Legal and Judicial Ethics

Atty. Victoria V. Loanzon

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Admission to the Practice of Law
1. Qualifications for Admission to the Practice of Law
Sec. 2, Rule138 of the Rules of Court provides for the following qualifications:
(1) One must be a citizen of the Philippines
(2) At least 21 years of age
(3) Must be a resident of the Philippines
Sec. 7, Rule 138: The foregoing qualifications must be contained in an affidavit
of the bar candidate.
(4) Must have obtained his law degree in a local school(Sections 5 & 6, Rules of Court)
Academic Requirements
Pre-Law Course (Sec. 6, Rule 138, Rules of Court): Must be holder of a high
school diploma; Requirement for completion of a Bachelors degree in arts or
sciences
(5) Possesses Good Moral Character (presentation of proof of good moral character,
certification that one does not have any pending charges or have been convicted of a
crime involving moral turpitude)
2. Bar Subjects (Sec. 9, Rule 138, Rules of Court)
(1) Political Law
(2) Labor and Social Legislation
(3) Civil Law
(4) Taxation
(5) Mercantile Law
(6) Criminal Law
(7) Remedial Law
(8) Legal and Judicial Ethics and Practical Exercises

B. Critical Role of Lawyers/Duties of Lawyers to:

(1) clients,
(2) the courts,
(3) the bar and
(4) the public. (G. A. Malcolm, Legal and Judicial Ethics 8 (1949)

C. THE ATTORNEYS OATH

I, ________________ do solemnly swear that
I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
I will support its 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 in court;
I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same;
I will delay no man for money or malice, and 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 this voluntary obligation without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God. (Rules of Court,
Form 28)

ARCATOMY S. GUARIN v. ATTY. CHRISTINE A.C. LIMPIN, A.C. No. 10576, January
14, 2015, VILLARAMA, JR., J.: Members of the bar are reminded that their first duty is to
comply with the rules of procedure, rather than seek exceptions as loopholes. A lawyer who
assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an act

1
which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer. Disbarment proceedings are sui generis
and can proceed independently of civil and criminal cases. As Justice Malcolm stated [t]he
serious consequences of disbarment or suspension should follow only where there is a clear
preponderance of evidence against the respondent. The presumption is that the attorney is
innocent of the charges pr[o]ferred and has performed his duty as an officer of the court in
accordance with his oath.
D. What constitutes Practice of Law

(1) embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and
special proceedings,
(2) conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds; and
(3) the giving of all legal advice to clients. [Blacks Law Dictionary, 3 rd ed., cited in
CAYETANO v. MONSOD, G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991, 201 SCRA 210]
PAGUIA v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT (621 SCRA 600): A lawyer suspended from the
practice of law is precluded from applying his knowledge of law in and out of court while
undergoing his suspension. A suspended lawyer cannot even appear on behalf of a relative
as a friend because he would inevitably apply his knowledge of the law.
ULEP v. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC., and (Bar Matter No. 550, June 17, 1993): The
practice of law is not a business and lawyers cannot form stock corporations to practice the
profession. It is also prohibited for lawyers to allow non-lawyers to practice law nor are
lawyers allowed to share their legal fees with non-lawyers.

II. THE LAWYERS RESPONSIBILITY TO UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW

A. The Rule of Law
The Rule of Law embodies the basic principles of equal treatment before the law, fairness
and the constitutional and actual guarantees of basic human rights. A predictable legal
system with fair, transparent and effective judicial institutions is essential to the protection of
citizens against the arbitrary use of state authority and lawless acts of state organizations and
individuals
B. The Discipline of Lawyers
1. Constitutional Basis
Art. VIII, Sec.5 (5)
Nature of Proceedings
2. Nature and characteristics of disciplinary actions against lawyers
Sui generis: A class of its own, does not need proof beyond reasonable doubt; may
proceed despite separate criminal action against a lawyer.
SPOUSES WILLIE AND AMELIA UMAGUIN, v. ATTY. WALLEN R. DE VERA, A.C.
No.10451, February 04, 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: A case of suspension or
disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What
matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and
grossly immoral conduct has been proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary
proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not a civil action where the
complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings
involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken
and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of
preserving courts of justice from the official administration of persons unfit to practice in
them
GARRIDO v. GARRIDO, 611 SCRA 508 (21010): S.C. reiterated the rule that laws
dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure . . . do not apply in the determination of
lawyers qualifications or fitness for membership in the Bar. . . The S.C. said first, that for
admission a candidate must meet all the requirements because the practice of law is a
component of the administration of justice and involves service to the public; and second,
admission qualifications are also required for the continued enjoyment of the privilege to
practice and lack of qualifications is a matter of public concern and S.C. may inquire into
them.

2
 Prescription: A disbarment proceeding is imprescriptible; all proceedings are strictly
confidential; may proceed despite withdrawal of the complaint.
BENGCO v. BERNANRDO, 672 SCRA 352 (2012): S.C. said that administrative cases
against lawyers do not prescribe. Despite the considerable lapse of time between the
commission of the infraction and the time of filing, there is need to determine the
administrative liability of lawyers.
ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG v. ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA, A.C. No. 5581,
January 14, 2014. The Court ordered Celera disbarred for contracting a second marriage
when his first marriage with Complainant was still subsisting. The Supreme Court held that
for purposes of the disbarment proceeding, the Marriage Certificates bearing the name of
Atty. Celera are competent and convincing evidence to prove that he committed bigamy,
which renders him unfit to continue as a member of the Bar.

EDGARDO AREOLA v. ATTY. MARIA VILMA MENDOZA, A.C. No. 10135, January 15,
2014. This case involves a PAO lawyer who advised her clients Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si
Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon. Thus, a complaint was
lodged against her for violation of the attorneys oath, deceit, malpractice or other gross
misconduct in office under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. S. C. held
that Atty. Mendoza made irresponsible advices to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and
Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

C. Grounds for Disbarment

Section 27, Rule 138 (Deceit, Malpractice, and Gross Misconduct in Office, Grossly
Immoral Conduct, and Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude, Violation of
Lawyers Oath, and Appearing for a Party without Authority)
DR. DOMICIANO F. VILLAHERMOSA, SR. v. ATTY. ISIDRO L.CARACOL, A.C. No.
7325, January 21, 2015, VILLARAMA, JR., J.: The Rules of Court under Rule 138, Section
21 provides for a presumption of a lawyers appearance on behalf of his client, hence: SEC.
21. Authority of attorney to appear. An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to
represent any cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney is required to
authorize him to appear in court for his client, but the presiding judge may, on motion of
either party and on reasonable grounds therefor being shown, require any attorney who
assumes the right to appear in a case to produce or prove the authority under which he
appears, and to disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the name of the person who
employed him, and may thereupon make such order as justice requires. An attorney willfully
appearing in court for a person without being employed, unless by leave of the court, may be
punished for contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official
transactions.
An attorney-client relationship terminates upon death of either client or the lawyer. Thus, a
lawyer must be more circumspect in his demeanor and attitude towards the public in general
as agents of the judicial system.

COMPLAINT:

By the Supreme Court moto IBP Board of

propio Governors
By the IBP Board of Governors Chairman, CBD
motu propio
Upon referral by the S.C.
Upon referral by the IBP Chapter
Board
Upon verified complaint by any
person
Commissioner

3
Rule 139-B, Rules of Court REPORT

May uphold the findings

No motion for Reconsideration before the Commissioner.
May reverse the findings
Motion for Reconsideration before the Board of Governor is allowed.
DecisionMay
of amend
IBP Board of Governors is reviewed by the Supreme
the findings
Court.

NESTOR FIGUERAS AND BIENVENIDO VICTORIA, JR. v. ATTY. DIOSDADO B.

JIMENEZ, A.C. No. 9116, March 12, 2014.The S.C. held that the complainants have
personality to file the disbarment case. In Heck v. Judge Santos, the Court held that [a]ny
interested person or the court motu proprio may initiate disciplinary proceedings. The right
to institute disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the
person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings
being sui generis, the procedural requirement observed in ordinary civil proceedings that
only the real party-in-interest must initiate the suit will not apply.

CATALAN, JR. v. SILVOSA, 677 SCRA 352 (2012): A lawyer convicted of direct bribery
can be a subject of disbarment proceedings. Direct bribery is a crime involving moral
turpitude. The defense that his conviction was not in his capacity as a lawyer but as a public
officer betrays the unmistakable lack of integrity in his character.
OCA v. LIANGCO, 662 SCRA 103 (2011): The dismissal of a judge from service will not
preclude the filing of a disbarment case against him before the IBP... It will be the IBP who
will investigate a judge who has retired from the judiciary and not the Supreme Court.
IN RE: ATTY. RODOLFO D.PACTOLIN, 670 SCRA 366(2112): The conviction of Atty.
Pactolin before the Sandiganbayan for the crime of Falsification of Public Document is
contrary to justice, honesty and good morals. This is a crime involving moral turpitude. Even
if the IBP recommended dismissal of the case, S.C. disbarred him because disbarment is the
appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude.
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court governs the investigation by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) of administrative complaints against lawyers.
D. Instances when Appearance of Non-Lawyers may be allowed
1. Law Student Practice
> Rule 138-A of the Rules of court allows a law student to represent indigent clients provided
one has successfully completed the 3rd year of a prescribed four-year curriculum and
enrolled in a recognized law schools clinical legal education program
> In Bar Matter No.730 dated June 10, 1998, the Supreme Court required that law student
practice before the Regional Trial Court must be under the direct supervision and control of a
member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
> Under Section 34 of the Rules of Court, a law student may appear before the first level
court as an agent or friend of a party without the supervision of a member of the bar.
2. Proceedings where lawyers are prohibited from appearing: proceedings before the
Lupong Tagapamayapa, court ordered mediation
3. Small Claims Court
4. Administrative Proceedings
E. Resumption of Membership after Suspension
MANIEGO v. DE DIOS, 617 SCRA 142 (2010). The Court held that after the period of
suspension, the resumption to practice is not automatic. The Court issued the following
guidelines:
1. After a finding that the respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the
Court shall render a decision rendering the penalty.

4
2. Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory upon receipt
thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to file a motion for reconsideration thereof. The
denial of said motion shall render the decision final and executory.
3. Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn Statement
with the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant that he or she has desisted from the
practice of law and has not appeared in any court during the period of his or her suspension;
4. Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the local chapter of the IBP and to the
Executive Judge of the courts where respondent has pending cases handled by him or her,
and where he or she has appeared as counsel;
5. The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondents compliance with the
order of suspension; and
6. Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the respondent under oath shall
be a ground for imposition of a more severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be
warranted.
Guidelines in Lifting of Suspension
1. File a Sworn Statement with the Office of the Bar confidant that the respondent lawyer
has served the period of suspension stating that he/she desisted from the practice of law
and never appeared in any court during the period of suspension.
2. Copies of the Sworn Statement must be furnished the chapter of which the respondent
lawyer is a member and the Executive Judges of the Regional Trial Courts and first level
courts where respondent lawyer has pending cases.
3. If satisfied, the Court will lift the order of suspension and reinstate the erring lawyer
ALVIN S. FELICIANO v. ATTY. CARMELITA BAUTISTA-LOZADA, A.C. No. 7593,
March 11, 2015. On December 13, 2005, the Court en banc promulgated a Resolution in
A.C. No. 6656 entitled Bobie Rose V. Frias vs. Atty. Carmencita Bautista Lozada3
suspending Atty. Lozada for two years for violation of Rules 15.03 and 16.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
During her period of suspension she represented her husband where complainant Feliciano
was a party. The Supreme Court said it recognizes the fact that it is part of the Filipino
culture that amid an adversity, families will always look out and extend a helping hand to a
family member, more so, in this case, to a spouse. Thus, considering that Atty. Lozada's
actuation was prompted by her affection to her husband and that in essence, she was not
representing a client but rather a spouse, we deem it proper to mitigate the severeness of her
penalty.
F. Reinstatement after Disbarment
Readmission to the Bar and Resumption to Practice Law
IN RE: OATH TAKING OF ARGOSINO, B.M. 712, July 13, 1995 and En Banc Resolution
dated March 19, 1997. A lawyer who was involved in the fatal death of a neophyte in the
initiation rites of his fraternity was finally allowed to take his oath after he showed several
proofs of testimonial of good character.
RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS (ATTY. DANILO DE GUZMAN), 586 SCRA 372 A
lawyer who leaked the bar questions in Mercantile Law prepared by a founding partner in
his law firm was reinstated upon proof of good moral character during his period of
suspension.
MACARUBBO v. MACARUBBO, A.M. 6148, January 22, 2013. Macarubbo was disbarred
for contracting three marriages. While the disbarment case was pending, Macarrubo
resorted to filing separate civil actions to annul two of said marriages. Eight years after his
disbarment, he filed a Petition for Extraordinary Mercy for reinstatement in the Roll of
Attorneys. In granting his Petition, the Court considered the following guidelines set forth in
Re: Letter of Augustus C. Diaz, MTC Branch 37, Appealing for Clemency (533 SCRA 534,
2010):
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be
limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the IBP, judges or
judges associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and
probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar
misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.

5
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of penalty to ensure a period of
reform.
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he has still productive years
ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.
4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal
acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or
administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency
The Court concluded with a reminder that to enjoy continued member in the legal
profession, one must be a person of good moral character.

G. Discipline of Filipino Lawyers Practicing Abroad

Rule: A decision in a disciplinary action against a Filipino lawyer practicing abroad may
also be a basis for a disbarment proceeding against the same lawyer in the Philippines.
VELEZ v. DE VERA, 496 SCRA 345 (2006): A finding of fact by the California State Bar
can be a basis of an administrative complaint against a Filipino lawyer before the IBP.

H. Resumption to Practice of a Balikbayan Lawyer

Requisites - Updating and full payment of all IBP membership dues; Payment of
Professional Tax; Completion of MCLE credit units; and Retaking of the Lawyers Oath.
(Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law of Benjamin M. Dacanay, 540 SCRA 424)
IN RE: PETITION TO RE-ACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE
PHILIPPINES (EPIFANIO B. MUNESES), 677 SCRA 364 (2012). The S.C. said that a
Filipino lawyer who has been naturalized in another country does not automatically enjoy
the right to resume his practice of law when returns to the Philippines. It held that under the
Rules of Admission to the Philippine bar, one must be a Filipino citizen. Thus, when he
assumed another citizenship, he ipso facto lost his Filipino citizenship. The returning
Filipino lawyer must repatriate himself under the provisions of R.A. 9225. Said law says
that all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to
have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of (R.A. 9225).
R.A. 9225 provides that if a person intends to practice the legal profession in the Philippines
and he reacquires his Filipino citizenship pursuant to its provisions (he shall apply with the
proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice.
Reiterating it ruling in the Dacanay case, the authority to resume his practice of law, the
repatriated Filipino must:
1. Update and pay in full his annual membership dues in the IBP;
2. Pay his professional tax;
3. Complete his 36 credit hours of MCLE to refresh him of his knowledge of Philippine laws,
rules of practice, recent jurisprudence and update him of recent legal developments (MCLE
will be from the time he was absent in the Philippines up to the time he resumes his
practice);and
4. Retake his oath which will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a
lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also to renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines.

III. The Lawyer and Society

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS
OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
FERNANDO W. CHU v. ATTY. JOSE C. GUICO, JR., A.C. No. 10573, January 13, 2015,
PER CURIAM: Fernando W. Chu invokes the Courts disciplinary authority in resolving this
disbarment complaint against his former lawyer, respondent Atty. Jose C. Guico, Jr., whom
he has accused of gross misconduct... Atty. Guico was disbarred for having had violated
Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility for demanding and
receiving P580,000.00 from Chu which constituted an act of extortion and misrepresentation
that caused dishonor to and contempt for the legal profession.
YOLANDA A. ANDRES, MINETTE A. MERCADO, AND ELITO P. ANDRES v. ATTY.
SALIMATHAR V. NAMBI, A.C. No. 7158, March 09, 2015, DEL CASTILLO, J.: This is

6
a Complaint for Disbarment filed against then Labor Arbiter Salimathar V. Nambi
(respondent) on the ground of gross ignorance of the law in issuing an Amended Alias Writ of
Execution against M.A. Blocks Work, Inc. and its incorporators, the herein complainants,
who are not parties to the case. The Court held that the labor arbiter had legal basis to
pierce the corporate veil to serve the ends of justice but he was reprimanded for not
complying with the lawful orders of the IBP and the Court.
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 mans 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.
ANTONINA S. SOSA v. ATTY. MANUEL V. MENDOZA, A.C. No. 8776, March 22, 2015,
Brion, J. This is a complaint for the disbarment/suspension of Atty. Manuel V. Mendoza
(Atty. Mendoza) filed on October 22, 2010 by Antonina S. Sosa (Ms. Sosa), for violation of
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility arising from non-payment of debt.
A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not a civil action where the complainant is a
plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no
private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and
prosecuted solely for the public welfare. For violation of Rule 1.01, the lawyer was
suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Standards of Morality
MELVYN G. GARCIA v. ATTY. RAUL H. SESBREO, A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No.
10457, February 03, 2015, PER CURIAM: Two complaints for disbarment were filed by Dr.
Melvyn G. Garcia (Garcia) against Atty. Raul H. Sesbreo. The two cases, docketed as A.C.
No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457, were consolidated in the Courts Resolution dated 30
September 2014. The IBP-CBD consolidated A.C. No. 7973 with CBD Case No. 08-2273.
The parties agreed on the sole issue to be resolved: whether moral turpitude is involved in a
conviction for homicide. The Court held in the affirmative and ordered Sesbreno disbarred.
DR. ELMAR O. PEREZ v. ATTY. TRISTAN A. CATINDIG AND ATTY. KAREN E.
BAYDO, A.C. No. 5816, March 10, 2015, PER CURIAM. Complainant charged the two
lawyers with gross immoral conduct. Atty. Catindig was disbarred for contracting a second
marriage with the complainant while his first marriage was still subsisting. The charge
against Atty. Baydo was dismissed for lack of evidence.
TIONG v. FLORENDO, 662 SCRA 1 (2011): The S.C. held that a lawyers act of having
an affair with his clients wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of
marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity.
GARRIDO v. GARRIDO, 611 SCRA 508 (2010): A charge of immorality was brought before
the lawyer for having contracted three marriages. He left his first wife to pursue his study of
law. He contracted his second marriage upon misrepresentation that he is single. He
engaged in an extra marital affair with a lawyer whom he eventually married in Hongkong
while his second marriage was subsisting. Such conduct betrayed his moral depravity for
which he was disbarred. The lady lawyer was eventually disbarred for knowing that Garrido
had other two subsisting marriages when she had her romantic relationship with him even
before she became a lawyer.

Deceitful Conduct
BUENO v. RANESES, 687 SCRA 711(2012): The S.C. disbarred a lawyer who practically
asked the client to sell everything for the sake of winning the case, only to end up not really
doing anything. By asking money from his client for a purportedly bribery to the judge to win
a case, the lawyer tarnished the image of the judiciary and put a black mark in the legal
profession as well.
NATIVIDAD P. NAVARRO AND HILDA S. PRESBITERO v. ATTY. IVAN M.
SOLIDUM, JR., A.C. No. 9872, January 28, 2014.The Court held that Atty. Solidum, Jr.
violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Conduct, as used in the Rule,

7
is not confined to the performance of a lawyers professional duties. The test is whether his
conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor,
or whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. Atty. Solidum, Jr.
drafted loan documents with full knowledge that the interest rates were exorbitant. Taking
advantage of the provisions in the instruments, he later assailed the validity of the same
agreements which he personally prepared.

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.
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless
or the oppressed.
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
latters rights.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit
legal business.
Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily prescribed unless
the circumstances so warrant.
LISANGAN v. TOLENTINO, A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009: A lawyer who allowed his
paralegal/secretary to solicit the clients of a fellow lawyer with a promise of financial
assistance was suspended by the S.C. and reminded lawyers that their calling cards must
only contain their name, fields of practice, contact details and nothing more. The prohibition
applies to the non-legal staff in order to curb any abuse of the privilege of the law.

THE LAWYER AS A NOTARY PUBLIC (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, effective August 1, 2004,
as amended)
Purposes of the Notarial Rules: Promote, serve and protect public interest; to simplify,
clarify and modernize the rules governing notaries public; and to foster ethical conduct
among notaries public.
(1). Commissioning of a Notary Public
(2). Qualifications (Section 1, Rule III)
(3). Manner of Obtaining a Commission (Sections 2, 3, 4, 5,6,7,8, 9 and 10 Rule III); and
Renewal of Commission (Sections 13 and 14, Rule III)
(4). Powers and Limitations
Powers (Section 1, Rule IV; Sections 1-4, Rule VII)
Prohibitions (Section 2, Rule IV; Section 1, Rule XII)
Disqualifications (Section 4, Rule IV)
(5). Instances when a Notary Public may refuse to notarize, issue certification (Sections 4,
5 & 6, Rule IV)
(6). Jurisdiction and Period of Validity of Commission (Section 11, Rule III; Section9,
Rule IX)
RE: VIOLATION OF RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC,
January 21, 2015, MENDOZA, J.: A review of the records and evidence presented by
complainants shows that Atty. Siapno indeed maintained a law office in Lingayen,
Pangasinan, just beside the law office of one of the complainants, Atty. Elizabeth Tugade. It
was also proven that Atty. Siapno notarized several instruments with an expired notarial
commission outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. Section 11, Rule
III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Jurisdiction and Term A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts
in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two
(2) years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is
made, unless earlier revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the
Rules of Court.
(7). Reportorial Requirement (Section 12, Rule III; Sections 1-6, Rule VI; and Sections 1-
2, Rule VIII)

8
 CRESCENCIANO M. PITOGO v. ATTY. JOSELITO TROY SUELLO, A.C. No. 10695,
March 18, 2015, Leonen, J: For not faithfully reflecting the notarial deeds in his
registration book, Atty. Joselito Troy Suello was found GUILTY of violating Canon 1 and
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice. Accordingly, he was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months;
his notarial commission was immediately revoked; and was DISQUALIFIED from being
commissioned as notary public for one (1) year.
(8). Disciplinary Sanctions/Death of a Notary Public
Revocation of commission ((Section 1, Rule XI)
Suspension from practice as a lawyer
Death of a Notary Public (Section 4, Rule XI)
ESPINOSA v. ATTY. JULIETA A.OMANA, A.C. No. 9081, October 12, 2011: The S.C.
revoked the notarial commission of a lawyer and she was likewise suspended from the
practice of law for notarizing a document which effectively dissolved the marriage of the
complainants.
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. ARGUELLES, 679 SCRA 348 (2012):
The S.C. held that it is sufficient for the Notary Public to ascertain the identities of the
affiants and the witnesses at the time of the execution of the document. The Notary Public
must rely on the presumption that the proofs of identity of the parties were issued by the
public agencies in the regular course of the discharge of their responsibilities. It is also not
practical for a notary public to recall the affiants 12 years after they personally appeared
before him.
TENOSO V. ECHANEZ, A.C. No. 8384, 11 April 2013: By performing his duties without
renewing his notarial commission, the S.C. said that he committed acts of falsehood and
must be punished.
JANDOQUILE v. REVILLA, A.C. No.9514, 10 April 2013: The Notarial Rules of 2004
disqualifies lawyers from notarizing documents of relatives up to the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity. The defense of Atty. Revilla that he notarized the Affidavit-
Complaint of his relative by his virtue of the fact that he was the counsel in the criminal case
is not availing according to the Court. The S.C. reiterated the rule that where the affiants are
personally known to the Notary Public, the jurat must state so, otherwise, parties must show
proof of competent identity.

WILBERTO C. TALISIC v. ATTY. PRIMO R. RINEN, A.C. No. 8761, February 12, 2014:
A lawyers notarial commission was revoked and he was not allowed to renew the same for
one year for failure to ascertain the identities of the parties who executed an Extra Judicial
Partition with Sale which allowed the transfer to Spouses Durante of a parcel of land.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive
public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries
public.

.Important matters to consider:

Jurat (Section 6, Rule II) and Acknowledgment (Section1, Rule II), distinguished
MELANIO S. SALITA, v. ATTY. REYNALDO T. SALVE. A.C. No. 8101, February 04,
2015, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: A notary public should not notarize a document unless the
persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. These
acts of the affiants cannot be delegated because what are stated therein are facts they have
personal knowledge of and are personally sworn to. Otherwise, their representatives names
should appear in the said documents as the ones who executed the same. As a lawyer
commissioned to be a notary public, Atty. Salve is mandated to discharge his sacred duties
with faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an
acknowledgment or jurat.

Competent Evidence of Identity (Section 12, Rule 2)

9
JIMMY ANUDON AND JUANITA ANUDON v. ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA, A.C. No.
5482. February 10, 2015, Leonen, J. Without the ascertaining the personal presence of the
affiants, the Court imposed upon the errant lawyer the perpetual disqualification for notarial
commission, revocation of notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law. The
lawyer was found to have notarized a Deed of Sale of a property while the complainants
were abroad.
HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO REPRESENTED BY DAVID ALILANO v. ATTY.
ROBERTO E. EXAMEN, A.C. No. 10132, March 24, 2015. The complainants charged Atty.
Examen of notarizing Deeds of Sale where his brother was the vendee. In his defense, Atty.
Examen said that at the time of the execution of the subject Deeds of Sale the Notarial Rules
of 2004 were not yet in effect. Under the Revised Administrative Code which governed the
notarial practice there was no prohibition on notarizing documents of relatives up to the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity and affinity. The Court, however, held Atty. Examen
liable for not ascertaining the details of the cedulas of the affiants. He relied on the
entries made by his secretary. The Court suspended Atty. Roberto E. Examen from the practice of
law for TWO (2) YEARS. In addition, his present notarial commission, if any, was likewise
REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public for a period of two
(2) years from finality of this Decision. Affirmation or Oath (Section 2, Rule II) and Signature
Witnessing (Section 14, Rule II), distinguished.

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
qualifications or legal services.
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 indicates in all its communications that said partner is deceased.
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm and his
name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law
concurrently.
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.
Petition For Authority To Continue Use Of The Firm Name "Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano,
HERNANDEZ & CASTILLO" AND IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF THE FIRM NAME "OZAETA, ROMULO, DE
LEON, MABANTA & REYES." [G.R. NO. X92-1. JULY 30, 1979.]The Court held that: ". .
. It is of the essence of a profession that it is practiced in a spirit of public service. A
trade . . .aims primarily at personal gain; a profession at the exercise of powers beneficial
to mankind. x x x. But the member of a profession does not regard himself as in competition
with his professional brethren. He is not bartering his services as is the artisan nor
exchanging the products of his skill and learning as the farmer sells wheat or corn. x x x The
best service of the professional man is often rendered for no equivalent or for a trifling
equivalent and it is his pride to do what he does in a way worthy of his profession even if
done with no expectation of reward. This spirit of public service in which the profession of
law is and ought to be exercised is a prerequisite of sound administration of justice
according to law. The other two elements of a profession, namely, organization and pursuit of
a learned art have their justification in that they secure and maintain that spirit.
ADRIANO E. DACANAY V. BAKER & MCKENZIE, ADM. CASE NO. 2131 MAY 10,
1985. The S.C. held that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in
the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court). As pointed out by the Solicitor General,
respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that being
associated with the firm they could "render legal services of the highest quality to
multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment"

10
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.

CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS,

PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT
EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN
THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN
DISSEMINATING INFORMATION REGARDING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.

Purpose: MCLE, what it is; who enforces the MCLE; constitution of the MCLE
Board ( A retired justice of the Supreme Court is the Chairman, with the following as
members: an incumbent dean of a recognized law school, a representative from a
designated law center, the Chancellor of the Philippine Judicial Academy and the
President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines)
Requirements: Coverage of the MCLE 36-unit requirement ( corresponding units: 6 for
Legal Ethics; 6 for prescribed courses as approved by the MCLE Board, 4 for a trial and
pre-trial techniques, 4 for legal writing and oral advocacy, 5 for alternative dispute
resolution, 2 for international law and conventions and 9 for updates on substantive and
procedural laws)
Period of Compliance: 3-year completion period
Who are exempted: President, Vice President, Members of the Senate and House of
Representatives, Members of the Constitutional Commissions, Governors, Mayors,
incumbent and retired members of the judiciary, Cabinet Secretaries and their
undersecretaries, OSG lawyers, OGCC lawyers, Ombudsman and all Deputies of the
Ombudsman, Professor and Reviewers of law for a period of ten years.
Penalties for non-compliance: Imposition of fines, filing pleadings without MCLE
Compliance Certificate may subject the lawyer to fines, lawyer be can a subject of
suspension or disbarment for continued defiance to comply.

CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT

SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS.

Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict
but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses
capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause
for disciplinary action.
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote
or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said
service.
a) Prohibition or disqualification of former government attorneys: one- year
prohibition will apply.
b) Prohibition/Restrictions on Government Lawyers
(1) Who are the public officials not allowed to practice law
Under the Constitution: The President, Vice President, members of the
Constitutional Commissions, members of the judiciary, members of the cabinet,
their deputies and assistants
Under Civil Service Rules: government lawyers in government
departments/offices/bureaus, in government owned and controlled corporations,
government financial institutions and those with local government units
Under Special laws: Governors and Mayors (Local Government Code); Solicitors
and trial lawyers of the Office of the Solicitor General, lawyers of the Office of the
Government Corporate Counsel, Government prosecutors under the DOJ and the
Office of the Ombudsman

11
 (2) What is the concept of limited practice of law among public officers: With prior
written authorization of the heads of office, some government lawyers may be
authorized to practice law provided they will not represent any party who has
an adverse claim against the government.
LORENZANA v. FAJARDO (462 SCRA 1 (2005). The lawyer was found guilty of double
compensation for holding a regular position in the Manila City government and serving as a
member of the PLEB of Quezon City.
2. Lawyers who represent the government
a) Lawyers tasked to represent government: OSG, OGCC, lawyers in regular
departments, bureaus, offices, lawyers in the government financial institutions,
lawyers in government owned and controlled corporations, lawyers who serve the
governments interest under special contracts/or engagements, lawyers under the
local government units
b) Government lawyers tasked to prosecute: Public Prosecutors from the DOJ and
Office of the Ombudsman
c) Government lawyers who represent indigent litigants: Public Attorneys Office
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. THE HON. JUANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR., ET
AL., G.R. NO. 208290, DECEMBER 11, 2013. S.C. said that it could not countenance the
following patent violations of the BOC prosecutors who should have been the vanguards of
Run After the Smugglers (RATS) Group of the Revenue Collection Monitoring Group
(RCMG): failure of the prosecution failed to present certified true copies of the documentary
evidence under Section 7, Rule 130 and Section 127, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court and the
petition for certiorari was filed beyond the reglamentary period. This stance taken by the
lawyers in government service rouses the Courts vigilance against inefficiency in the
administration of justice and the presumption that the case was doomed by design from the
start was doomed by design from the start. The Court reminded the lawyers in the BOC that
the canons embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility equally apply to lawyers in
government service in the discharge of their official tasks.

IV. Lawyer and the Legal Profession

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND

DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR.

Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or
suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.
Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the bar of any
person known by him to be unqualified in respect to character, education, or other
relevant attribute.
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.

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Rule 139-A): A lawyer cannot be a full-fledged member
of the bar if he has not signed the Roll of Attorneys after taking his Oath as a lawyer.

IN RE: PETITION OF ATTY. MEDADO TO SIGN ROLL OF ATTORNEYS, B.M. No.

2540, September 24, 2013: Petitioner Med ado passed the bar examinations in 1979. He took
the Attorneys Oath thereafter, and was scheduled to sign the Roll of Attorneys, but failed to
do so. It was only in 2005 that he realized that he did not sign the Roll after being asked his
Roll number when he attended his MCLE. Thirty (30) years after passing the bar, Medado
filed a Petition to allow him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. The Supreme Court held that
while an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the legal consequences
of his acts as it negates malice or evil motive, a mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful
justification, because everyone is presumed to know the law and its consequences.
Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law transgresses Canon 9 of the Code of

12
Professional Responsibility. Such Canon also applies to law students and bar candidates.
Medado was imposed a penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to sign one (1) year after
receipt of the Courts Resolution.
TERESITA B. ENRIQUEZ, v. ATTY. TRINA DE VERA, A.C. No. 8330, March 16, 2015,
Leonen, J. An administrative complaint for disbarment or suspension was filed by
complainant Teresita B. Enriquez against Atty. Trina De Vera. The Court found Atty. Trina
De Vera committed serious misconduct and should be held administratively liable for the
issuance and dishonor of several post-dated checks. She was suspended from the practice of
law for one year.

Purposes of the IBP: To elevate the standards of the legal profession, improve the
administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more
effectively.
Elective Officers: President, Executive Vice President and concurrently a Governor of a
Region (chosen by the Board of Governors who will succeed the national President), Board
of Governors from: Northern Luzon, Central Luzon, Greater Manila, Southern Luzon,
Bicolandia, Eastern Visayas, Western Visayas, Eastern Mindanao and Western Mindanao.
Other officers: The IBP shall have a Secretary, Treasurer and such other officers as well as
employees the President may appoint with the consent of the Board of Governors under such
terms and conditions specified in the appointment of each officer and/or employee.
Membership and Dues: Non-payment of dues may subject the lawyer to disciplinary action
including removal of the name of the delinquent lawyer from the Roll of Attorneys. (Sec. 9,
Rule 139-A)LIFETIME DUE: P12, 500 and ANNUAL DUE: P1, 000
In the Matter of Brewing Controversies in the IBP Elections (A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC, A.C.
No. 8292, April 2013): Lawyers seeking positions in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
must respect the rotational rule. The rotational rule is adopted to allow equal opportunity for
all lawyers in different regions to have access to positions of leadership in the IBP. The S.C.
also reminded IBP officers that they should not use the Court as referee for their
intramurals.

Upholding the Dignity of the Legal Profession

KELD STEMMERIK v. ATTY. LEONUEL N. MAS, A.C. 8010, June 16, 2009: A lawyer
was disbarred by taking advantage of the lack of knowledge of Philippine laws by a
foreigner. Atty. Mas drew up a Deed of Sale of a property in Subic which is part of public
domain and therefore outside the commerce of man.
OCA v. LIANGCO, SUPRA: S.C. said: We are appalled by the respondents ignorance of
the basic rules of procedure. His wanton use of court processes in this case without regard
for the repercussions on the rights and property of others clearly shows his unfitness to
remain a member of the bar.
IN RE: PACTOLIN, SUPRA: The S.C. ruled: As a rule, this Court exercises the power to
disbar with caution. x x yet this Court has also consistently pronounced that disbarment is
the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime involving moral
turpitude. x xx His conduct only exacerbates his offense and shows that he falls short of the
exacting standards expected of him as a vanguard of the legal profession.

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS

AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID
HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.

Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.
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.
VILLATUYA v. TABALINGCOS, 676 SCRA 37(2012): This disbarment case is hinged on
the complainants demand from respondent lawyer to settle money obligations out of their

13
business transactions. The first ground he raised involves non-payment of agreed fees for
every Stay Order obtained from the court and 10% commission from every referral; the
second is that the lawyer set up two financial companies as fronts to solicit legal services
and committing two counts of bigamy for having married two other women while his first
marriage was still subsisting.
On the first issue, the Court said that there is violation where a lawyer shares his fees with a
non-lawyer. In this case, complainant failed to proffer evidence. On the issue of solicitation,
the Court held that it would appear that there was an attempt to circumvent the prohibition
on advertising ones services, reprimand is the proper penalty because there is no evidence
on the prevalence to use the two financial companies to solicit. The Court reminded lawyer
to be clear as to what services they are rendering if they have multiple professions. On the
issue of gross immorality, the belated move of the lawyer to institute civil actions to annul
his marriages will not exculpate him. The Court held: x x x respondent exhibited a
deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him x x x. He made a mockery of
marriage, x x x. His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted gross immoral conduct and
are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of court.
ATTY.FLORITA S. LINCO v. ATTY. JIMMY D. LACEBRAL, A.C. No. 7241, October 17,
2011: A notary public who notarized a Deed of Donation of another lawyer one day after his
death to the detriment of the interests of the surviving lawyer-spouse, was suspended by the
S.C.
CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF 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.
Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with
persons not licensed to practice law, except:
a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the
latters death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to
persons specified in the agreement; or
b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer;
or
c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan, even if
the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profitable sharing arrangement.
TUMBOKON v. PEFIANCO, 678 SCRA 60 (2012): This case also deals with the lawyers
commitment to share a portion of his legal fees with a non-lawyer in a case for partition of
estate which complainant referred to Pefianco. The lawyer was found guilty of this violation
by his admission in a letter he wrote to the parties in the partition case. On the second
charge of abandoning his legal wife to cohabit with his mistress with whom he has four
children, the Court that it was a clear betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or sexual
relations outside marriage and is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests
deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and marital vows protected by the
Constitution and affirmed by our laws.
TAPAY ET AL v. ATTYS. CHARLIE L. BANCOLO ET AL, A. C. No. 9604, March 20,
2013: A lawyer who allowed his secretary to sign his pleading in the Office of the
Ombudsman is guilty of violation of Canon 9.Only lawyers are allowed to sign pleadings and
the same cannot be delegated.
ATTY. EDITA NOE LACSAMANA v. ATTY. YOLANDO F. BUSTAMENTE (A.C. No.
7269, November 23, 2011: A lawyer who allowed a paralegal to attend court hearings on his
behalf has violated Canon 9 because only lawyers are allowed to undertake representation
clients before the regional trial courts.

V. The Lawyer and the Courts

Acts constituting contempt: Misbehavior as an officer of the court,

disobedience or resistance to a lawful order of the court, abuse or
unlawful interference with judicial proceedings, obstruction in the
administration of justice, misleading the court or making false

14
allegations, criticisms, insults or veiled threats against the court,
aiding in the unauthorized practice of law, unlawful retention of clients,
advising a client to commit a contemptuous act, publications which
tend to impede, obstruct, embarrass or influence courts may degrade
the court; disrespectful pleadings.

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

COURT.

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.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of 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.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
Read also Rule 138, Section 20(c) and (d), Rules of Court, Duties of Attorneys
SPOUSES ROGELIO AMATORIO AND AIDA AMATORIO v. ATTY. FRANCISCO DY
YAP AND ATTY. WHELMA F. SITON-YAP, A.C. No. 5914, March 11, 2015, Reyes, J.:
The Court said that it cannot simply yield to complainants change of heart by refuting their
own statements against the respondents and praying that the complaint for disbarment they
filed be dismissed. It bears emphasizing that any misconduct on the part of the lawyer not
only hurts the clients cause but is even more disparaging on the integrity of the legal
profession itself. Thus, for tarnishing the reputation of the profession, a lawyer may still be
disciplined notwithstanding the complainants pardon or withdrawal from the case for as
long as there is evidence to support any finding of culpability. A case for suspension or
disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainants, if the
facts proven so warrant. It follows that the withdrawal of the complainant from the case, or
even the filing of an affidavit of desistance, does not conclude the administrative case
against an erring lawyer.
PO1 JOSE B. CASPE v. ATTY. AQUILINO A. MEJICA, A.C. No. 10679, March 10,
2015, Villarama, J.: In disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar, only clear
preponderance of evidence is required to establish liability. As long as the evidence
presented by complainant or that taken judicial notice of by the Court is more convincing
and worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto, the imposition of
disciplinary sanction is justified. The Court has required that a complainant has the onus of
proving the charges against respondent by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. Caspe
alleged the controversy started when Atty. Mejica disregarded conflict of interest rules.
Caspe said that when he filed a complaint for attempted murder against Antonio Rodriguez,
Jr., Atty. Mejica served as Caspes counsel. When Rodriguez, Jr. filed his counter-affidavit, it
was Atty. Mejica who counseled and represented him. The Court found Atty. Aquilino A.
Mejica GUILTY of violation of Rules 1.03, 1.04 and 10.01 and Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and suspended him from the practice of law for two years.
ANTERO J. POBRE v. SEN. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, A.C. No. 7399, August
25, 2009. S.C. exonerated the respondent for calling the S.C. justices as a court of idiots.
She invoked parliamentary immunity.
NATASHA HUEYSUWAN-FLORIDO v. ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT C. FLORIDO, A.C.
No. 5624, Jan.20, 2004). S.C. suspended lawyer for resorting to a fraudulent order
purportedly issued by the Court of Appeals awarding custody of his children pending the
annulment case filed by his complainant-wife.

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.
Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.
Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.

15
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or
have no materiality to the case.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities
only.
RE: LETTER OF THE U.P. LAW FACULTY ON ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM
AND MISREPRESENTATION OF THE S.C., A. M. NO. 10-10-4-SC, MARCH 8, 2011.
The S.C. reminded the faculty members of the U.P.College of Law to be more circumscribed
with the filing of similar complaint against the members of the judiciary. It noted that the
concerned justice already admitted the lapse and that it was not done with malice. His good
faith relieved him from any kind of administrative liability.
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS
DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.
Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared himself
on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the order of its
preferences. He should also be ready with the original documents for comparison with the
copies.
Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.
Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an
explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgement
or misuse Court processes.
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 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to
impersonate another.
Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly
inconvenience him.
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
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.
Read also Rule 138, Section 20(g) Rules of Court Duties of Attorneys; and
Article III, Section 16, Constitution Right to speedy disposition of cases.
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
Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek
opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges.
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.
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.
LANTORIA v. BUNYI, A.M. Case No. 1769, June 8, 1992. A lawyer should not take it upon
himself to prepare a draft decision on behalf of a judge.
CRUZ v. SALVA, G. R. 12871, July 25, 1959, 105 Phil. 115. The S.C. cautioned lawyers
from attracting media attention over a pending case.
IN RE: ALMACEN G.R. No. L-27654, Feb. 18, 1970. Lawyers as part of free speech may
criticize decisions of the Court but such post litigation utterances must never be resorted in
order to malign the Court.
V. The Lawyer and the Client
CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THE NEEDY.

16
Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the
latters race, sex, creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt
of said person.
Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and 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.
Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent client unless:
a) he is in no 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.
Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his professional
fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his relations with paying
clients.
Read: Rule 138, Section 20, Rules of Court on Duties of Attorneys (h) and (i)
Rule 138, Section 31, Rules of Court on Attorneys for Destitute Litigant
Services as counsel de officio ONLY IN CRIMINAL CASES
- Appointment as Counsel de officio (to represent accused in criminal proceedings)
Read: Rule 116, Section 6, Rules of Court, Right to Counsel of an Accused
Rule 117, Section 7, Rules of Court, Appointment of Counsel de officio during trial
Who may be appointed: Lawyer in good standing; or any person who reside where
the case is filed, of good repute for probity and ability where there is no lawyer in
the jurisdiction.
What factors to consider: gravity of the offense, difficulty of the issues involved and
experience and ability of the appointee.
- Designation of Counsel de officio before an appellate court
Read: Rule 124, Section 2, Rules of Court: Conditions for appointment: accused is in
prison, there is no counsel de parte on appeal and accused signed notice of appeal himself
Valid grounds for refusal: where engagement may result into conflict of interest, when
lawyer is unable to represent a party due to pressing professional matters that need his
attention, when what the client wishes the client to undertake is patently illegal, when the
client agrees in writing to retire his representation or where after due notice and hearing,
the court allows the counsel to withdraw his appearance in an action or special
proceeding, other similar grounds.
CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN
ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.

Rule 15.01 - A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as
practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client or his own
interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.
Rule 15.02 - A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication in respect of
matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of
all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Rule 15.04 - A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as mediator,
conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
Rule 15.05 - A lawyer when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest opinion on
the merits and probable results of the clients case, neither overstating nor understating
the prospects of the case.
Rule 15.06 - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public
official, tribunal or legislative body.
Rule 15.07 - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and
principles of fairness.
Rule 15.08 - A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation concurrently
with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in
another capacity.

17
Conflict of interest: Disclose matters that would give rise to representation of two adverse
interests. Conflict of Interest, concept; when lawyer may lawyer may held accountable;
liability
WILFREDO ANGLO, v. ATTY. JOSE MA. V. VALENCIA, ATTY. JOSE MA. J. CIOCON,
ATTY. PHILIP Z. DABAO, ATTY. LILY UY- VALENCIA, ATTY. JOEY P. DE LA PAZ,
ATTY. CRIS G. DIONELA, ATTY. RAYMUNDO T. PANDAN, JR.,* ATTY. RODNEY K.
RUBICA," AND ATTY. WILFRED RAMON M. PENALOSA. A.C. No. 10567, February
25, 2015: The IBP found that complainant was indeed represented in the labor cases by the
respondents acting together as a law firm and not solely by Atty. Dionela. Consequently,
there was a conflict of interest in this case, as respondents, through Atty. Penalosa, having
been retained by FEVE Farms, created a connection that would injure complainant in the
qualified theft case. Moreover, the termination of attorney-client relation provides no
justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the
former client.15cralawred As such, a lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients
whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are
parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases. The prohibition is founded on the
principles of public policy and good taste.c
PACANA V. PASCUAL-LPEZ, A.C. NO. 8243, JULY 24, 2009. A lawyer who acted as a
retained counsel of a company was disbarred for also rendering advice to the creditors of the
company. The S.C. reminded lawyers to avoid at all times any occasion where they will
represent two adverse interests.
Notes on Issue of Conflict of Interest: The nature of lawyer and client relationship is one of
trust and confidence of the highest degree.
1. A lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of
his present or former clients.
2. A lawyer may only be allowed to represent a client involving the same or a
substantially related matter that is materially adverse to the former client only if the
former client consents to it after consultation.
3. Throughout the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts
connected with the clients case, including the weak and strong points of the case.
Knowledge and information gathered in the course of the relationship must be treated
as sacred and guarded with care and to avoid the appearance of treachery and
double-dealing, for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to
their lawyers, which is paramount in the administration of justice.
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES
OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or
from the client.
Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own
and those of others kept by him.
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon
demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as
may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly
thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgements and
executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients interests
are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a
lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance
necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.
Please note: Article 1491(5), New Civil Code which covers the prohibition against
lawyers to participate in any public or judicial auction of a property or rights where
his professional services were engaged.
SPOUSES HENRY A. CONCEPCION AND BLESILDA S. CONCEPCION v. ATTY.
ELMER A. DELA ROSA, A.C. No. 10681, February 03, 2015: Atty. Elmer A. dela Rosa
(respondent) was charged with gross misconduct for violating, among others, Rule 16.04 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The Court has repeatedly emphasized that
the relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust and confidence.

18
And as true as any natural tendency goes, this trust and confidence is prone to abuse. The
rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is intended to prevent the lawyer
from taking advantage of his influence over his client. The rule presumes that the client is
disadvantaged by the lawyers ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on his
obligation. He was suspended from the practice of law for three years.
SHIRLEY OLAYTA-CAMBA, Complainant, v. ATTY. OTILIO SY BONGON, A.C. No.
8826, March 25, 2015, Perlas-Bernabe, J.: In her complaint, complainant alleged that on
March 1, 2000, she engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of titling and/or
reconstituting the titles to the real estate properties of the late Bernabe Olayta, situated in
the Municipalities of Camalig and Guinobatan, both in the province of Albay. In connection
therewith, she claimed to have given the aggregate amount of P112, 499.55 to Atty. Sy
Bongon. Jurisprudence provides that in similar cases where lawyers neglected their clients
affairs and, at the same time, failed to return the latters money and/or property despite
demand, the Court imposed upon them the penalty of suspension from the practice of law.
Taking into consideration respondents advanced age, medical condition, and the fact that
this is his first offense, the Court finds it appropriate to sustain the recommended penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) month.
VICTORIA C. HEENAN V. ATTY. ERLINDA ESPEJO, A.C. No. 10050, December 3,
2013. S.C. found Atty. Espino guilty of gross misconduct for failure pay a personal loan to
her client. The deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks
constitute gross misconduct. A lawyer may be disciplined not only for malpractice and
dishonesty in his profession but also for gross misconduct outside of his professional
capacity. Thus, Atty. Espejo was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.
BAYONLA ET AL V. ATTY. PURITA A. REYES, A. C. No. 4808, November 22, 2011. For
her failure to turn over to her clients the just compensation in an expropriation case, S.C.
disbarred the respondent lawyer.
FREEMAN V. ATTY. ZENAIDA P. REYES, A. C. No. 6246, November 15, 2011. S.C.
disbarred respondent-lawyer for employing deceit to personally gain from the proceeds of
the insurance claims and retirement benefits of the deceased British spouse of the
complainant.
MARILEN G. SOLIMAN v. ATTY. DITAS LERIOS-AMBOY, A.C. No. 10568 [Formerly
CBD Case No. 10-2753], January 13, 2015, REYES, J.: The circumstances of this case clearly
show that Atty. Amboy, after receiving P25,000.00 as payment for her professional services, failed to
submit material documents relative to the issuance of separate certificates of title to the individual
owners of the property. It was her negligence which caused the delay in the issuance of the
certificates of title.
To make matters worse, Atty. Amboy abetted the commission of an illegal act when she asked from
Soliman the amount of P50, 000.00 to be paid to her contact inside the office of the RD in order to
facilitate the release of the said certificates of title. Further, notwithstanding the payment of
P50, 000.00, Atty. Amboy still failed to obtain issuance of the said certificates of title.
Instead of procuring the release of the certificates of title as she promised, Atty. Amboy asked
for an additional P10, 000.00 from Soliman. The lawyer was found guilty of violating Canon
16.03.
Important matters to consider on fiduciary duty:
(1). Lawyers are bound to promptly account for money or property received in the course
of his engagement as counsel.
(2). Even if a lawyer has a lien for fees, he is bound to turnover any property or money
received on behalf of his client.
(3). The turnover of money or property to his client is subject to lawyers lien.
All costs of litigation must be borne by the client.
CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE
SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
Josefina Carranza vida de Zaldvar v. Atty. Ramon SG Cabanes, Jr., A.C. No. 7749, July 8,
2013. S.C. suspended respondent lawyer for gross negligence in violation of Canon 17, and
Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the CPR. S.C. reiterated that the relationship between
an attorney and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and confidence. Whether his
services are paid or rendered pro bono, a lawyers duty of competence and diligence includes

19
not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsels care or giving sound legal advice,
but also consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending
scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting
the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for
the client or the court to prod him or her to do so.
FERDINAND A. SAMSON v. ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA, A.C. NO. 6664, JULY 16, 2013.
S.C. said that the termination of the attorney-client relationship does not justify a lawyer to
represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. The spirit behind
this rule is that the clients confidence once given should not be stripped by the mere
expiration of the professional employment. As a general rule, the ban on disclosure of clients
confidences is perpetual. Thus, Atty. Era was found guilty of Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 and
Canon 17 of the CPR and was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND
DILIGENCE.
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.
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence
in connection there with shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to clients request for information.-
REYNALDO G. RAMIREZ v. ATTY. MERCEDES BUHAYANG-MARGALLO, A.C. No.
10537, and February 03, 2015: The relationship between an attorney and client is a sacred
agency. It cannot be disregarded on the flimsy excuse that the lawyer accepted the case only
because he or she was asked by an acquaintance. The professional relationship remains the
same regardless of the reasons for the acceptance by counsel and regardless of whether the
case is highly paying or pro bono. Atty. Mercedes Buhayang-Margallo was SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for two (2) years for violation of Rule 18.03 and 18.04.
EDUARDO A. MAGLENTE v. ATTY. DELFIN R. AGCAOILI, JR., A.C. No. 10672, and
March 18, 2015: The Court found Atty. Agcaoili guilty of violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of
Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, he was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year. The
Court held that when a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the
lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for
the intended purpose. Consequently, if the money was not used accordingly, the same must be
immediately returned to the client. A lawyers failure to return the money to his client despite
numerous demands is a violation of the trust reposed on him and is indicative of his lack of
integrity.
JULIAN PENILLA v. ATTY. QUINTIN P. ALCID, JR., A.C. No. 9149, September 4,
2013: The Court held that Atty. Alcid, Jr. violated Canon 18 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility when he filed a criminal case for estafa when the facts of
the case would have warranted the filing of a civil case for breach of contract; when the case
was dismissed he committed another similar blunder by filing a civil case for specific
performance and damages before the RTC, when he should have filed it with the MTC; and
he did not also apprise complainant of the status of the cases. Atty. Alcid, Jr. is not only
guilty of incompetence in handling the cases. His lack of professionalism in dealing with
complainant is gross and inexcusable. The legal profession dictates that it is not a mere duty,
but an obligation, of a lawyer to accord the highest degree of fidelity, zeal and fervor in the
protection of the clients interest.
ERMELINDA LAD VDA. DE DOMINGUEZ, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-
IN-FACT, VICENTE A. PICHON v. ATTY. ARNULFO M. AGLERON SR., A.C. NO.
5359, MARCH 10, 2014.The S. C. held that once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client,
he is duty bound to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his clients cause with
diligence, care and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes
fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him.

20
For his failure to promptly file a pleading he already signed on the ground that his client did
not send the filing fees and 30% of his professional fees, the S.C. was suspended for three
months The Court said that this act exhibited his lack of professionalism...
FELIPE C. DAGALA v. ATTY. JOSE C. QUESADA, JR. AND ATTY. AMADO T.
ADQUILEN, A.C. NO. 5044, DECEMBER 2, 2013. S.C. reiterated the need for lawyers to
be ever mindful of the cause of their clients and accordingly exercise the required degree of
diligence in handling their affairs. For his part, the lawyer is required to maintain at all
times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and
competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or
for free. He is expected to act with honesty in all his dealings, especially with the courts.
These principles are embodied in Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, Canon 17
and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the CPR. Atty. Quesadas failure to attend the scheduled
conference hearings, despite due notice and without any proper justification, exhibits his
inexcusable lack of care and diligence in managing his clients cause in violation of Canon
17 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR.
STEPHAN BRUNET AND VIRGINIA ROMANILLO BRUNET v. ATTY. RONALD L.
GUAREN, A.C. NO. 10164, MARCH 10, 2014. For having violated Canons 17 and 18 of the
CPR, Atty. Guerin was suspended from the practice of law for six months. Despite
acceptance of the amount of P7, 000.00 for the titling of complainants lot, he failed to
perform his obligation and allowing 5 years to elapse without any progress on the referral.
S.C. reiterated that the practice of law is not a business and it reminded lawyers that the duty
to public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration of
lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves.
Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a
capital that necessarily yields profits
RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF TOMAS S. MERDEGIA AGAINST HON. VICENTE
S.E. VELOSO, ETC. /RE: RESOLUTION DATED OCTOBER 8, 2013 IN OCA IPI NO.
12-205-CA-J AGAINST ATTY. HOMOBONO ADAZA II, IPI No. 12-205-CA-J/A.C. No.
10300, December 10, 2013. S.C. held administrative complaints against justices cannot and
should not substitute for appeal and other judicial remedies against an assailed decision or
ruling. While a lawyer has a duty to represent his client with zeal, he must do so within the
bounds provided by law. It found Atty. Adana guilty of indirect contempt for his failure to
impress upon his client the features of the Philippine adversarial system, the substance of the
law on ethics and respect for the judicial system, and his own failure to heed what his duties
as a professional and as an officer of the Court demand of him in acting for his client before
the courts.
Duty to serve clients with fidelity:
(i) Use of fair and honest means: A lawyer must only employ such legal strategy allowed
by the circumstances.
(ii) Clients fraud: A lawyer must not condone any illegal acts of his client.
(iii) Procedure in handling the case: The lawyers acceptance and the limits of the
engagement of his services must be made clear at the commencement of the lawyer-client
relationship
CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN
THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to
present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.
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.
Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure on handling the
case.

21
DIMAGIBA v. MONTALVO, JR. ADM. CASE NO. 1424, OCTOBER 15, 1991. Lawyer was
disbarred for stretching for almost 49 years a case involving a probate of a will from which
more than other ten criminal and civil suits were instituted.
ONG v. UNTO, ADM. CASE NO. 2417, FEBRUARY 6, 2003. S.C. suspended a lawyer for
six months for using harassing tactics to harass a party from him his client wanted to obtain
child support

CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES.

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 services 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 form 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.
Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in cases of referral, with the consent of the client, be entitled
to a division of fees in proportion to work performed and responsibility assumed.
Rule 20.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and consent of the client,
accept any fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or forwarding allowance or
other compensation whatsoever related to his professional employment from anyone other
than the client.
Rule 20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation
and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice of fraud.

Attorneys fees:

(i) Acceptance fees; (ii) Contingency fee arrangements; (iii) Attorneys liens; (iv) Fees and
controversies with clients; (v) Concepts of attorneys fees: (a) ordinary concept and (b)
extraordinary concept.

On Lawyers fees and other charges:

Read Rule 138, Section 24, Rules of Court on Compensation of Attorneys
Rule 138, Section 12, Rules of Court on Compensation for Attorneys de officio
Rule 138, Section 37, Rules of Court on Charging Lien
Right of a lawyer: A charging lien is the right which the attorney has upon all judgments
for payment of money, and executions in pursuance of such judgments, obtained in favor
of the client, to secure reimbursement for advances made and payment of attorneys fees.
Retaining fee (can partake of an acceptance fee) and professional fees for services
rendered (include the payment of such amount of amount as may be agreed upon by the
parties in the course of handling a legal matter for the client)
Read Rule 20.01 of CPR and Rule 138, Section 24 on factors to consider in charging fees
(importance of the subject matter of controversy, extent of services rendered, professional
standing)
Concept of Quantum Meruit: a lawyer will receive such amount commensurate the
services he rendered.
On costs of litigation: A champertous contract may result where a lawyer assumes all
expenses for litigation and reimbursement is contingent on the outcome of the case. This
is strictly prohibited under Rule 16-04 of the CPR. This is a void contract.

22
Champerty is different from a contingent fee contract because in the latter the lawyer gets
reimbursed for the advances made for the client in the course of representation, whether
he wins the suit or not; only the amount of professional fees is contingent upon winning.

CONCHITA BALTAZAR, ET AL. v. ATTY. JUAN B. BAEZ, JR., A.C. No. 9091,
December 11, 2013.The Court said under Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court allows an
attorney to intervene in a case to protect his rights concerning the payment of his
compensation. The Court, may at its discretion, allow the lawyer to have a lien upon all
judgments for the payment of money rendered in a case in which his services have been
retained by the client. In this case, however, the contract for legal services is in the nature of
a champertous contract an agreement whereby an attorney undertakes to pay the expenses
of the proceedings to enforce the clients rights in exchange for some bargain to have a part
of the thing in dispute. Such contracts are prohibited under Canon 16.04 of the CPR, which
states that lawyers shall not lend money to a client, except when in the interest of justice,
they have to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter they are handling for the client.

IN RE: THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF THE SPOUSES VICENTE CADAVEDO

AND BENITA ARCOY-CADAVEDO (BOTH DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY THEIR
HEIRS, NAMELY: HERMINIA, PASTORA, HEIRS OF FRUCTIOSA, HEIRS OF
RAQUEL, EVANGELINE, VICENTE, JR., AND ARMAND, ALL SURNAMED
CADAVEDO, G.R. No. 173188. January 15, 2014.The Court held that the contingent fee of
P2000 should control the agreement of counsel and his clients although the same was
contingent upon winning the case. The Court said that granting arguendo that the spouses
Cadavedo and Atty. Lacaya indeed entered into an oral contingent fee agreement securing to
the latter one-half of the subject lot, the agreement is void. The agreement is champertous
and is contrary to public policy. Any agreement by a lawyer to conduct the litigation in his
own account, to pay the expenses thereof or to save his client therefrom and to receive as his
fee a portion of the proceeds of the judgment is obnoxious to the law.

CZARINA T. MALVAR v. KRAFT FOODS PHILS., INC., et al., G.R. No. 183952,
September 9, 2011: The case stemmed from the execution of a final decision with the C.A. in
a labor litigation. Petitioner Malvar, however, entered into a compromise agreement with the
respondents pending appeal without informing her counsel. Malvars counsel filed a Motion
to Intervene to Protect Attorneys Rights. The S.C., on considerations of equity and fairness,
disapproved of the tendencies of clients compromising their cases behind the backs of their
attorneys for the purpose of unreasonably reducing or completely setting to naught the
stipulated contingent fees. It said that even if the compensation of the attorney is dependent
only on winning the litigation, the subsequent withdrawal of the case upon the clients
initiative would not deprive the attorney of the legitimate compensation for professional
services rendered.

CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF

HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS TERMINATED
Rule 21.01 - A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client except:
a) When authorized by the client after acquianting him of the consequences of the
disclosure;
b) When required by law;
c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or associates or
by judicial action.
Rule 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information acquired
in the course of employment, nor shall he use the same to his own advantage or that of a
third person, unless the client with full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.
Rule 21.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the written consent of his client, give information
from his files to an outside agency seeking such information for auditing, statistical,
bookkeeping, accounting, data processing, or any similar purpose.

23
Rule 21.04 - A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to partners or
associates thereof unless prohibited by the client.
Rule 21.05 - A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be required to prevent those
whose services are utilized by him, from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of the
client.
Rule 21.06 - A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation about a clients affairs even with
members of his family.
Rule 21.07 - A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been consulted about a particular case
except to avoid possible conflict of interest.
Preservation of clients confidences: (i) Prohibited disclosures and use; (ii) Disclosures,
when allowed: The disclosures made a client to a lawyer are covered by the privileged
communications rule. The lawyer may, however, disclose information relayed to him by a
client when the latter is about to commit a crime or when there is a dispute between the
lawyer and his client and the information is vital in the defense of the lawyer.
PALM v. ATTY. FELIPE ILEDAN, JR. A.C. No. 8243, July 24, 2009. The S.C. held that a
lawyer is released from his non-disclosure duty when he files with a government agency a
pleading or any document on behalf of his client. The Court said that the right to information
is protected under the Bill of Rights.
DE LEON v. CASTELO, A.C. No. 8620, January 12, 2011. The Court held that the apparent
lapse on the part of the lawyer was not tainted with malice. He did not represent deceased
parties because the allegations in his pleading indicated the fact of death of the original
parties and that he now represents the successors-in-interest.
CANON 22 - A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD
CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRTUMSTANCES.
Rule 22.01 -A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases:
a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with the
matter he is handling;
b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and
rules;
c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the
client;
d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry
out the employment effectively;
e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with
the retainer agreement;
f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and
g) Other similar cases.
Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien,
immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall
cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all
information necessary for the proper handling of the matter.

24