule 1.01 of Canon 1
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provides:
 CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND
AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR
LEGAL PROCESSES
 CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES
UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY OF
THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, we find Atty. Karen
M. Silverio-Buffe GUILTY of professional misconduct
for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. She is hereby FINED
in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), and
STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of this violation
and the commission of other acts of professional
misconduct shall be dealt with more severely.
III. 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice AM No.02-8-13-SC
7/6/2004 2/19/2008
 Please read the amendments online.
IV. Disciplinary Measures, Grounds and Procedure
 Please read the amendments online.
Rules 138, 139-B, 140 ROC; Art 1491 NCC, Arts 208 & 209
RPCs
RULE 140
Charges Against Judges of First Instance
Section 1. Complaint - All Charges against judges of first
instance shall be in writing and shall set out distinctly, clearly,
and concisely the facts complained of as constituting the
alleged serious misconduct or inefficiency of the respondent,
and shall be sworn to and supported by affidavits of persons
who have personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged, and
shall be accompanied with copies of documents which may
substantiate said facts.
Section 2. Service or dismissal. - If the charges appear to
merit action, a copy thereof shall be served upon the
respondent, requiring him to answer within ten (10) days from
the date service. If the charges do not merit action, or if the
answer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the charges
are not meritorious, the same shall be dismissed.
Section 3. Answer; hearing. - Upon the filing of respondents
answer or upon the expiration of the time for its filing, the
court shall assign one of its members, a Justice of the Court of
Appeals or a judge of first instance to conduct the hearing of
the charges. The Justice or judge so assigned shall set a day
for the hearing, and notice thereof shall be served on both
parties. At such hearing the parties may present oral or written
evidence.
Section 4. Report - After the hearing, the Justice or judge shall
file with the Supreme Court a report of his findings of fact and
conclusions of law, accompanied by the evidence presented by
the parties and the other papers in he case.
Section 5. Action - After the filing of the report, the court will
take such action as the facts and the law may warrant.
Section 6. Confidential. - Proceedings against judges of first
instance shall be private and confidential.
Article 1491 of the New Civil Code
Art. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase,
even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through
the mediation of another:
(1) The guardian, the property of the person or persons who
may be under his guardianship;
(2) Agents, the property whose administration or sale may
have been entrusted to them, unless the consent of the
principal has been given;
(3) Executors and administrators, the property of the estate
under administration;
(4) Public officers and employees, the property of the State or
of any subdivision thereof, or of any government-owned or
controlled corporation, or institution, the administration of
which has been intrusted to them; this provision shall apply to
judges and government experts who, in any manner
whatsoever, take part in the sale;

(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior

and inferior courts, and other officers and employees
connected with the administration of justice, the property and
rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court
within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their
respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of
acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with
respect to the property and rights which may be the object of
any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their
profession.

(6) Any others specially disqualified by law. (1459a)

Article 208 & 209 of the Revised Penal Code

Article 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and

tolerance. - The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period and suspension shall be imposed upon any
public officer, or officer of the law, who, in dereliction of the
duties of his office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting
prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law, or shall
tolerate the commission of offenses.

Article 209. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor. -

Revelation of secrets. - In addition to the proper administrative
action, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both,
shall be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or solicitor
( procurador judicial) who, by any malicious breach of
professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or ignorance,
shall prejudice his client, or reveal any of the secrets of the
latter learned by him in his professional capacity.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon an attorney-at-law or

solicitor (procurador judicial) who, having undertaken the
defense of a client or having received confidential information
from said client in a case, shall undertake the defense of the
opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his
first client.

V. Judicial Ethics AM No. 03-05-01-SC New Code of

Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary; Rule 137
Rules of Court
 Please read the amendments online.

MA ABOGADO RA LAGI TA. SABAYI UG PAG LIHOK

UG PAG AMPO. AJA! FIGHTING! –E.E.