UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

1
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

2
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

3
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

4
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LEGAL ETHICS
Supervision & Control of the
Legal Profession ....................... 1
Practice of Law ......................... 1
CONCEPT .......................................... 1
FOUR FACTORS IN DETERMINING
PRACTICE OF LAW ........................... 1
NATURE ............................................ 1
QUALIFICATIONS..............................2
APPEARANCE OF NON-LAWYERS ... 5
LAW STUDENT PRACTICE .................................. 5
NON-LAWYERS IN COURTS ................................ 6
NON-LAWYERS IN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS .... 7
PROCEEDINGS WHERE LAWYERS ARE PROHIBITED
FROM APPEARING ............................................ 7
SANCTIONS FOR PRACTICE OR AP-
PEARANCE WITHOUT AUTHORITY .. 7
PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PRACTICE OF
LAW ................................................ 8
PROHIBITION OR DISQUALIFICATION OF FORMER
GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS ............................... 8
PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO CANNOT PRACTICE LAW OR
WITH RESTRICTIONS ........................................ 8
LAWYERS AUTHORIZED TO REPRE-
SENT THE GOVERNMENT ................ 9
LAWYER’S OATH ............................. 9
IMPORTANT TERMS TO REMEMBER .................... 9
Duties & Responsibilities of
Lawyers ................................. 10
IN GENERAL ................................... 10
THE FOUR-FOLD DUTIES OF A LAW-
YER ................................................ 10
LAWYER’S DUTIES TO SOCIETY ......................... 10
LAWYER’S DUTIES TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION . 10
LAWYER’S DUTIES TO THE COURTS ................... 10
LAWYER’S DUTIES TO THE CLIENT ..................... 10
PAGE i
TO SOCIETY...................................... 11
RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES ......... 11
EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT LEGAL SERVICES .... 12
TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE
INFORMATION ON LEGAL SERVICES ................... 13
PARTICIPATION IN THE IMPROVEMENT AND RE-
FORMS IN LEGAL SYSTEM ................................ 15
PARTICIPATION IN LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAM 15
THE LEGAL PROFESSION ............... 16
BAR INTEGRATION ......................................... 16
UPHOLDING THE DIGNITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE
PROFESSION ................................................. 17
COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES ........................... 18
NO ASSISTANCE IN UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF
LAW ............................................................. 19
THE COURTS ................................. 20
CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TOWARDS
THE COURTS ................................................ 20
RESPECT FOR COURTS AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS ..22
ASSISTANCE IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT AD-
MINISTRATION OF JUSTICE .............................. 23
RELIANCE ON MERITS OF HIS CAUSE, NOT FROM
IMPROPER INFLUENCE UPON THE COURTS ......... 27
THE CLIENTS ................................. 28
ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP ................... 28
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE WITHOUT DISCRIMINA-
TION ........................................................... 28
CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY TO CLIENTS .. 30
CLIENT’S MONEY AND PROPERTIES .................. 34
FIDELITY TO CLIENT’S CAUSE ............................35
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE...........................36
REPRESENTATION WITH ZEAL WITHIN LEGAL
BOUNDS ....................................................... 37
ATTORNEY’S FEES.......................................... 38
PRESERVATION OF CLIENT’S CONFIDENCES ........ 41
WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES ............................ 43
Suspension, Disbarment
& Discipline of Lawyers ....... 44
NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF
DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AGAINST
LAWYERS ...................................... 44
GROUNDS ..................................... 46
PROCEEDINGS ................................ 47
DISCIPLINE OF FILIPINO LAWYERS
PRACTICING ABROAD ................... 49
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS IN GOV-
ERNMENT ..................................... 49
QUANTUM OF PROOF .................... 49
Readmission to the Bar ........ 51
LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN SUS-
PENDED ........................................ 51
LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN DIS-
BARRED ......................................... 51
LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN REPAT-
RIATED .......................................... 51
Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education ...................52
PURPOSE ....................................... 52
REQUIREMENTS OF COMPLETION OF
THE MCLE .......................................52
COMPLIANCE .................................52
COMPLIANCE GROUPS ...................................
COMPLIANCE PERIOD ....................................
EXEMPTIONS .................................53
SANCTIONS ....................................53
BAR MATTER 2012 ........................ 54
Notarial Practice ...................55
QUALIFICATIONS OF NOTARY PUB-
LIC ................................................. 55
TERM OF OFFICE OF NOTARY PUBLIC ................ 55
POWERS AND LIMITATIONS ......... 55
NOTARIAL REGISTER .................... 58
JURISDICTION OF NOTARY PUBLIC
AND PLACE OF NOTARIZATION .... 58
REVOCATION OF COMMISSION .... 59
COMPETENT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY
....................................................... 59
SANCTIONS ................................... 59
CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS .
....................................................... 59
JUDICIAL ETHICS
Rules on Judicial Ethics ....... 62
Qualities ............................... 62
INDEPENDENCE ............................ 62
INTEGRITY .................................... 64
IMPARTIALITY ............................... 65
PROPRIETY .................................. 68
EQUALITY ...................................... 72
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE ..... 73
Discipline of Members of the
Judiciary .................................75
52 MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT .
52 ........................................................ 75
IMPEACHMENT .............................................. 76
JUDGES OF THE LOWER COURTS
AND JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS AND SANDIGANBAYAN . 76
AUTOMATIC CONVERSION OF AD-
MINISTRATIVE CASES AGAINST CA
AND SANDIGANBAYAN JUSTICES
AND LOWER COURT JUDGES ......... 78
EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL OR DE-
SISTANCE ...................................... 78
GROUNDS ..................................... 78
IMPEACHMENT ETHICAL ASPECTS ....
........................................................ 79
SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY THE SU-
PREME COURT ON ERRING MEM-
BERS OF THE JUDICIARY ................ 79
PAGE ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Disqualifications of Justices &

Judges .................................. 80
COMPULSORY ............................... 80

VOLUNTARY ................................. 80

Powers and Duties of Courts &

Judicial Officers ................... 80
Court Records & General
Duties of Clerk
Stenographer ........................82
Legal Fees ............................ 84
Recovery of Costs ................ 85

PAGE iii
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
UP LAW BOC
Supervision & Control of
the Legal Profession
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
Const. Art. VIII, sec. 5(5): The Supreme Court
shall have the following powers:
xxx
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection
and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice and procedure in all courts,
the admission to the practice of law, the
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the
under-privileged. xxx
The provision recognizes the disciplinary
authority of the Court over the members of the
bar to be merely incidental to the Court's
exclusive power to admit applicants to the
practice of law [Garrido v. Garrido (2010)].
In the judicial system from which ours has been
evolved, the admission, suspension, disbarment
and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the
practice of the profession and their supervision
have been disputably a judicial function and
responsibility
Congress has no power to regulate the bar
(admission to practice). But in the exercise of
police power it may enact laws regulating the
practice of law to protect the public. [In re:
Cunanan (1954)].
REGULATORY POWERS
The power of the SC to regulate the practice of
law includes:
(1) Authority to define practice of law;
(2) Prescribe the qualifications of a candidate to
and the subjects of the bar examinations;
(3) Decide who will be admitted to practice;
(4) Discipline, suspend or disbar any unfit and
unworthy member of the bar;
(5) Reinstate any disbarred or indefinitely
suspended attorney;
(6) Ordain the integration of the Bar;
(7) Punish for contempt any person for
unauthorized practice of law; and
(8) In general, exercise overall supervision of the
legal profession.
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Practice of Law
CONCEPT
The practice of law is any activity, in or out of
court, which requires the application of law,
legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience. It is to give notice or render any kind
of service, which device or service requires the
use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.
[Cayetano v. Monsod (1991)].
FOUR FACTORS IN DETERMINING
PRACTICE OF LAW [HACA]: [Padilla’s
dissent in Cayetano v. Monsod]
(1) Habituality – customarily or habitually
holding one's self out to the public as a
lawyer; more than an isolated appearance
(2) Application of law, legal principles, practice
or procedure – calls for legal knowledge,
training and experience.
 Teaching law is considered practice of law
because the fact of their being law
professors is inextricably intertwined with
the fact that they are lawyers (Re: Letter of
UP Law Faculty (2011)).
(3) Compensation – one must have presented
himself to be in the active and continued
practice of the legal profession and that his
professional services are available to the
public for compensation or as a source of
livelihood.
 Giving advice for compensation regarding
the legal status and rights of another and
for one’s conduct with respect thereto
constitutes practice of law (Ulep v. The
Legal Clinic, Inc. (1993)).
(4) Attorney-client relationship – where no such
relationship exists, such as in cases of
teaching law or writing law books or articles,
there is no practice of law.
NATURE
Privilege
The practice of law is a privilege bestowed only
to those who are morally fit. A bar candidate
who is morally unfit cannot practice law even if
he passes the bar examinations (Aguirre v. Rana
(2003)).
PAGE 1
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
PROFESSION, NOT BUSINESS
Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in
which duty to public service, not money, is the
primary consideration [Burbe v. Magulta (2002)].
QUALIFICATIONS
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec.1. Any person
admitted to the bar and who is in good and
regular standing is entitled to practice law.
General rule: Only members of the bar are
entitled to practice law.
Exceptions: The following are also allowed in
exceptional circumstances:
(1) Law students;
(2) By an agent/friend;
(3) By the litigant himself.
REQUISITES TO PRACTICE LAW:
ADMISSION TO THE BAR: [CRAGEBOR]
(1) Citizenship;
(2) Residence;
(3) Age (at least 21 y/o);
(4) Good moral character and no charges
involving moral turpitude;
(5) Legal Education (pre-law & law proper);
(6) Passing the Bar examination;
(7) Take the Lawyer’s Oath;*
(8) Sign the Roll of Attorneys.*
 It is the signing in the roll of attorneys that
finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer
passing the bar is not the only qualification to
become an attorney-at-law. Two essential
requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be
performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be
administered by this Court and his signature in
the roll of attorneys [Aguirre v. Rana (2003)].
GOOD AND REGULAR STANDING: [MDRD]
(1) Remain a member of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP);
(2) Regularly pay all IBP dues and other lawful
assessments (e.g., annual privilege tax);
(3) Faithful observance of the rules and ethics of
the legal profession (e.g., Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE));
(4) Be continually subject to judicial disciplinary
control (Agpalo, Comments on the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Code of
Judicial Conduct (2004)).
PAGE 2
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
CITIZENSHIP
STATUTORY BASIS
Const., Art. XII, Sec. 14. The practice of all
professions in the Philippines shall be limited to
Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed by law.
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 2. Every applicant
for admission as a member of the bar must be a
citizen of the Philippines.
Ratio: Citizenship ensures allegiance to the
Republic and its laws.
The loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure
terminates the privilege to practice law in the
Philippines except when citizenship is lost by
reason of naturalization and reacquired through
RA 9225 (Petition to Resume Practice of Law of
Dacanay [2007)].
A Filipino lawyer who has lost and reacquired
his citizenship under RA 9225 is deemed not to
have lost his Philippine citizenship. However, he
still needs to apply with the Supreme Court for
a license or permit to engage in such practice
after compliance with the following:
[Section 5(4), RA 9225].
(1) Updating and payment of annual
membership dues in the IBP;
(2) Payment of professional tax;
(3) Completion of 36 hours of MCLE;
(4) Retaking of the lawyer’s oath.
RESIDENCE
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 2. Every applicant
for admission as a member of the bar must xxx
be a resident of the Philippines.
Ratio: His/her duties to his client and to the
court will require that he be readily accessible
and available.
AGE
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 2. Every applicant
for admission as a member of the bar must xxx
be at least 21 years of age.
Ratio: Maturity and discretion are required in
the practice of law.
UP LAW BOC
GOOD MORAL CHARACTER
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 2 Every applicant
for admission as a member of the bar must xxx
be of good moral character…and must produce
before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence
of good moral character, and the no charges
against him, involving moral turpitude, have
been filled or are pending in any court in the
Philippines.
Good moral character is a continuing
qualification required of every member of the
bar, it is not only a qualification precedent to the
practice of law [Narag v. Narag (1998)].
Definitions
Absence of a proven conduct or act which has
been historically and traditionally considered as
a manifestation of moral turpitude. The act or
conduct need not amount to a crime; and even
if it does constitute an offense, a conviction
upon a criminal charge is not necessary to
demonstrate bad moral character although it
may show moral depravity [Agpalo (2004)].
Good moral character is what a person really is,
as distinguished from good reputation or from
the opinion generally entertained of him, the
estimate in which he is held by the public in the
place where he is known [In the matter of of
Haron Meling (2004)].
The Supreme Court may deny lawyer’s oath-
taking based on a conviction for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide (hazing case).
But after submission of evidence and various
certifications “he may now be regarded as
complying with the requirements of good moral
character xxx he is not inherently of bad moral
fiber” [In re: Argosino (1997)].
Concealment of pending criminal cases
constitutes lack of good moral character (in
petition to take the bar examinations) [In the
matter of Haron Meling (2004)].
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
LEGAL EDUCATION
Pre-Law
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 6. No applicant for
admission to the bar examination shall be
admitted unless he presents a certificate that he
has satisfied the Secretary of Education that,
before he began the study of law, he had
pursued and satisfactorily completed in an
authorized and recognized university or college,
requiring for admission thereto the completion
of a four-year high school course, the course of
study prescribed therein for a bachelor’s degree
in arts or sciences with any of the following
subjects as major or field of concentration:
political science, logic, english, spanish, history
and economics.
Law Proper
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 5(1). All applicants
for admission shall, before being admitted to
the examination, satisfactorily show that they
have regularly studied law for four years, and
successfully completed all prescribed courses,
in a law school or university, officially approved
and recognized by the Secretary of Education.
The affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by
a certificate from the university or school of law,
shall be filed as evidence of such facts, and
further evidence may be required by the court.
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 5(2) All applicants
for admission… must show they have
satisfactorily completed the following courses in
a law school…
(1) Civil law
(2) Commercial law
(3) Remedial law
(4) Criminal law
(5) Public and private international law
(6) Political law
(7) Labor and social legislation
(8) Medical jurisprudence
(9) Taxation
(10) Legal ethics
Filipino citizens who are graduates of foreign
law schools are allowed to take the bar
examinations provided they show the following:
(1) Completion of all courses leading to the
degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent
PAGE 3
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

(2) Recognition or accreditation of the law When And Where To Take Examinations
school by the proper authority Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 11. …take place
(3) Completion of all the fourth year subjects in annually in the City of Manila. They shall be
a law school duly recognized by the held in four days to be designated by the
Philippine Government [SC Bar Matter 1153: chairman of the committee on bar examiners.
Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito Mendoza (2010)].
Distribution Of Subjects
BAR EXAMINATIONS
When To File Permit
morning Political and
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 7. All applicants for International Law
First Day
admission shall file with the clerk of the
Supreme Court the evidence required by Section afternoon Labor and
Social Legislation
2 at least 15 days before the beginning of the
Second morning Civil Law
examination. They shall also file within the
same period the affidavit and certificate Day
afternoon Taxation
required by Section 5.
morning Mercantile Law
Notice Third Day
afternoon Criminal Law
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 8. Notice of
applications for admission shall be published by morning Remedial Law
the clerk of the Supreme Court in newspapers Fourth
Day
published in Filipino, English and Spanish, for at afternoon Legal Ethics and
least ten days before the beginning of the Practical Exercises
examination.

Conduct Of Examinations Passing Average

Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 10. Persons taking Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 14. In order that a
the examination shall not bring papers, books candidate may be deemed to have passed his
or notes into the examination rooms. The examinations successfully, he must have
questions shall be the same for all examinees obtained a general average of 75 percent in all
and a copy thereof, in English or Spanish, shall subjects, without falling below 50 percent in
be given to each examinee. Examinees shall any subject.
answer the questions personally without help
from anyone. The relative weights of the subjects used in
determining the average are as follows:
Upon verified application made by an examinee Civil Law 15%
stating that his penmanship is so poor that it Labor and Social Legislation 10%
will be difficult to read his answers without Mercantile Law 15%
much loss of time, the Supreme Court may Criminal Law 10%
allow such examinee to use a typewriter in
Political and International Law 15%
answering the questions. Only noiseless
typewriters shall be allowed to be used. Taxation 10%
Remedial Law 20%
The committee of bar examines shall take such Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises 5%
precautions as are necessary to prevent the
substitution of papers or commission of other
frauds. Examinees shall not place their names
on the examination papers. No oral examination
shall be given.

PAGE 4
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Committee Of Examiners
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 12. Examinations
shall be conducted by a committee of bar
examiners to be appointed by the Supreme
Court. This committee shall be composed of a
Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall act as
chairman, and who shall be designated by the
court to serve for one year, and eight members
of the bar of the Philippines, who shall hold
office for a period of one year. The names of the
members of this committee shall be published
in each volume of the official reports.
Pursuant to Bar Matter No. 1161 (2009), since
that year, two examiners are designated per bar
subject.
The Bar Confidant acts as a sort of liaison officer
between the court and the Bar Chairman on the
other hand, and the individual members of the
committee on the other. He is at the same time
a deputy clerk of court.
Results
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 15. Not later than
February 15th after the examination, or as soon
thereafter as may be practicable, the committee
shall file its report on the result of such
examination. The examination papers and notes
of the committee shall be filed with the clerk
and may there be examined by the parties in
interest, after the court has approved the report.
Flunkers
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 16. Candidates who
have failed the bar examinations for three times
shall be disqualified from taking another
examination unless they show to the
satisfaction of the court that they have enrolled
in and passed regular fourth year review classes
as well as attended a pre-bar review course in a
recognized law school.
The professors of the individual review subjects
attended by the candidates under this rule shall
certify under oath that the candidates have
regularly attended classes and passed the
subjects under the same conditions as ordinary
students and the ratings obtained by them in
the particular subject.
PAGE 5
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Disciplinary Measures
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 13. No candidate
shall endeavor to influence any member of the
committee, and during examination the
candidates shall not communicate with each
other nor shall they give or receive any
assistance.
The candidate who violates this provision, or any
other provision of this rule, shall be barred from
the examination, and the same to count as a
failure against him, and further disciplinary
action, including permanent disqualification,
may be taken in the discretion of the court.
Civil Service Eligibility
[RA 1080, as amended by RA 1844]
The bar examinations is declared as civil service
examinations equivalent to:
(1) First grade regular examination for
appointment to a position which requires
proficiency in law; and
(2) Second grade regular examination for
appointment to a position which does not
require proficiency in law.
APPEARANCE OF NON-LAWYERS
Law Student Practice
Rules of Court, Rule 138-A, Sec. 1. A law student
who has successfully completed third year of
the regular four-year prescribed law curriculum
and is enrolled in a recognized law school's
clinical legal education program approved by
the Supreme Court, may appear without
compensation in any civil, criminal or
administrative case before any trial court,
tribunal, board or officer, to represent indigent
clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law
school.
Rules of Court, Rule 138-A, Sec. 2. The
appearance of the law student authorized by
this rule, shall be under the direct supervision
and control of a member of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines duly accredited by the law
school. Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs,
memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be
signed by the supervising attorney for and in
behalf of the legal clinic.
UP LAW BOC
Rules of Court, Rule 138-A, Sec. 3. The Rules
safeguarding privileged communications
between attorney and client shall apply to
similar communications made to or received by
the law student, acting for the legal clinic.
Rules of Court, Rule 138-A, Sec. 4. The law
student shall comply with the standards of
professional conduct governing members of the
bar. Failure of an attorney to provide adequate
supervision of student practice may be a ground
for disciplinary action.
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 34. A law student
may appear in his personal capacity without the
supervision of a lawyer in inferior courts.
Clear that appearance before the inferior courts
by a non-lawyer is allowed, irrespective of
whether or not he is a law student [Cruz v. Mina
(2007)].
Thus, a law student may appear under the
circumstances of Section 38, as an agent or a
friend of a party litigant, without complying with
the requirements of Rule 138-A, e.g., supervision
of a lawyer.
Ratio: The issues involved are relatively simple.
NON-LAWYERS IN COURTS
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 34. In the court of a
municipality a party may conduct his litigation
in person, with the aid of an agent or friend
appointed by him for that purpose, or with the
aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party
may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of
an attorney, and his appearance must be either
personal or by a duly authorized member of the
bar.
Public policy demands that legal work in
representation of parties should be entrusted
only to those possessing tested qualifications
[PAFLU v. Binalbagan (1971)].
The Supreme Court, in the exercise of its judicial
power, can validly authorize a layman to
represent a litigant in court [Agpalo (2004)].
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Agent or friend
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec.34. In such cases,
no attorney client relationship exists; not
habitual. An agent is usually appointed or a
friend choses in a locality where a licensed
member of the bar is not available.
Civil case – a party in a civil suit may conduct his
litigation either personally or with the aid of an
attorney unless the party is a juridical person.
ALLOWED IN: MTC, RTC, appellate court (where
the party must appear personally or by counsel)
Criminal cases – [Rules of Court, Rule 116, Sec. 7.]
in localities where members of the bar are not
available, the court may appoint any person (i.e.,
non-lawyer), who is:
 A resident of the province
 Of good repute for probity
 Ability to defend the accused, in lieu of a
counsel de oficio
ALLOWED IN: MTC only!
Self-representation
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 34. By whom
litigation conducted. In the court of a
municipality a party may conduct his litigation
in person, with the aid of an agent or friend
appointed by him for that purpose, or with the
aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party
may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of
an attorney, and his appearance must be either
personal or by a duly authorized member of the
bar.
An attorney who is otherwise disqualified to
practice law, or has been disbarred or
suspended from practice, can validly prosecute
or defend his own litigation, he having as much
right as that of a layman in that regard
[Danforth v. Egan (1920)].
When a person conducts his litigation in person,
he is not engaged in the practice of law. One
does not practice law by acting for himself any
more than he practices medicine by rendering
first aid to himself [[Agpalo]].
PAGE 6
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
A juridical person may also appear through its
non-lawyer agents or officers in the municipal
trial court. Otherwise, it must be represented by
a lawyer.
Section 34 does not distinguish between civil
and criminal cases. However, in criminal cases,
the rule is qualified:
 Under Section 1(c), Rule 115, the accused may
defend himself in person “when it sufficiently
appears to the court that he can properly
protect his rights without the assistance of
counsel.”
 Under Section 7, Rule 116, in determining
whether a counsel de oficio should be
appointed, or, for that matter, whether a
counsel de parte should be required
(conversely, whether the accused should be
allowed to defend himself in person), the
gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the
questions that may arise should be
considered.
While the right to be represented by counsel is
immutable, the option to secure the services of
counsel de parte is not absolute. The court may
restrict the accused’s option to retain a counsel
de parte if:
 He insists on an attorney he cannot afford;
 He chose a person not a member of the bar;
 The attorney declines for a valid reason (e.g.,
conflict of interest) (People v. Serzo (1997)).
Non-lawyers in administrative tribunals
Consistently with Section 34, a party may also
appear on his own behalf, his organization or
members thereof, before administrative bodies.
This is also expressly allowed in Article 222,
Labor Code.
There are laws which allow representation of
another by non-lawyers before such bodies:
(1) The 2011 NLRC Rule of Procedure,
promulgated pursuant to Article 218(a),
Labor Code, allows (a) non-lawyers, who are
not necessarily a party to the case, to
represent a union or members thereof, and
(b) non-lawyer owners of establishments, to
appear before it.
PAGE 7
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(2) Under Section 9, Act 2259 (Cadastral Act), a
claimant may appear by himself, or by some
person in his behalf, before a cadastral court.
In order that these laws will not infringe upon
the power of the Supreme Court to regulate the
practice of law, the following limitations must
be observed:
 The non-lawyer should confine his work to
non-adversary contentions and should not
undertake purely legal work (i.e., examination
of witness, presentation of evidence);
 The services should not be habitual;
 Attorney’s fees should not be charged
[Agpalo]).
PROCEEDINGS WHERE LAWYERS ARE
PROHIBITED FROM APPEARING
Small Claims Cases
Rules of Procedure in Small Claims, Sec. 17. No
attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a
party at the hearing, unless the attorney is the
plaintiff or defendant. If the court determines
that a party cannot properly present his/her
claim or defense and needs assistance, the
court may, in its discretion, allow another
individual who is not an attorney to assist that
party upon the latter's consent.
Katarungang Pambarangay Proceedings
Local Government Code (RA 7160), Sec. 45. The
parties must appear in person without the
assistance of the counsel or representative,
except for minors and incompetents who may
be assisted by their next of kin who are not
lawyers.
SANCTIONS FOR PRACTICE OR
APPEARANCE WITHOUT AUTHORITY
Lawyers without authority
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 27. Corruptly or
willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to
a case without authority to do so is a ground for
disbarment or suspension.
UP LAW BOC
Shari’a Bar passesrs are not full-pledged
Philippine Bar members so they may only
practive before Shari’a Courts. Both are
counselors, but only the latter is an “attorney”
[Alawi v Alauya (1997)]
Persons not lawyers
Remedies that can be availed against
unauthorized practice:
(1) Petition for injunction;
(2) Declaratory relief;
(3) Contempt of court;
(4) Disqualification;
(5) Criminal complaint for estafa against the
person who falsely represented himself as a
lawyer to the damage of another.
PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PRACTICE OF LAW
Prohibition or disqualification of former
government attorneys
RA 6713, Sec. 7(b). Public officials and
employees during their incumbency shall not:
 Own, control, manage or accept employment
as officer employee, consultant, counsel,
broker, agent, trustee or nominee / in any
private enterprise regulated, supervised or
licensed by their office / unless expressly
allowed by law;
 Engage in the private practice of their
profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided that such
practice will not conflict or tend to conflict
with their official functions;
 Recommend any person to any position in a
private enterprise which has a regular or
pending official transaction with their office.
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a
period of one year after resignation, retirement
or separation from public office, except in case
of the second.
Also, the one year prohibition applies to practice
of profession in connection with any matter
before the office he used to be with.
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Public officials who cannot practice law or
with restrictions
Absolute prohibition
(1) Judges and other officials or employees of
superior courts as [Section 35, Rule 148];
(2) Officials and employees of the Office of the
Solicitor General [Section 35, Rule 148];
(3) Government prosecutors [Lim-Santiago v.
Sagucio (2006)];
(4) President, vice-president, cabinet members,
their deputies and assistants [Section 15,
Article VII, Constitution];
(5) Chairmen and members of constitutional
commissions [Section 2, Article IX-A,
Constitution];
(6) Ombudsman and his deputies [Section 8,
2nd par., Article X, Constitution];
(7) All governors, city and municipal mayors
[Section 90(a), RA 7160];
(8) Those who, by special law, are prohibited
from engaging in the practice of their legal
profession.
Relative prohibition
(1) No senator or member of the House of
Representatives may personally appear as
counsel before any court of justice or before
the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and
other administrative bodies [Section 14,
Article VI, Constitution];
(2) Sanggunian members may practice law
except during session hours and provided
they shall not:
(a) Appear as counsel before any court in any
civil case wherein a local government unit
or any office, agency, or instrumentality of
the government is the adverse party;
(b) Appear as counsel in any criminal case
wherein an officer or employee of the
national or local government is accused
of an offense committed in relation to his
office;
(c) Collect any fee for their appearance in
administrative proceedings involving the
local government unit of which he is an
official; and
(d) Use property and personnel of the
government except when the sanggunian
member concerned is defending the
interest of the government [Section 90(b),
RA 7160].
PAGE 8
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Special restrictions
RA 910, Sec. 1. The pension of justices therein is
provided with a condition that no retiring justice,
during the time that he is receiving said pension
shall:
 Appear as counsel before any court in any civil
case wherein the Government or any
subdivision or instrumentality thereof is the
adverse party;
 In any criminal case wherein and officer or
employee of the government is accused of an
offense committed in relation to his office; or
 Collect any fee for his appearance in any
administrative proceedings to maintain an
interest adverse to the Government, insular,
provincial or municipal, or to any of its legally
constituted officers.
LAWYERS AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT
THE GOVERNMENT
Any person appointed to appear for the
Government of the Philippines shall be allowed
to appear in court, subject to pertinent laws.
LAWYER’S OATH
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 17. An applicant
who has passed the required examination, or
has been otherwise found to be entitled to
admission to the bar, shall take and subscribe
before the Supreme Court the corresponding
oath of office. Form 28 of the Judicial Standard
Forms prescirbes the following oath to be taken
by the applicant
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;
PAGE 9
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
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
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.
The lawyer's oath is not a mere ceremony or
formality for practicing law. Every lawyer should
at all times weigh his actions according to the
sworn promises he makes when taking the
lawyer's oath. If all lawyers conducted
themselves strictly according to the lawyer's
oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility,
the administration of justice will undoubtedly be
faster, fairer and easier for everyone concerned
[In re: Argosino (1997)].
IMPORTANT TERMS TO REMEMBER:
AMICUS CURIAE - Latin for “friend of court”, a
lawyer who assits the court by giving
information or advice regarding questions of
law or of fact. He does not represent any party.
ATTORNEY - Officers of the courts, empowered
to appear, prosecute and defend, and upon
whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and
liabilities are developed by law as a
consequence [Cui v. Cui (1964)]
BAR - Refers to the whole body of attorneys,
collectively, the members of the legal
profession.
BARRISTER - In England, a person entitled to
practice law as an advocate or counsel in the
superior court.
BENCH - Denotes the whole body of judges
NOTARY PUBLIC - A public officer authorized
to certify documents, take affidavits, and
administer oaths. Under 2004 Rules Notarial
Practice, all notaries must be lawyers.
SOLICITOR - Government lawyer attached with
the OSG
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Duties & Responsibilities THE FOUR-FOLD DUTIES OF A

LAWYER:
of a Lawyer
DUTIES TO SOCIETY
IN GENERAL Canon 1: Promote and Respect the Law and
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 20. Legal Process
(1) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Canon 2: Provide Efficient and Convenient
Philippines and to support the Constitution Legal Services
and obey the laws of the Philippines; Canon 3: Information on Legal Services that is
(2) To observe and maintain the respect due to True, Honest, Fair, and Dignified
the courts of justice and judicial officers;
Canon 4: Support for Legal Reforms and
(3) To counsel or maintain such actions or
proceedings only as appear to him to be just, Administration of Justice
and such defenses only as he believes to be Canon 5: Participate in Legal Education
honestly debatable under the law; Canon 6: Canons Apply to Lawyers in
(4) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining Government Service
the causes confided to him, such means only
as are consistent with truth and honor, and
never seek to mislead the judge or any DUTIES TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION
judicial officer by an artifice or false Canon 7: Uphold the Dignity and Integrity in
statement of fact or law; the Profession
(5) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at Canon 8: Courtesy, Fairness, Candor towards
every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets Professional Colleagues
of his client, and to accept no compensation Canon 9: Unauthorized Practice of Law
in connection with his client’s business
except from him or with his knowledge and
approval; DUTIES TO THE COURTS
(6) To abstain from all offensive personality and Canon 10: Observe Candor, Fairness and Good
to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or Faith
reputation of a party or witness, unless Canon 11: Respect Courts and Judicial Officers
required by the justice of the cause with Canon 12: Assist in Speedy and Efficient
which he is charge; Administration of Justice
(7) Not to encourage either the commencement Canon 13: Refrain from Act Giving Appearance
or the continuance of an action or of Influence
proceeding, or delay any man’s cause, from
any corrupt motive or interest;
(8) Never to reject, for any consideration DUTIES TO THE CLIENT
personal to himself, the cause of the Canon 14: Service to the Needy
defenseless or oppressed; Canon 15: Observe Candor, Fairness, Loyalty
(9) In the defense of a person accused of crime, Canon 16: Hold in Trust Client’s Moneys and
by all fair and honorable means, regardless Properties
of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the Canon 17: Trust and Confidence
accused, to present every defense that the Canon 18: Competence and Diligence
law permits, to the end that no person may Canon 19: Representation with Zeal
be deprived of life or liberty, but by due
process of law. Canon 20: Attorney’s Fees
Canon 21: Preserve Client’s Confidence
Canon 22: Withdrawal of Services for a Good
Cause

PAGE 10
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
TO SOCIETY
RESPECT FOR LAW & LEGAL
PROCESSES
Canon 1. A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution,
obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law and legal process.
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
Act or omission which is against the law.
Dishonesty involves lying or cheating [Agpalo].
When lawyers are convicted of frustrated
homicide, the attending circumstances, not the
mere fact of their conviction would demonstrate
their fitness to remain in the legal profession
[Soriano v. Dizon (2006)].
IMMORAL OR DECEITFUL CONDUCT
That which is willful, flagrant or shameless and
which shows a moral indifference to the opinion
of the good and respectable members of the
community [Aguirre, Legal and Judicial Ethics: A
Pre-Week Reviewer (2006)].
Immorality connotes conduct that shows
indifference to the moral norms of society. For
such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the
same must be grossly immoral, it must be so
corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act
or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a
high degree [Ui v. Bonifacio (2000)].
Examples of grossly immoral acts:
(1) Wanton disregard for the sanctity of
marriage as shown when the lawyer pursued
a married woman and thereafter cohabited
with her (Guevarra v. Eala (2007));
(2) Rape of a neighbor’s wife, which constitutes
serious moral depravity, even if his guilt was
not proved beyond reasonable doubt in the
criminal prosecution for rape (Calub v. Suller
(2000)).
PAGE 11
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Examples of act which are NOT grossly
immoral:
(1) Mere intimacy between a man and a woman,
both of whom possess no impediment to
marry, voluntarily carried and devoid of
deceit on the part of the respondent, even if
a child was born out of wedlock of such
relationship; it may suggest a doubtful moral
character but not grossly immoral [Figueroa
v. Barranco (1997)].
(2) Stealing a kiss from a client [Advincula v.
Macabata (2007)].
MORAL TURPITUDE
Includes everything which is done contrary to
justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. It
involves an act of baseness, vileness, or
depravity in the private duties which a man
owed his fellowmen, or to society in general,
contrary to the accepted and customary rule of
right and duty between man and woman, or
conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or
good morals (Barrios v. Martinez (2004)).
Examples of crimes involving moral turpitude
Murder, estafa, rape, violation of BP 22, bribery,
bigamy, adultery, seduction, abduction,
concubinage and smuggling are considered
crimes involving moral turpitude.
Rule 1.02. A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal profession.
The promotion of organizations, with knowledge
of their objectives, for the purpose of violating or
evading the laws constitutes such misconduct in
his office [In re: Terrell (1903)].
The Supreme Court will not countenance any
wrongdoing nor allow erosion of the people’s
faith in the judicial system [Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan (2003)].
Rule 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt
motive or interest, encourage any suit or delay
any man’s cause.
Barratry or “Maintenance” - Inciting or stirring
up quarrels, litigation or groundless lawsuits is
known as barratry or maintenance.
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Examples:
(1) Volunteering advice to bring lawsuit, except
in rare cases where ties of blood, relationship
or trust make it his duty to do so;
(2) Hunting up defects in titles or other causes
of action in order to be employed to bring
suit or breed litigation.
Ambulance chasing
Refers to accident-site solicitation of almost any
kind of legal business by laymen employed by
an attorney for the purpose or by the attorney
himself.
It is prohibited because it encourages perjury,
the defrauding of innocent persons by
judgments upon manufactured causes of
actions, and the defrauding of injured persons
having proper causes of action but ignorant of
legal rights and court procedure.
The filing of multiple complaints reflects on a
lawyer’s fitness to be a member of the legal
profession. His conduct of vindictiveness is a
decidedly undesirable trait especially when one
resorts to using the court not to secure justice
but merely to exact revenge. It warrants
dismissal from the judiciary [Saburnido v.
Madrono (2001)].
Rule 1.04. A lawyer shall encourage his clients to
avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit
of a fair settlement.
The function of a lawyer is not only to conduct
litigation but to avoid it where possible, by
advising settlement or withholding suit. He
must act as mediator for compromise rather
than an instigator and conflict [Agpalo].
A lawyer who abets his client into using the
courts to subvert the very ends of justice by
instigating controversy and conflict although
the client’s cause is without merit. It is every
duty of a counsel to advise his client on the
merit of his case. A lawyer must resist the
whims and caprices of his clients, and temper
his client’s propensity to litigate [Castaneda v.
Ago (1975)].
PAGE 12
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
EFFICIENT, CONVENIENT LEGAL
SERVICE
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.
Const. Art. III, Sec. 11. Free access to the courts
and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal
assistance shall not be denied to any person by
reason of poverty.
The legal profession is a burdened privilege not
many are qualified to undertake. A lawyer owes
fidelity to the duty required of the legal
profession. If there is no incompatibility
between the defense of the client and the
position of the lawyer, he should not decline his
appointment as counsel de oficio [Ledesma v.
Climaco (1974)].
Legal aid is not a matter of charity. It is a means
for the correction of social imbalance that may
and often do lead to injustice, for which reason
it is a public responsibility of the bar (IBP
Handbook, Guidelines Governing the
Establishment and Operation of the Legal Aid
Office).
Rule 2.02. In such cases, even if the lawyer does
not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render
legal advice to the person concerned if only to
the extent necessary to safeguard the latter’s
rights.
Advice may be on what preliminary steps to take
until the client has secured the services of
counsel. But he shall refrain from giving legal
advice if the reason for not accepting the case is
that there involves a conflict of interest between
him and a prospective client or between a
present client and a prospective client. [Agpalo]
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be
done any act designed to primarily solicit legal
business.
The legal practice is not a business but a
profession. Unlike a businessman, the lawyer
has:
 Relation to the administration of justice
involving sincerity, integrity and reliability as
an officer of the court;
 Duty of public service;
 Relation to clients with the highest degree of
fiduciary;
 Relation to colleagues at the bar
characterized by candor, fairness and
unwillingness to resort to business methods of
advertising and encroachment on their
practice, or dealing directly with their clients
[Agpalo]).
Thus, the practice of soliciting cases at law for
the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice [Section 27, Rule 138].
Rule 2.04. A lawyer shall not charge rates lower
than those customarily prescribed unless the
circumstances so warrant.
This rule prohibits the competition in the matter
of charging professional fees for the purposed
of attracting clients in favor of the lawyer who
offers lower rates. The rule does not prohibit a
lawyer from charging a reduced fee or none at
all to an indigent or to a person who would have
difficulty paying the fee usually charged for such
services [Agpalo (2004)].
TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED &
OBJECTIVE INFORMATION ON LEGAL
SERVICES
Canon 3. A lawyer in making known his legal
services shall use only true, honest, fair,
dignified and objective information or statement
of facts.
PAGE 13
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
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.
The most worthy and effective advertisement
possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially
with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of
a well-merited reputation for professional
capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be
forced, but must be the outcome of character
and conduct [Canon 27, Canons of Professional
Ethics; In re: Tagorda (1929)].
The following are considered allowable
advertisement:
(1) Ordinary professional card;
(2) Publication in reputable law list with brief
biographical and other informative data
which may include:
(a) Name;
(b) Associates;
(c) Address;
(d) Phone numbers;
(e) Branches of law practiced;
(f) Birthday;
(g) Day admitted to the bar;
(h) Schools and dates attended;
(i) Degrees and distinctions;
(j) Public or quasi-public offices;
(k) Posts of honor;
(l) Legal authorships;
(m) Teaching positions;
(n) Associations;
(o) Legal fraternities and societies;
(p) References and regularly represented
clients must be published for that
purpose (Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc.
(1993));
(3) Publication of simple announcement of
opening of law firm, change of firm;
(4) Listing in telephone directory but not under
designation of special branch of law;
(5) If acting as an associate (specializing in a
branch of law), may publish a brief and
dignified announcement to lawyers (law list,
law journal);
(6) If in media, those acts incidental to his
practice and not of his own initiative;
(7) Writing legal articles;
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
(8) Activity of an association for the purpose of
legal representation.
Entering into other businesses, which are not
inconsistent with lawyer’s duties.
It is advisable that they be entirely separate and
apart such that a layman could distinguish
between the two functions.
Prohibited advertisements: (Section 27, Canon of
Professional Ethics)
(1) Through touters of any kind whether allied
real estate firms or trust companies
advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or
wills;
(2) Offering retainers in exchange for
executorships or trusteeships to be
influenced by the lawyer;
(3) Furnishing or inspiring newspaper
comments concerning the manner of their
conduct, the magnitude of the interests
involved, the importance of lawyer’s position,
and all other like self-laudation.
A lawyer may not properly publish his brief
biographical and informative data in a daily
paper, magazine, trade journal or society
program in order to solicit legal business [Khan
v. Simbillo (2003)].
It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise
his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his
wares. The law is a profession not a business.
Solicitation of cases by himself or through
others is unprofessional and lowers the
standards of the legal profession. [In re: Tagorda
(1929)].
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.
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 [Agpalo (2004)].
PAGE 14
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Ratio: All partners by their joint efforts over a
period of years contributed to the goodwill
attached to the firm name, and the removal of
the deceased partner’s name disturbs the client
goodwill built through the years.
Firms may not use misleading names showing
association with other firms to purport legal
services of highest quality and ties with
multinational business enterprise especially
when such firm attached as an associate cannot
legally practice law in the Philippines [Dacanay
v. Baker and McKenzie (1985)].
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.
The purpose of the rule is to prevent the law
firm from using his name to attract legal
business and to avoid suspicion of undue
influence.
A civil service officer or employee whose duty or
responsibility does not require his entire time to
be at the disposal of the government may not
engage in the private practice of law without the
written permit from the head of the department
concerned [Agpalo (2004)].
It is unlawful for a public official or employee to,
among others, engage in the private practice of
their profession, unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided that such practice
will not conflict or tend to conflict with official
functions [Samonte v. Gatdula (1999)].
If the unauthorized practice on the part of a
person who assumes to be an attorney causes
damage to a party, the former may be held
liable for estafa.
Rule 3.04. A lawyer shall not pay or give any
thing of value to representatives of the mass
media in anticipation of, or in return for,
publicity to attract legal business.
The purpose of this rule is to prevent some
lawyers from gaining an unfair advantage over
others through the use of gimmickry, press
agentry or other artificial means.
UP LAW BOC
This rule prohibits from making indirect
publicity gimmick, such as furnishing or
inspiring newspaper comments, procuring his
photograph to be published in connection with
cases which he is handling, making a courtroom
scene to attract the attention of newspapermen,
or arranging for the purpose an interview with
him by media people [Agpalo (2004)].
PARTICIPATION IN THE
IMPROVEMENT AND REFORMS IN
THE LEGAL SYSTEM
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.
Examples:
(1) Presenting position papers or resolutions for
the introduction of pertinent bills in
Congress;
(2) Submitting petitions to the Supreme Court
for the amendment of the Rules of Court.
The Misamis Oriental Chapter of the IBP has
been commended by the Supreme Court when
it promulgated a resolution wherein it
requested the IBP’s National Committee on
Legal Aid to ask for the exemption from the
payment of filing, docket and other fees of
clients of the legal aid offices in the various IBP
chapters [Re: Request of NCLA to Exempt Legal
Aid Clients from Paying Filing, Docket and Other
Fees (2009)].
PARTICIPATION IN LEGAL
EDUCATION PROGRAM
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.
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
APPLICABILITY TO GOVERNMENT
LAWYERS
Canon 6. These canons shall apply to lawyers in
government service in the discharge of their
official duties.
A member of the bar who assumes public office
does not shed his professional obligation.
Lawyers in government are public servants who
owe the utmost fidelity to the public service. A
lawyer in public service is a keeper of public
faith and is burdened with a high degree of
social responsibility, perhaps higher than her
brethren in private practice [Vitriolo v. Dasig
(2003)].
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.
A public prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer
with the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall
not escape or innocence suffer. He should not
hesitate to recommend to the court the
acquittal of an accused if the evidence in his
possession shows that the accused is innocent
[Agpalo (2004)].
It is upon the discretion of the prosecutor to
decide what charge to file upon proper
appreciation of facts and evidences. Fiscals are
not precluded from exercising their sound
discretion in investigation. His primary duty is
not to convict but to see that justice is served
[People v. Pineda (1967)].
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.
PAGE 15
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
In relation to Rule 3.03, Canon 3, if the law
allows a public official to practice law
concurrently, he must not use his public position
to feather his law practice. Moreover, he should
not only avoid all impropriety. Neither should he
even inferentially create a public image that he
is utilizing his public position to advance his
professional success or personal interest at the
expense of the public [Agpalo].
It bears stressing also that government lawyers
who are public servants owe fidelity to the
public service, a public trust. As such, they
should be more sensitive to their professional
obligations as their disreputable conduct is
more likely to be magnified in the public eye
[Huyssen v. Gutierrez (2006)].
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.
HOW GOVERNMENT LAWYERS MAY LEAVE
GOVERNMENT SERVICE:
(1) Retirement;
(2) Resignation;
(3) Expiration of the term of office;
(4) Dismissal;
(5) Abandonment.
General rule: Practice of profession is allowed
immediately after leaving public service.
Exceptions: The lawyer cannot practice as to
matters with which he had connection during
his term. This prohibition lasts:
(1) For one year, if he had not intervened;
(2) Permanently, if he had intervened.
The “matter” contemplated are those that are
adverse-interest conflicts (substantial
relatedness and adversity between the
government matter and the new client’ matter
in interest) and congruent-interest
representation conflicts. “Intervention” should
be significant and substantial which can or have
affected the interest of others [PCGG v.
Sandiganbayan (2005)].
PAGE 16
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION
INVOLVEMENT IN THE IBP
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.
BAR INTEGRATION
RA 6397, Sec. 1. The Supreme Court may adopt
rules of court to effect the integration of the
Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall
see fit in order to raise the standards of the
legal profession improve the administration of
justice and enable the bar to discharge its
public responsibility more effectively.
Integration does not make a lawyer a member
of any group of which he is not already a
member. He became a member of the bar when
he passed the bar examinations. All that
integration actually does is to provide an official
national organization for the well-defined but
unorganized and incohesive group of which
every lawyer is already a member [In the matter
of the IBP (1973)].
The IBP is essentially a semi-governmental
entity, a private organization endowed with
certain governmental attributes. While it is
composed of lawyers who are private
individuals, the IBP exists to perform certain
vital public functions and to assist the
government particularly in the improvement of
the administration of justice, the upgrading of
the standards of the legal profession, and its
proper regulation.
The basic postulate of the IBP is that it is non-
political in character and that there shall be
neither lobbying nor campaigning in the choice
of the IBP Officers. The fundamental
assumption is that the officers would be chosen
on the basis of professional merit and
willingness and ability to serve. The unseemly
ardor with which the candidates pursued the
presidency of the association detracted from the
dignity of the legal profession. The spectacle of
lawyers bribing or being bribed to vote did not
uphold the honor of the profession nor elevate it
in the public’s esteem [In re: 1989 Elections of
the IBP (1989)].
UP LAW BOC
OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE OF THE IBP
General Objectives
(1) To elevate the standards of the legal
profession;
(2) To improve the administration of justice;
(3) To enable the bar to discharge its public
responsibility more effectively.
Purposes
(1) To assist in the administration of justice;
(2) To foster and maintain on the part of its
members high ideals of integrity, learning,
professional competence, public service and
conduct;
(3) To safeguard the professional interest of its
members;
(4) To cultivate among its members a spirit of
cordiality and brotherhood;
(5) To provide a forum for the discussion of law,
jurisprudence, law reform, pleading, practice
and procedure, and the relations of the bar
to the bench and to the public, and publish
information relating thereto;
(6) To encourage and foster legal education;
(7) To promote a continuing program of legal
research in substantive and adjective law,
and make reports and recommendations
thereon.
MEMBERSHIP AND DUES
Rules of Court, Rule 139-A, Sec. 9. Every member
of the IBP shall pay such annual dues as the
Board of Governors shall determine with the
approval of the Supreme Court.
A fixed sum equivalent to ten percent of the
collection from each Chapter shall be set aside
as a Welfare Fund for disabled members of the
Chapter and the compulsory heirs of deceased
members thereof.
Rules of Court, Rule 139-A, Sec. 10. Default in the
payment of annual dues:
(1) For six months shall warrant suspension of
membership in the IBP; and
(2) For one year shall be a ground for the
removal of the name of the delinquent
member from the roll of attorneys.
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
A membership fee in the IBP is an exaction for
regulation, while the purpose of a tax is
revenue. If the Court has inherent power to
regulate the bar, it follows that as an incident to
regulation, it may impose a membership fee for
that purpose. It would not be possible to push
through an Integrated Bar program without
means to defray the concomitant expenses. The
doctrine of implied powers necessarily includes
the power to impose such an exaction [In the
matter of the IBP (1973)].
A lawyer can engage in the practice of law only
by paying his dues, and it does not matter if his
practice is “limited.” Moreover, senior citizens
are not exempted from paying membership
dues [Santos v. Llamas (2000)].
In a case involving a Filipino lawyer staying
abroad, the Supreme Court said that there is
nothing in the law or rules, which allows his
exemption from payment of membership dues.
At most, he could have informed the Secretary
of the Integrated Bar of his intention to stay
abroad before he left. In such case, his
membership in the IBP could have been
terminated and his obligation to pay dues
discontinued [Letter of Atty. Arevalo (2005)].
UPHOLDING THE DIGNITY &
INTEGRITY OF THE 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.
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. While a
lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his
client’s rights and is expected to display the
utmost zeal in defense of his client’s cause, his
conduct must never be at the expense of truth
[Young v. Batuegas (2003)].
Penalties:
(1) Disqualification of the applicant from taking
the bar, if the concealment is discovered
before he takes the bar examinations;
PAGE 17
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
(2) Prohibition from taking the lawyer’s oath, if
the concealment is discovered after the
candidate has taken the bar examinations; or
(3) Revocation of license to practice, if the
concealment was discovered after he has
taken his lawyer’s oath [In re: Diao (1963)].
A declaration in one’s application for admission
to the bar examinations that the applicant was
“single”, when he was in fact married, was a
gross misrepresentation of a material fact made
in utter bad faith, for which the applicant should
be made answerable. It indubitably exhibits lack
of good moral character [Leda v. Tabang (1992)].
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.
A lawyer should volunteer information or
cooperate in any investigation concerning
alleged anomaly in the bar examination so that
those candidates who failed therein can be
ferreted out and those lawyers responsible
therefor can be disbarred [In re: Parazo (1948)].
A lawyer should not readily execute an affidavit
of good moral character in favor of an applicant
who has not live up to the standard set by law
[Agpalo].
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.
It is not necessary for a lawyer to be convicted
for an offense before a lawyer can be disciplined
for gross immorality [Agpalo].
Acts which adversely reflect on a lawyer’s
fitness to practice law:
(1) Having adulterous relationships or keeping
mistresses;
(2) Siring a child with a woman other than legal
wife (Zaguirre v. Castillo (2003));
(3) Conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude;
PAGE 18
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(4) Commission of fraud or falsehood.
COURTESY, FAIRNESS & CANDOR
TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL
COLLEAGUES
Canon 8. A lawyer shall conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid
harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Lawyer DON’Ts:
(1) Take advantage of the excusable
unpreparedness or absence of counsel
during the trial of a case;
(2) Make use, to his or to his client’s benefit, the
secrets of the adverse party acquired
through design or inadvertence;
(3) Criticize or impute ill motive to the lawyer
who accepts what in his opinion is a weak
case;
(4) Proceed to negotiate with the client of
another lawyer to waive all kinds of claim
when the latter is still handling the civil case
[Camacho v. Pagulayan (2000)].
Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language, which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.
A lawyer should treat the opposing counsel and
his brethren in the law profession with courtesy,
dignity, and civility. They may do as adversaries
do in law: strive mightily but eat and drink as
friends [Valencia v. Cabanting (1991)].
Improper Language:
(1) Behaving without due regard for the trial
court and the opposing counsel and
threatening the court that he would file a
petition for certiorari [Bugaring v. Espanol
(2001)];
(2) Filing of a civil case against the opposing
counsel without justification but only to get a
leverage in the pending case [Reyes v. Chiong
(2003)];
(3) Calling an adverse counsel as “bobo” or
using the word “ay que bobo” in reference to
the manner of offering evidence [Castillo v.
Padilla (1984)].
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
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.
A lawyer MAY:
(1) Accept employment to handle a matter
previously handled by another lawyer:
(a) Provided the other lawyer has been given
notice of termination of service lest it
amounts to an improper encroachment
upon the professional employment of the
original counsel (Laput v. Remotigue
(1962)); or
(b) In the absence of a notice of termination
from the client, provided he has obtained
the conformity of the counsel whom he
would substitute; or
(c) In the absence of such conformity, a
lawyer must at least give sufficient notice
to original counsel so that original
counsel has the opportunity to protect his
claim against the client.
(2) Give advice or assistance to any person who
seeks relief against an unfaithful or
neglectful lawyer;
(3) Associate as a colleague in a case, provided
he communicate with the original counsel
before making an appearance as co-counsel:
(a) Should the original lawyer object, he
should decline association but if the
original lawyer is relieved, he may come
into the case;
(b) Should it be impracticable for him, whose
judgment has been overruled by his co-
counsel to cooperate effectively, he
should ask client to relieve him.
A lawyer MAY NOT:
(1) Steal another lawyer’s client;
(2) Induce a client to retain him by promise of
better service, good result or reduced fees for
his services;
(3) Disparage another lawyer, make
comparisons or publicize his talent as a
means to further his law practice;
PAGE 19
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(4) In the absence of the adverse party’s
counsel, interview the adverse party and
question him as to the facts of the case even
if the adverse party was willing to do so;
(5) Sanction the attempt of his client to settle a
litigated matter with the adverse party
without the consent nor knowledge of the
latter’s counsel.
NO ASSISTANCE IN UNAUTHORIZED
PRACTICE OF LAW
Canon 9. A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of
law.
Examples of practice of law:
(1) Legal advice and instructions to clients to
inform them of their rights and obligations;
(2) Preparation for clients of documents
requiring knowledge of legal principles not
possessed by ordinary laymen;
(3) Appearance for clients before public
tribunals, whether, administrative, quasi-
judicial or legislative agency.
Examples of unauthorized practice of law:
(1) Appearing as counsel even before taking
lawyer’s oath [Aguirre v. Rana (2003)];
(2) Using the title “Attorney” in his name even
though he is a Shari’a lawyer [Alawi v. Alauya
(1997)].
A corporation cannot engage in the practice law
directly or indirectly. It may only hire in-house
lawyers to attend to its legal business. A
corporation cannot employ a lawyer to appear
for others for its benefit. A corporation cannot
perform the conditions required membership to
the bar. In addition, the confidential and trust
relation between an attorney and his client
cannot arise if the attorney is employed by a
corporation.
NOT allowed:
(1) Automobile club that solicits membership by
advertising that it offers free legal services of
its legal department to members;
(2) Collection agency or credit exchange that
exploits lawyer’s services;
UP LAW BOC
(3) Bank using lawyer’s name as director in
advertising its services in drawing wills and
other legal documents.
Unauthorized practice of law applies to both
non-lawyers and lawyers prohibited from the
private 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.
Ratio: The practice of law is limited only to
individuals who have the necessary educational
qualifications and good moral character.
Moreover, an attorney-client relationship is a
strictly personal one.
The following may only be undertaken by a
lawyer:
(1) The computation and determination of the
period within which to appeal an adverse
judgment [Eco v. Rodriguez (1960)];
(2) The examination of witnesses or the
presentation of evidence [Robinson v.
Villafuerte (1911)].
Tasks that may be delegated to non-lawyers:
(1) The examination of case law;
(2) Finding and interviewing witnesses;
(3) Examining court records;
(4) Delivering papers and similar matters.
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 latter’s
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.
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Ratio: Allowing non-lawyers to get attorney’s
fees would confuse the public as to whom they
should consult. It would leave the bar in a
chaotic condition because non-lawyers are also
not subject to disciplinary action.
An agreement between a union lawyer and a
layman president of the union to divide equally
the attorney’s fees that may be awarded in a
labor case violates this rule, and is illegal and
immoral [Amalgamated Laborers Assn. v. CIR
(1968)].
A donation by a lawyer to a labor union of part
of his attorney’s fees taken from the proceeds of
a judgment secured by him for the labor union
is improper because it amounts to a rebate or
commission [Halili v. CIR (1965)].
A contract between a lawyer and a layman
granting the latter a percentage of the fees
collected from clients secured by the layman
and enjoining the lawyer not to deal directly
with said clients is null and void, and the lawyer
may be disciplined for unethical conduct [Tan
Tek Beng v. David (1983)].
While non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC
or any labor arbiter, they are still not entitled to
receive professional fees.
The statutory rule that an attorney shall be
entitled to have and recover from his client a
reasonable compensation or remuneration for
the services they have rendered presupposes
the existence of an attorney-client relationship.
Such a relationship cannot exist when the
client’s representative is a non-lawyer [Five J
Taxi v. NLRC (1994)].
TO THE COURTS
CANDOR, FAIRNESS & GOOD FAITH
TOWARDS THE COURTS
Canon 10. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and
good faith to the court.
PAGE 20
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
A lawyer is, first and foremost, an officer of the
court. Accordingly, should there be a conflict
between his duty to his client and that to the
court, he should resolve the conflict against the
former and in favor of the latter, his primary
responsibility being to uphold the cause of
justice [Cobb Perez v. Lantin (1968)].
Candor in all of the lawyer’s dealings is the very
essence of honorable membership in the legal
profession [Cuaresma v. Daquis (1975)].
A lawyer’s conduct before the court should be
characterized by candor and fairness. The
administration of justice would gravely suffer if
lawyers do not act with complete candor and
honesty before the courts [Serena v.
Sandiganbayan (2008)].
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. While a
lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his
client’s cause, his conduct must never be at the
expense of truth [Young v. Batuegas (2003)].
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.
A lawyer should not conceal the truth from the
court, nor mislead the court in any manner no
matter how demanding his duties to clients may
be. His duties to his client should yield to his
duty to deal candidly with the court. For no
client is entitled to receive from the lawyer any
service involving dishonesty to the courts
[Comments of IBP Committee].
Rule 10.02. A lawyer shall not knowingly
misquote or misrepresent the contents of a
paper, the language or the argument of
opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or
authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision
already rendered inoperative by repeal or
amendment, or assert as a fact that which has
not been proved.
PAGE 21
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
A lawyer who deliberately made it appear that
the quotations in his motion for
reconsiderations were findings of the Supreme
Court, when they were just part of the
memorandum of the Court Administrator, and
who misspelled the name of the complainant
and made the wrong citation of authority is
guilty of violation of this rule [COMELEC v.
Noynay (1998)].
It is the bounden duty of courts, judges and
lawyers to reproduce or copy the same word-
for-word and punctuation mark-for-punctuation
mark the decisions of the Supreme Court. Ever
present is the danger that if not faithfully and
exactly quoted, the decisions and rulings may
lose their proper and correct meaning, to the
detriment of other courts, lawyers and the
public who may thereby be misled [Insular Life
Employees Co. v. Insular Life Association (1971)].
The legal profession demands that lawyers
thoroughly go over pleadings, motions and
other documents dictated or prepared by them,
typed or transcribed by their secretaries or
clerks, before filing them with the court. If a
client is bound by the acts of his counsel, with
more reason should counsel be bound by the
acts of his secretary who merely follows his
orders [Adez Realty, Inc. v. CA (1992)].
Rule 10.03. A lawyer shall observe the rules of
procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat
the ends of justice.
Filing multiple actions constitutes an abuse of
the court’s processes. Those who file multiple or
repetitive actions subject themselves to
disciplinary action for incompetence or willful
violation of their duties as attorneys to act with
good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only
such actions that appear to be just and
consistent with truth and honor [Olivares v.
Villalon (2007)].
A lawyer should not abuse his right of recourse
to the courts for the purpose of arguing a cause
that had been repeatedly rebuffed. [Garcia v.
Francisco (1993)].
UP LAW BOC
RESPECT FOR COURTS & JUDICIAL
OFFICERS
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.
Observing respect due to the courts means that
a lawyer should conduct himself toward judges:
(1) With courtesy everyone is entitled to expect
[Paragas v Cruz (1965)];
(2) With the propriety and dignity required by
the courts [Salcedo v Hernandez (1935)].
Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity
and authority of the Court to promote the
administration of justice. Respect to the courts
guarantees the stability of other institutions. [In
re: Sotto (1949)].
If a pleading containing derogatory, offensive
and malicious statements is submitted in the
same court or judge in which the proceedings
are pending, it is direct contempt, equivalent as
it is to a misbehavior committed in the presence
of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the
administration of justice. Direct contempt is
punishable summarily [In re: Letter of Atty.
Sorreda (2006)].
Liberally imputing sinister and devious motives
and questioning the impartiality, integrity, and
authority of the members of the Court result in
the obstruction and perversion of the
dispensation of justice [Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan (2000)].
Rule 11.01. A lawyer shall appear in court
properly attired.
Respect begins with the lawyer’s outward
physical appearance in court. Sloppy or
informal attire adversely reflects on the lawyer
and demeans the dignity and solemnity of court
proceedings.
A lawyer who dresses improperly may be cited
with contempt [Agpalo].
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
PROPER ATTIRE
Male: Long-sleeve Barong Tagalog or coat and
tie
Female: Semi-formal attires
Judges: same attire as above in addition to
black robes
Courts have ordered a male attorney to wear a
necktie and have prohibited a female attorney
from wearing a hat. However, the permission of
a dress with a hemline five inches above the
knee was held to be acceptable as such “had
become an accepted mode of dress even in
places of worship” [Aguirre (2006)]
Rule 11.02. A lawyer shall punctually appear at
court hearings.
Inexcusable absence from, or repeated
tardiness in, attending a pre-trial or hearing
may subject the lawyer to disciplinary action as
his actions show disrespect to the court and are
therefore considered contemptuous behavior
[Agpalo].
Non-appearance at hearings on the ground that
the issue to be heard has become moot and
academic is a lapse in judicial propriety [De
Gracia v. Warden of Makati (1976)].
Rule 11.03. A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the courts.
A lawyer’s language should be forceful but
dignified, emphatic but respectful, as befitting
an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of
the legal profession [Surigao Mineral Reservation
Board v. Cloribel (1970)].
Lawyers may use strong language to drive home
a point; they have a right to be in pursuing a
client’s cause [The British Co. v De Los Angeles
(1975)].
PAGE 22
UP LAW BOC
However, the use of abusive language by
counsel against the opposing counsel
constitutes at the same time a disrespect to the
dignity of the court justice. Moreover, the use of
impassioned language in pleadings, more often
than not, creates more heat than light
[Buenaseda v. Flavier (1993)].
Lawyers cannot resort to scurrilous remarks that
have the tendency to degrade the courts and
destroy the public confidence in them [In re:
Almacen (1970)].
The court does not close itself to comments and
criticisms so long as they are fair and dignified.
Going beyond the limits of fair comments by
using insulting, disparaging and, intemperate
language necessitates and warrants a rebuke
from the court. While it is expected of lawyers to
advocate their client’s cause, they are not at
liberty to resort to arrogance, intimidation and
innuendo [Sangalang v. IAC (1988)].
Rule 11.04. A lawyer shall not attribute to a
Judge motives not supported by the record or
have no materiality to the case.
The rule allows criticism so long as it is
supported by the record or it is material to the
case. A lawyer’s right to criticize the acts of
courts and judges in a proper and respectful
way and through legitimate channels is well
recognized [Agpalo].
The cardinal condition of all such criticism is
that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over
the wall of decency and propriety [Zaldivar v.
Gonzales (1989)].
Any serious accusation against a judicial officer
that is utterly baseless, unsubstantiated and
unjustified shall not be countenanced [Go v.
Abrogar].
The constitutional right to freedom of
expression of members of the bar may be
circumscribed by their ethical duties as lawyers
to give due respect to the courts and to uphold
the public’s faith in the legal profession and the
justice system [Re: Letter of UP Faculty (2011)].
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Rule 11.05. A lawyer shall submit grievances
against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
The duty to respect does not preclude a lawyer
from filing administrative complaints against
erring judges
Can still act as counsel for clients who have
legitimate grievances against them.
However, the lawyer shall not file an
administrative case until he has exhausted
judicial remedies which result in a finding that
the judge has gravely erred [Agpalo].
It has been held in Maceda v. Vasquez that in
criminal complaints against a judge or other
court employees arising from their
administrative duties, the Ombudsman must
defer action and refer the same to the Supreme
Court for determination whether said judges or
court employees acted within the scope of their
administrative duties.
Otherwise, in the absence of any administrative
action, the investigation being conducted by the
Ombudsman encroaches into the court’s power
of administrative supervision over all courts and
its personnel, in violation of the doctrine of
separation of powers.
ASSISTANCE IN THE SPEEDY &
EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE
Canon 12. A lawyer shall exert every effort and
consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice.
Const. Art. III, Sec. 6. All persons shall have the
right to a speedy disposition of their cases
before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies.
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 20(g). It is the duty
of an attorney not to encourage either the
commencement or the continuance of an action
or proceeding or delay any man’s cause from
any corrupt motive or interest.
PAGE 23
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
The filing of another action containing the same
subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res
judicata, runs contrary to this canon [Siy Lim v.
Montano (2006)].
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 proferrence.
He should also be ready with the original
documents for comparison with the copies.
Without adequate preparation, the lawyer may
not be able to effectively assist the court in the
efficient administration of justice.
NON-OBSERVANCE OF PREPARATION:
(1) The postponement of the pre-trial or
hearing, which would thus entail delay in the
early disposition of the case;
(2) The judge may consider the client non-suited
or in default;
(3) The judge may consider the case deemed
submitted for decision without client’s
evidence, to his prejudice [Agpalo]).
Half of the work of the lawyer is done in the
office. It is spent in the study and research.
Inadequate preparation obstructs the
administration of justice [Martin’s Legal Ethics
(1988)].
A newly hired counsel who appears in a case in
the midstream is presumed and obliged to
acquaint himself with all the antecedent
processes and proceedings that have transpired
in the record prior to his takeover [Villasis v. CA
(1974)].
Rule 12.02. A lawyer shall not file multiple
actions arising from the same cause.
Ratio: There is an affirmative duty of a lawyer to
check against useless litigations. His signature
in every pleading constitutes a certificate by him
that to the best of his knowledge there is a good
ground to support it and that it is not to
interpose for delay. The willful violation of this
rule may subject him to appropriate disciplinary
action or render him liable for the costs of
litigation [Agpalo].
PAGE 24
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
CIRCUMSTANCE OF FORUM SHOPPING
(1) When, as a result or in anticipation of an
adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks
a favorable opinion in another forum through
means other than appeal or certiorari by
raising identical causes of action, subject
matter and issues.
(2) The institution of two or more actions
involving the same parties for the same
cause of action, either simultaneously or
successively, on the supposition that one or
the other court would come out with a
favorable disposition [Brown-Araneta v.
Araneta (2013)].
An indicium of the presence of, or the test for
determining whether a litigant violated the rule
against, forum shopping is where the elements
of litis pendentia are present or where a final
judgment in one case will amount to res judicata
in the other case.
FOR THE BAR OF LITIS PENDENTIA TO BE
INVOKED, THE CONCURRING REQUISITES
MUST BE PRESENT:
(1) Identity of parties, or at least such parties as
represent the same interests in both actions;
(2) Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed
for, the relief being founded on the same
facts; and
(3) Identity of the two preceding particulars is
such that any judgment rendered in the
pending case, regardless of which party is
successful, would amount to res judicata in
the other [HSBC v. Catalan (2004)].
RES JUDICATA REQUIRES THAT:
(1) There be a decision on the merits by a court
of competent jurisdiction;
(2) The decision is final; and
(3) The two actions involved identical parties,
subject matter, and causes of action.
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
COMPLAINT SHOULD BE CERTIFIED
CONTAINING:
(1) He has not theretofore commenced any
action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no
such other action or claim is pending therein;
if there is such other pending action or claim,
a complete statement of the present status
thereof; and
(2) If he should thereafter learn that the same or
similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he shall report that fact within five
days there from to the court wherein his
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading
has been filed.
Rules of Court, Rule 7, Sec. 5. Failure to comply
with the foregoing requirements shall not be
curable by mere amendment of the complaint
or other initiatory pleading but shall cause for
the dismissal of the case without prejudice,
unless otherwise provided, upon motion after
hearing.
Submission of a false certification or non-
compliance with any of the undertakings in a
certification of no forum shopping:
 Shall constitute indirect contempt of court;
 Without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions.
If acts of the party or his counsel constitute
willful and deliberate forum shopping:
(1) Be a ground for summary dismissal with
prejudice;
(2) Constitute direct contempt;
(3) Be a cause for administrative sanctions.
The rule against forum shopping and the
requirement that a certification to that effect be
complied with in the filing of complaints,
petitions or other initiatory pleadings in all
courts and agencies applies to quasi-judicial
bodies, such as the NLRC or Labor Arbiter
[Agpalo].
PAGE 25
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
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.
The court censures the practice of counsels who
secures repeated extensions of time to file their
pleadings and thereafter simply let the period
lapse without submitting the pleading on even
an explanation or manifestation of their failure
to do so. There exists a breach of duty not only
to the court but also to the client [Achacoso v.
CA (1973)].
An attorney is bound to protect his client’s
interest to the best of his ability and with utmost
diligence. A failure to file brief for his client
certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence on
his part [Ford v. Daitol (1995)].
Rule 12.04. A lawyer shall not unduly delay a
case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse court processes.
It is one thing to exert to the utmost one’s ability
to protect the interest of one’s client. It is quite
another thing to delay if not defeat the recovery
of what is justly due and demandable due to the
misleading acts of a lawyer [Manila Pest Control
v. WCC (1968)].
Once a judgment becomes final and executory,
the prevailing party should not be denied the
fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised
by the losing part. Unjustified delay in the
enforcement of a judgment sets at naught the
role of courts in disposing justiciable
controversies with finality [Aguilar v. Manila
Banking Corporation (2006)].
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.
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Ratio: The purpose is to prevent the suspicion
that he is coaching the witness what to say
during the resumption of the examination; to
uphold and maintain fair play with the other
party and to prevent the examining lawyer from
being tempted to coach his own witness to suit
his purpose [Callanta, Legal and Judicial Ethics
Reviewer].
Rule 12.06. A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a
witness to misrepresent himself or to
impersonate another.
Revised Penal Code, Art. 184. The lawyer who
presented a witness knowing him to be a false
witness is criminally liable for offering false
testimony in evidence. The lawyer is both
criminally and administratively liable.
Subornation of perjury is committed by a person
who knowingly and willfully procures another to
swear falsely and the witness suborned [or
induced] does testify under circumstances
rendering him guilty of perjury [US v. Ballena
(1911)].
Rule 12.07. A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat
or harass a witness nor needlessly
inconvenience him.
RIGHTS OF WITNESSES [Rules of Court, Rule
132, Sec. 3.]
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper or
insulting questions and from a harsh or
insulting demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests
of justice require
(3) Not to be examined except as to matters
pertinent to the issues before the court;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to
subject him to a penalty for an offense
unless otherwise provided by law;
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to
degrade the witness’ reputation, but a
witness must answer the fact of any previous
final conviction for a criminal offense.
PAGE 26
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
PD 1829 penalizes the following acts:
(1) Threatening directly or indirectly another
with the infliction of any wrong upon his
person, honor or property or that of any
immediate member or members of his family
in order to prevent such person from
appearing in the investigation of, or official
proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a
condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in
order to prevent a person from appearing in
the investigation of or in official proceedings
in, criminal cases;
(2) Giving of false or fabricated information to
mislead or prevent the law enforcement
agencies from apprehending the offender or
from protecting the life or property of the
victim; or fabricating information from the
data gathered in confidence by investigating
authorities for purposes of background
information and not for publication and
publishing or disseminating the same to
mislead the investigator or to the court.
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.
Ratio: The underlying reason for the impropriety
of a lawyer acting in such dual capacity lies in
the difference between the function of a witness
and that of an advocate.
 The function of a witness is to tell the facts
as he recalls then in answer to questions.
 The function of an advocate is that of a
partisan.
It is difficult to distinguish between the zeal of
an advocate and the fairness and impartiality of
a disinterested witness. The lawyer will find it
hard to disassociate his relation to his client as
an attorney and his relation to the party as a
witness [Agpalo].
UP LAW BOC
When a lawyer is a witness for his client, except
as to merely formal matters, such as the
attestation or custody of an instrument and the
like, he should leave the trial of the case to other
counsel. Except when essential to the ends of
justice, a lawyer should avoid testifying in court
in behalf of his client [PNB v. Uy Teng Piao
(1932)].
RELIANCE ON MERITS OF HIS CAUSE
& AVOIDANCE OF ANY IMPROPRIETY
WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE OR
GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF
INFLUENCE UPON THE COURTS
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.
Canon 3, Code of Professional Ethics also provide
that a lawyer should avoid marked attention
and unusual hospitality to a judge uncalled for
by the personal relations of the parties because
they subject him and the judge to
misconceptions of motives.
In order not to subject both the judge and the
lawyer to suspicion, the common practice of
some lawyers of making judges and prosecutors
godfathers of their children to enhance their
influence and their law practice should be
avoided by judges and lawyers alike [Report of
IBP Committee].
It is improper for a litigant or counsel to see a
judge in chambers and talk to him about a
matter related to the case pending in the court
of said judge [Austria v. Masaquel (1967)].
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.
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Ratio: Newspaper publications regarding a
pending or anticipated litigation may interfere
with a fair trial, prejudice the administration of
justice, or subject a respondent or an accused to
a trial by publicity and create a public inference
of guilt against him [Agpalo].
Public statements may be considered
contemptuous when the character of the act
done and its direct tendency to prevent and
obstruct the discharge of official duty.
A lawyer enjoys wider latitude to comment or
criticize the actions of the judge than pending
litigation [In re: Lozano (1930)].
In the original decision of the Supreme Court in
Re: Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the
Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases against
Former President Joseph Estrada (2001), it was
stated that the propriety of granting or denying
the petition involve the weighing out of the
constitutional guarantees of freedom of the
press and the right to public information, on the
one hand, and the fundamental rights of the
accused, on the other hand, along with the
constitutional power of a court to control its
proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial
trial. It was held that when these rights race
against one another, the right of the accused
must be preferred to win, considering the
possibility of losing not only the precious liberty
but also the very life of an accused.
In the resolution of the motion for
reconsideration, the Supreme Court allowed the
video recording of proceedings, but provided
that the release of the tapes for broadcast
should be delayed. In so doing, concerns that
those taking part in the proceedings will be
playing to the cameras and will thus be
distracted from the proper performance of their
roles – whether as counsel, witnesses, court
personnel, or judges – will be allayed.
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.
PAGE 27
UP LAW BOC
Ratio: The rule is based upon the principle of
separation of powers [Aguirre (2006)].
A complaint against justices cannot be filed
with the Office of the President [Maglasang v.
People (1990)].
RELATED TO
Canon 11, Rule 11.5A lawyer shall submit
grievances against a Judge to the proper
authorities only.
TO THE CLIENTS
THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS:
(1) Strictly personal;
(2) Highly confidential;
(3) Fiduciary.
The contract of employment of a counsel may
be express (oral or written) or implied.
A written contract between the counsel and the
client is the best evidence to show the presence
of an attorney-client relationship. However, it is
not essential for the employment of an attorney.
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE WITHOUT
DISCRIMINATION
Canon 14. A lawyer shall not refuse his services
to the needy.
SERVICES REGARDLESS OF A PERSON’S
STATUS
Rule 14.01. A lawyer shall not decline to
represent a person solely on account of the
latter’s race, sex, creed or status of life, or
because of his own opinion regarding the guilt
of said person.
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 20(i). It is the duty
of an attorney, in the defense of a person
accused of a crime, by all fair and honorable
means, regardless of his personal opinion as to
the guilt of the accused, to present every
defense that the law permits, to the end that no
person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by
due process of law.
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
RA 9999, Free Legal Assistance Act of 2010. It is
a declared policy of the state to value the
dignity of every human person and guarantee
the rights of every individual, particularly those
who cannot afford the services of counsel
Ratio: RA 9999 provides incentives for free legal
service. Thus, a lawyer or professional
partnerships rendering actual free legal services
shall be entitled to an allowable deduction from
the gross income, the amount that could have
been collected for the actual free legal services
rendered or up to 10% of the gross income
derived from the actual performance of legal
profession, whichever is lower.
Different from the 60-hour mandatory legal aid
services under Bar Matter 2012.
INDIGENT:
 A person who has no visible means of income
or whose income is insufficient for the
subsistence of his family, to be determined by
the fiscal or judge, taking into account the
members of his family dependent upon him
for subsistence (Section 2, RA 6033).
 A person who has no visible means of support
or whose income does not exceed P300.00
per month or whose income even in excess of
P300.00 per month is insufficient for the
subsistence of his family (Section 2, RA 6035).
LAWS THAT TREATS INDIGENT OR LOW
INCOME LITIGANTS:
(1) (Section 1, RA 6033) All courts shall give
preference to the hearing and/or disposition
of criminal cases where an indigent is
involved either as the offended party or
accused.
(2) (Section 1, RA 6034) Any indigent litigant
may, upon motion, ask the Court for
adequate travel allowance to enable him and
his indigent witnesses to attendant the
hearing of a criminal case commenced by his
complaint or filed against him. The
allowance shall cover actual transportation
expenses by the cheapest means from his
place of residence to the court and back.
PAGE 28
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
When the hearing of the case requires the
presence of the indigent litigant and/or his
indigent witnesses in court the whole day or
for two or more consecutive days, allowances
may, in the discretion of the Court, also cover
reasonable expenses for meal and lodging.
(3) (Section 1, RA 6035) A stenographer who has
attended a hearing before an investigating
fiscal or trial judge or hearing commissioner
of any quasi-judicial body or administrative
tribunal and has officially taken notes of the
proceeding thereof shall, upon written
request of an indigent or low income litigant,
his counsel or duly authorized representative
in the case concerned, give within a
reasonable period to be determined by the
fiscal, judge, commissioner or tribunal
hearing the case, a free certified transcript of
notes take by him on the case.
SERVICES AS COUNSEL DE OFICIO
Rule 14.02. A lawyer shall not decline, except for
serious and sufficient cause, an appointment as
counsel de oficio 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.
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 20(h) It is the duty
of an attorney never to reject for any
consideration personal to himself the cause of
the defenseless or oppressed;
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 31. A court may
assign an attorney to render professional aid
free of charge to any party in a case if upon
investigation it appears that the party is
destitute and unable to employ an attorney and
that the services of counsel are necessary to
secure the ends of justice and to protect the
rights of the party. It shall be the duty of the
attorney so assigned to render the required
service unless he is excused therefrom by the
court for sufficient cause shown.
Counsel De Parte - Employed or retained by
the party himself.
PAGE 29
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Counsel De Oficio - Appointed or assigned by
the court from among members of the bar in
good standing who, by reason of their
experience and ability.
A counsel de oficio is expected to render
effective service and to exert his best efforts on
behalf of an indigent accused.
MAY BE APPOINTED COUNSEL DE OFICIO:
(1) A member of the bar in good standing;
(2) In localities without lawyers:
(a) Any person of good repute for probity and
ability (Section 7, Rule 116);
(b) A municipal judge or a lawyer employed
in any branch, subdivision or
instrumentality of the government within
the province (Section 1, PD 543).
THINGS TO CONSIDER IN THE
APPOINTMENT OF A COUNSEL DE OFICIO:
(1) Gravity of the offense;
(2) Difficulty of the questions that may arise;
(3) Experience and ability of the appointee.
(4) In a criminal action
(a) Before arraignment, the court shall
inform the accused of his right to counsel
and ask him if he desires to have one.
The court must assign a counsel de oficio
to defend him, unless the accused is
allowed to defend himself in person, or
has employed counsel of his choice
(Section 6, Rule 116);
(b) It is the duty of the clerk of the trial court,
upon filing of a notice of appeal, to
ascertain from the appellant, if confined
in prison, whether he desires the Regional
Trial Court, Court of Appeals or the
Supreme Court to appoint a counsel de
oficio;
(c) If it appears from the record that: (a) the
accused is confined in prison, (b) is
without counsel de parte on appeal, or (c)
has signed the notice of appeal himself,
the clerk of Court of Appeals shall
designate a counsel de oficio [Agpalo]).
UP LAW BOC
Rules of Court, Rule 124, Sec. 2. An appellant
who is not confined in prison may, upon request,
be assigned a counsel de oficio within ten days
from receipt of the notice to file brief and he
establishes his right thereto.
A lawyer ought to know that membership in the
bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. It
could be that for some lawyers, especially the
neophytes in the profession, being appointed
counsel de oficio is an irksome chore. For those
holding such belief, it may come as a surprise
that counsel of repute and of eminence
welcome such an opportunity. It makes even
more manifest that law is indeed a profession
dedicated to the ideal of service and not a mere
trade [Ledesma v. Climaco (1974)].
VALID GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL
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.
A lawyer shall not decline an appointment as
counsel de oficio or as amicus curiae, or a
request from the IBP or any of its chapters for
rendition of free legal aid except for serious and
sufficient cause.
The reason is that one of the burdens of the
privilege to practice law which an attorney
voluntarily assumed when he took his oath as a
lawyer is to render, when so required by the
court, free legal services to indigent litigant.
Under Rule 2.02, Canon 2, even if the lawyer
does not accept a case, he shall not refuse to
render legal advice to the person concerned if
only to the extent necessary to safeguard the
latter’s rights.
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.
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
If a lawyer volunteers his services to a client, and
therefore not entitled to attorney’s fees, he is
still bound to attend to a client’s case with all
due diligence and zeal. By volunteering his
services, he has established a client-lawyer
relationship [Blanza v. Arcangel (1967)].
CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY
TO CLIENTS
Canon 15. A lawyer shall observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.
CONFIDENTIALITY RULE
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.
The purpose of the rule of confidentiality is
actually to protect the client from possible
breach of confidence as a result of a
consultation with a lawyer [Hadjula v. Madianda
(2007)].
Should be kept in mind:
(1) A confidential communication refers to
information transmitted by voluntary act of
disclosure between attorney and client in
confidence and by means which so far as the
client is aware, discloses the information to
no third person other than one reasonably
necessary for the transmission of the
information or the accomplishment of the
purpose for which it was given [Mercado v.
Vitriolo (2005)].
(2) There is a difference between confidences
and secrets of clients. While confidences
refer to information protected by attorney-
client privilege under the Rules of Court (i.e.,
information pertinent to the case being
handled), secrets are those other information
gained in the professional relationship that
the client has requested to be held inviolate
or the disclosure of which would be
embarrassing or would likely be detrimental
to client (i.e., information not exactly
pertinent to case).
PAGE 30
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
(3) The intent of client to make communication
confidential must be apparent. But once
conveyed to lawyer, confidentiality attaches
not only to statements but also to other
forms of communication.
(4) Communication may be transmitted by any
form of agency, such as a messenger, an
interpreter or any other form of transmission.
It is immaterial whether the agent is the
agent of the attorney, the client or both.
(5) The question of privilege determined by
court. The burden of proof is on the party
who asserts the privilege.
Canon 21 enjoins a lawyer to preserve the
confidence and secrets of his client even after
the attorney-client relation is terminated.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
Rule 15.02. A lawyer shall be bound by the rule
on privileged communication in respect of
matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.
Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 24(b). An assignee
of the client’s interest may claim the privilege as
far as the communication affects the realization
of the assigned interest.
An attorney cannot, without the consent of his
client, be examined as to any communication
made by the client to him or his advice given
thereon in the course of professional
employment; nor can an attorney’s secretary,
stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the
consent of the client and his employer,
concerning any fact the knowledge of which has
been acquired in such capacity.
Requisites:
(1) The person to whom information is given is a
lawyer. However, if a person is pretending to
be a lawyer and client discloses confidential
communications, the attorney-client
privilege applies;
(2) There is legal relationship existing, except in
cases of prospective clients;
PAGE 31
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(3) Legal advice must be sought from the
attorney in his professional capacity with
respect to communications relating to that
purpose. The information is not privileged if
the advice is not within lawyer’s professional
capacity;
(4) The client must intend the communication
be confidential.
Includes:
(1) The privilege against disclosure of
confidential communications or information
is limited only to communications which are
legitimately and properly within the scope of
a lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not
extend to those made in contemplation of a
crime or perpetration of a fraud. It is not
within the profession of a lawyer to advise a
client as to how he may commit a crime.
Thus, the attorney-client privilege does not
attach, there being no professional
employment in the strict sense (Genato v.
Silapan (2003)).
(2) Confidentiality embraces not only oral or
written statements but actions, signs or
other means of communications.
People entitled to claim privilege:
Generally, the privilege covers the lawyer, client
and third persons who by reason of their work
have acquired information about the case being
handled, including:
(a) The attorney’s secretary, stenographer and
clerk;
(b) The interpreter, messengers, or agents
transmitting communication;
(c) An accountant, scientist, physician,
engineer who has been hired for effective
consultation;
Requisites for information to be considered
privilege:
(1) There is an attorney-client relationship or a
kind of consultancy requirement with a
prospective client;
(2) The communication was made by the client
to the lawyer in the course of the lawyer’s
professional employment;
(3) The communication must be intended to be
confidential.
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Exceptions:
(1) When a lawyer is accused by the client and
he needs to reveal information to defend
himself;
(2) When the client discloses the intention to
commit a crime or unlawful act [Aguirre
(2006)].
For attorney-client privilege to apply, however,
the period to be considered is the date when the
privileged communication was made by the
client to the attorney in relation to either a crime
committed in the past or with respect to a crime
intended to be committed in the future. If the
crime was committed in the part, the privilege
applies. If it is still to be committee, the privilege
does not apply, because the communication
between a lawyer and his client must be for a
lawful purpose or in furtherance of a lawful end
to be privileged [People v. Sandiganbayan
(1996)].
General rule: As a matter of public policy, a
client’s identity should not be shrouded in
mystery. Thus, a lawyer may not invoke the
privilege and refuse to divulge the name or
identity of this client.
Ratio:
(1) The court has a right to know that the client
whose privileged information is sought to be
protected is flesh and blood;
(2) The privilege begins to exist only after the
attorney-client relationship has been
established. The attorney-client privilege
does not attach until there is a client.
(3) The privilege generally pertains to the
subject matter of the relationship.
(4) Due process considerations require that the
opposing party should, as a general rule,
know his adversary.
Principal exceptions:
(1) Client identity is privileged where a strong
probability exists that revealing the client's
name would implicate that client in the very
activity for which he sought the lawyer's
advice.
(2) Where disclosure would open the client to
civil liability, his identity is privileged.
PAGE 32
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(3) Where the government's lawyers have no
case against an attorney's client unless, by
revealing the client’s name, the said name
would furnish the only link that would form
the chain of testimony necessary to convict
an individual of a crime, the client's name is
privileged.
Information relating to the identity of the client
may fall within the ambit of the privilege when
the client’s name itself has an independent
significance, such that disclosure would then
reveal client confidences [Regala v.
Sandiganbayan (1996)].
General rule: The protection given to the client
is perpetual and does not cease with the
termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by
the client’s ceasing to employ the attorney and
retaining another, or by any other change of
relation between them. It even survives the
death of the client [Bun Siong Yao v. Aurelio
(2006)].
Exception: Some privileged communications
lose their privileged character by some
supervening act done pursuant to the purpose
of the communication (e.g., a communication
intended by the client to be sent to a third
person through his attorney loses confidential
character once it reached the third party).
Examples of privileged matters:
(1) Work product of lawyer (his effort, research
and thought contained in his file);
(2) A report of a physician, an accountant, an
engineer or a technician, whose services have
been secured by a client as part of his
communication to his attorney or by the
attorney to assist him render effective legal
assistance to his client;
(3) Records concerning an accident in which a
party is involve;
(4) Consultation which has to do the preparation
of a client to take the witness stand.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
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.
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer
represents inconsistent interests of two or more
opposing parties. The test is “whether or not in
behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to
fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to
oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he
argues for one client, this argument will be
opposed by him when he argues for the other
client” [Hornilla v. Salunat (2003)].
General rule: A lawyer may not represent two
opposing parties at any point in time.
A lawyer need not be the counsel-of-record of
either party. He does not have to publicly hold
himself as the counsel of the adverse party nor
make efforts to advance the adverse party’s
conflicting interests of record. It is enough that
the counsel had a hand in the preparation of the
pleading of one party.
Exception: When the parties agree, and for
amicable settlement [Agpalo])
There is conflict of interest when:
(1) When there are conflicting duties;
(2) When the acceptance of the new relations
invites or actually lead to unfaithfulness or
double-dealing to another client; or
(3) When the attorney will be called upon to use
against his first client any knowledge
acquired in the previous employment.
Note: The test to determine whether there is a
conflict of interest in the representation is
probability, not certainty of conflict.
Representing adverse interest may result in:
(1) Disqualification as counsel in the new case;
(2) If prejudicial to interests of latter client,
setting aside of a judgment;
(3) Administrative and criminal (for betrayal of
trust) liability;
(4) Forfeiture of attorney’s fees.
Rule 15.04. A lawyer may, with the written
consent of all concerned, act as mediator,
conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
PAGE 33
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
An attorney’s knowledge of the law and his
reputation for fidelity may make it easy for the
disputants to settle their differences amicably.
However, he shall not act as counsel for any of
them. [Agpalo]
Generally an attorney is prohibited from
representing parties with contending positions.
However at a certain stage of the controversy,
before it reaches the court, a lawyer may
represent conflicting interests with the consent
of the parties [Dee v. CA (1989)].
CANDID AND HONEST ADVICE TO CLIENTS
Rule 15.05. A lawyer when advising his client
shall give a candid and honest opinion on the
merits and probable results of the client’s case,
neither overstating nor understating the
prospects of the case.
A lawyer is bound to give candid and honest
opinion on the merit or lack of merit of client’s
case, neither overstating nor understating the
prospect of the case. He should also give an
honest opinion as to the probable results of the
case, with the end in view of promoting respect
for the law and the legal processes [Agpalo].
COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
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.
This rule protects against influence peddling.
Some prospective clients secure the services of
a particular lawyer or law firm precisely because
he can exert a lot of influence on a judge and
some lawyers exact big fees for such influence
[Agpalo].
UP LAW BOC
CONCURRENT PRACTICE OF ANOTHER
PROFESSION
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.
Exercise of dual profession is not prohibited but
a lawyer must make it clear when he is acting as
a lawyer and when he is otherwise, especially in
occupations related to the practice of law.
Ratio: Certain ethical considerations may be
operative in one profession and not in the other
[Agpalo].
A lawyer is not barred from dealing with his
client but the business transaction must be
characterized with utmost honesty and good
faith. Business transactions between an
attorney and his client are disfavored and
discouraged by policy of law because by virtue
of a lawyer’s office, he is an easy position to take
advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his
client. Thus, there is no presumption of
innocence or improbability of wrongdoing in
favor of lawyers (Nakpil v. Valdez [1998)].
CLIENT’S MONEY AND PROPERTIES
Canon 16. A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys
and properties of his client that may come into
his possession.
New Civil Code, Art. 1491(5). Lawyers cannot
acquire or purchase, even at a public or judicial
auction, either in person or through the
mediation of another, the property and rights
which may be the object of any litigation in
which they take part by virtue of their
profession.
Ratio: The prohibition is based on the existing
relation of trust or the lawyer’s peculiar control
over the property.
Requisites:
(1) Attorney-client relationship;
(2) The property or interest is in litigation;
(3) The attorney takes part as counsel in the
case;
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(4) The attorney purchases or acquires the
property or right, by himself or through
another, during pendency of litigation.
The prohibition includes mortgage of property
in litigation to the lawyer. In this case,
acquisition is merely postponed until
foreclosure but effect is the same. It also
includes assignment of property [Ordonio v.
Eduarte (1992)].
The purchase by a lawyer of the property in
litigation from his client is void and could
produce no legal effect [Article 1409(7), Civil
Code) (Rubias v. Batiller (1973)].
Article 1491, however, is not applicable in the
following cases:
(1) When the attorney is not a counsel in the
case involving the same property at the time
of acquisition;
(2) When purchaser is a corporation, even if the
attorney was an officer (Tuason v. Tuason
(1974));
(3) When sale took place after termination of
litigation, except if there was fraud or abuse
of confidential information or where lawyer
exercised undue influence;
(4) Where property in question is stipulated as
part of attorney’s fees, provided that, the
same is contingent upon the favorable
outcome of litigation and, provided further,
that the fee must be reasonable.
FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP
Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money
or property collected or received for or from the
client.
Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a
judgment in favor of his clients is held in trust
and must be immediately turned over to them
[Busiños v. Ricafort (1997)].
The fact that a lawyer has a lien for fees on
money in his hands would not relieve him from
the duty of promptly accounting for the funds
received [Daroy v. Legaspi (1975)].
PAGE 34
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
COMMINGLING OF FUNDS
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.
A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to
delay any man for money or malice and is
bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity
to his clients. He is obligated to report promptly
the money of his clients that has come into his
possession. Otherwise, he violates Section 25,
Rule 138. He should not commingle it without
his client’s consent. He should maintain a
reputation for honesty and fidelity to private
trust [Daroy v. Legaspi (1975)].
DELIVERY OF FUNDS
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 judgments and
executions he has secured for his client as
provided for in the Rules of Court.
The failure of an attorney to return the client’s
money upon demand gives rise to the
presumption that he has misappropriated it for
his own use to the prejudice of and in violation
of the trust reposed in him by the client [Jinon v.
Jiz (2013)].
Every lawyer has the responsibility to protect
and advance the interests of his client such that
he must promptly account for whatever money
or property his client may have entrusted to
him. As a mere trustee of said money or
property, he must hold them separate from that
of his own and make sure that they are used for
their intended purpose. If not used, he must
return the money or property immediately to his
client upon demand, otherwise the lawyer shall
be presumed to have misappropriated the same
in violation of the trust reposed on him. A
lawyer’s conversion of funds entrusted to him is
a gross violation of professional ethics [Arellano
University, Inc. v. Mijares III (2009)].
PAGE 35
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
However, an attorney has a lien upon the funds
documents and papers of his client which have
lawfully come into his possession and may
retain the same until his lawful fees and
disbursements have been paid and may apply
such funds to the satisfaction thereof [Section
137, Rule 138].
BORROWING AND LENDING
Rule 16.04. A lawyer shall not borrow money
from his client unless the client’s 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.
The relation of attorney and client is highly
fiduciary in nature and is of a very delicate,
exacting and confidential character. A lawyer is
duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with
his clients. The profession, therefore, demands
of an attorney an absolute abdication of every
personal advantage conflicting in any way,
directly or indirectly, with the interest of his
client [Barnachea v. Quicho (2003)].
FIDELITY TO CLIENT’S CAUSE
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.
When a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he thereby
covenants that he will exert all effort for its
protection until its final conclusion. The failure
to exercise due diligence and the abandonment
of a client’s cause make such a lawyer unworthy
of the trust which the client has reposed on him
[Cantilller v. Potenciano (1989)].
No lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or
advocate for every person who may wish to
become his client. He has the right to decline
employment, except as prescribed in Canon 14
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. But
once he agrees to take up the cause of the
client, no fear or judicial disfavor or public
unpopularity should restrain him from the full
discharge of his duty [Santiago v. Fojas (1995)].
UP LAW BOC
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Canon 18. A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.
COLLABORATING COUNSEL
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.
There is implied representation when:
(1) That he possess the requisite degree of
academic learning, skill and ability in the
practice of his profession;
(2) That he will exert his best judgment in the
prosecution or defense of the litigation
entrusted to him;
(3) That he will exercise reasonable and ordinary
care and diligence in the pursuit or defense
of the case; and
(4) That he will take steps as will adequately
safeguard his client’s interests [Islas v. Platon
(1924)].
Some cases involve specialized fields of law and
require special training. A lawyer should not
accept an undertaking in specific area of law
which he knows or should know he is not
qualified to enter [Agpalo].
ADEQUATE PREPARATION
Rule 18.02. A lawyer shall not handle any legal
matter without adequate preparation.
A lawyer should safeguard his client’s rights and
interests by thorough study and preparation,
mastering applicable law and facts involved in a
case, regardless of the nature of the
assignment, and keeping constantly abreast of
the latest jurisprudence and developments in all
branches of the law [Agpalo].
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
A lawyer should give adequate attention, care
and time to his cases. This is the reason why a
practicing lawyer should accept only so many
cases he can handle. Once he agrees to handle a
case, he should undertake the task with
dedication and care. If he should do any less
then he is not true to his oath as a lawyer
[Legarda v. CA (1991)].
Negligence
General rule: A client is bound by attorney’s
conduct, negligence and mistake in handling
case or in management of litigation and in
procedural technique, and he cannot be heard
to complain that result might have been
different had his lawyer proceeded differently.
Exceptions: He is not so bound where the
ignorance, incompetence or inexperience of
lawyer is so great and error so serious that
client, who has good cause is prejudiced and
denied a day in court [People v. Manzanilla
(1922); Alarcon v. CA (2000)].
Characterized as negligent:
(1) Failure of counsel to ask for additional time
to answer a complaint resulting in a default
judgment against his client [Mapua v.
Mendoza (1993)];
(2) Failure to bring suit immediately, as when it
was filed when the defendant had already
become insolvent and recovery could no
longer be had;
(3) Failure to ascertain date of receipt from post
office of notice of decision resulting in the
non-perfection of the appellant’s appeal
[Joven-De Jesus v. PNB (1964)];
(4) Failure to file briefs within the reglementary
period [People v. Cawili (1970)];
(5) Failure to attend to trial without filing a
motion for postponement or without
requesting either of his two partners in the
law office to take his place and appear for
the defendants [Gaerlan v. Bernal (1952)];
(6) Failure to appear at pre-trial [Agravante v.
Patriarca (1990)];
(7) Failure of counsel to notify clients of the
scheduled trial which prevented the latter to
look to another lawyer to represent them
while counsel was in the hospital [Ventura v.
Santos (1993)];
PAGE 36
UP LAW BOC
(8) Failure to appear simply because the client
did not go to counsel’s office on the date of
the trial as was agreed upon [Alcoriza v.
Lumakang (1978)];
(9) Failure to pay the appellate docket fee after
receiving the amount for the purpose
[Capulong v. Alino (1968)].Rule 18.03. A
lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
If by reason of the lawyer’s negligence, actual
loss has been caused to his client, the latter has
a cause of action against him for damages.
However, for the lawyer to be held liable, his
failure to exercise reasonable care, skill and
diligence must be proximate cause of the loss
(Callanta).
Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full
attention, diligence, skill and competence,
regardless of its importance or whether he
accepts for a fee or free. By agreeing to be
someone’s counsel, he represents that he will
exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable
degree of care and skill demanded of the
business he undertakes to do, to protect the
client’s interests and take all steps or do all acts
necessary thereof [Uy v. Tansinin (2009)].
A client is entitled to the benefit of any and
every remedy and defense authorized by law,
and is expected to rely on the lawyer to assert
every such remedy or defense [Garcia v. Bala
(2005)].
DUTY TO APPRISE CLIENT
Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable period of time to
client’s request for information.
It was unnecessary to have the clients wait, and
hope, for six long years on their pension claims.
Upon their refusal to cooperate, the lawyer
should have forthwith terminated their
professional relationship instead of keeping
them hanging indefinitely [Blanza v. Arcangel
(1967)].
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
REPRESENTATION WITH ZEAL WITHIN
LEGAL BOUNDS
Canon 19. A lawyer shall represent his client
with zeal within the bounds of the law.
In the discharge of his duty of entire devotion to
the client’s cause, a lawyer should present every
remedy or defense authorized by law in support
of his client’s cause regardless of his personal
views [Legarda v. CA (1991)].
USE OF FAIR & HONEST MEANS
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.
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 20(d). It is the duty
of an attorney to employ for the purpose of
maintaining the causes confided to him such
means only as are consistent with truth and
honor and never seek to mislead the judge or
any judicial officer by an artifice or false
statement of fact or law.
Thus, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file
any unfounded or baseless criminal case or
cases against the adversaries of his client
designed to secure a leverage to compel
adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases
against the lawyer’s client [Pena v Aparicio
(2007)].
CLIENT’S FRAUD
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.
This rule merely requires the lawyer to
terminate his relationship with the client in the
event the latter fails or refuses to rectify the
fraud [Agpalo].
PAGE 37
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
PROCEDURE IN HANDLING THE CASE
Rule 19.03. A lawyer shall not allow his client to
dictate the procedure on handling the case.
The broad implied or apparent powers of an
attorney with respect to the conduct or control
of litigation are, however, limited to matters
which relate only to the procedure or remedy.
The employment of itself confers upon the
attorney no implied power or authority over the
subject matter of the cause of action or defense;
and, unless the attorney has expressly been
granted authority with respect thereto, the
power to deal with or surrender these matters is
regarded as remaining exclusively in the client.
The line of demarcation between the respective
rights and powers of an attorney and his client
is clearly defined. The cause of action, the claim
or demand sued upon, and the subject matter
of the litigation are all within the exclusive
control of a client, and an attorney may not
impair, compromise, settle, surrender, or
destroy them without his client's consent.
But all the proceedings in court to enforce the
remedy, to bring the claim, demand, cause of
action, or subject matter of the suit to hearing,
trial, determination, judgment, and execution,
are within the exclusive control of the attorney
[Belandres v. Lopez Sugar Central Mill (1955)].
ATTORNEY’S FEES
Canon 20. A lawyer shall charge only fair and
reasonable fees.
An attorney is entitled to have and recover from
his client no more than a reasonable
compensation for his services with a view to:
(1) The importance of the subject matter of the
controversy;
(2) The extent of the services rendered; and
(3) The professional standing of the attorney.
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 24. No court shall
be bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert
witnesses as to the proper compensation but
may disregard such testimony and base its
conclusion on its own professional knowledge.
PAGE 38
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
A written contract for services shall control the
amount to be paid therefore unless found by the
court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.
A lawyer cannot recover the full amount
stipulated in the written contract:
(1) When the services were not performed, and
the lawyer withdrew before the case was
finished, he will be allowed only reasonable
fees;
(2) When there is justified dismissal of an
attorney, the contract will be nullified and
payment will be on quantum meruit basis
(3) When the stipulated fees are unconscionable
or unreasonable;
(4) When the stipulated fees are in excess of
what is expressly provided by law;
(5) When the lawyer is guilty of fraud or bad
faith in the manner of his employment;
(6) When the counsel’s services are worthless
because of negligence;
(7) When the contract is contrary to laws,
morals, and good policies.
The mere fact that an agreement had been
reached between attorney and client fixing the
amount of the attorney’s fees, does not insulate
such agreement from review and modification
by the Court where the fees clearly appear to be
excessive or unreasonable [Tanhueco v. De
Dumo (1989)].
In the absence of an express contract, payment
of attorney’s fees may be justified by virtue of
the innominate contract of facio ut des (I do and
you give) which is based on the principle that
“no one shall enrich himself at the expense of
another” [Corpuz v. CA (1980)].
The counsel, if worthy of his hire, is entitled to
be fully recompensed for his services. With his
capital consisting solely of his brains and his
skill, acquired at tremendous cost not only in
money but in the expenditure of time and
energy, he is entitled to the protection of any
judicial tribunal against any attempt on the part
of a client to escape payment of his fees.
[Albano v. Coloma (1967)].
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
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 from the
service;
(h) The contingency or certainty of
compensation;
(i) The character of the employment, whether
occasional or established; and
(j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
An attorney may be paid in any of the following
manner:
(1) A fixed or absolute fee which is payable
regardless of the result of the case;
(2) A contingent fee that is conditioned to the
securing of a favorable judgment and
recovery of money or property and the
amount of which may be on a percentage
basis;
(3) A fixed fee payable per appearance;
(4) A fixed fee computed by the number of hours
spent;
(5) A fixed fee based on a piece of work;
(6) A combination of any of the above stipulated
fees.
Quantum meruit
“as much as a lawyer deserves.” Its essential
requisite is acceptance of the benefits by one
sought to be charged for services rendered
under circumstances as reasonably to notify him
that lawyer expects compensation.
It is authorized in the following instances:
(1) There is no express contract for attorney’s
fees agreed upon between the lawyer and
the client;
PAGE 39
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(2) When although there is a formal contract of
attorney’s fees, the stipulated fees are found
unconscionable or unreasonable by the
court;
(3) When the contract for attorney’s fees is void
due to purely formal matters or defects of
execution;
(4) When the counsel, for justifiable cause, was
not able to finish the case to its conclusion;
(5) When lawyer and client disregard the
contract of attorney’s fees;
(6) When there is a contract but no stipulation
as to attorney’s fees;
Guideline in determining attorney’s fees in
quantum meruit basis:
(1) Time spent and extent of the services
rendered. A lawyer is justified in fixing higher
fees when the case is so complicated and
requires more time and efforts to finish it.
(2) Importance of subject matter. The more
important the subject matter or the bigger
value of the interest or property in litigation,
the higher is the attorney’s fee.
(3) Novelty and difficulty of questions involved.
When the questions in a case are novel and
difficult, greater efforts, deeper study and
research, are bound to burn the lawyer’s time
and stamina considering that there are no
local precedents to rely upon.
(4) Skill demanded of the lawyer. The totality of
the lawyer’s experience provides him the skill
and competence admired in lawyers.
The above rules apply in the case of a counsel
de parte. In the case of a counsel de oficio, the
counsel may not demand from the accused
attorney’s fees even if he wins the case.
However, subject to availability of funds, the
court may, in its discretion, order an attorney
employed as counsel de oficio to be
compensated in such sum as the court may fix.
Criteria of the court in fixing the amount:
(1) The importance of the subject matter of the
controversy;
(2) The extent of the services rendered; and
(3) The professional standing of the attorney.
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

ACCEPTANCE FEES ATTORNEY’S LIENS

Acceptance of money from a client establishes
an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to
the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. The
canons of the legal profession require that once
an attorney agrees to handle a case, he should
undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost
devotion. [Emiliano Court Townhouses
Homeowners Association v. Dioneda (2003)]
Retaining lien
An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds,
documents and papers of his client which have
lawfully come into his possession. Thus:
(1) He may retain the same until his lawful fees
and disbursements have been paid; and
(2) May apply such funds to the satisfaction
thereof (Section 37, Rule 138).

Failure to render the legal services agreed upon, Requisites:

despite receipt of an acceptance fee, is a clear (1) Attorney-client relationship;
violation of the Code of Professional (2) Lawful possession by lawyer of the client’s
Responsibility [Macarulay v. Seriña (2005)]. funds, documents and papers in his
professional capacity;
CONTINGENCY FEE ARRANGEMENTS (3) Unsatisfied claim for attorney’s fees or
disbursements.
Distinction between CHAPERTOUS &
CONTINGENT contracts: Charging lien
Champertous contract Contigent contract He shall also have a lien to the same extent
upon all judgments for the payment of money,
The lawyer stipulates the lawyer’s fee, and executions issued in pursuance of such
with his client that he usually a fixed judgments, which he has secured in a litigation
will bear all the percentage of what of his client. This lien exists from and after the
expenses for the may be recovered in time when he shall have caused:
prosecution of the the action, is made to (1) A statement of his claim of such lien to be
case, the recovery of depend upon the entered upon the records of the court
things or property success in the effort to rendering such judgment, or issuing such
being claimed, and enforce or defend the execution; and
the latter pays only client’s right. The (2) Written notice thereof to be delivered to his
upon successful lawyer does not client and to the adverse party.
litigation. undertake to shoulder
the expenses of From then on, he shall have the same right and
litigation. power over such judgments and executions as
This contract is void It is a valid agreement his client would have to enforce his lien and
for being against secure the payment of his just fees and
public policy disbursements (Section 37, Rule 138).

Rule 20.02. A lawyer shall, in cases of referral, Requisites:

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.
(1) Attorney-client relationship;
(2) The attorney has rendered services;
(3) A money judgment favorable to the client
has been secured in the action;
(4) The attorney has a claim for attorney’s fees
or advances statement of his claim has been
duly recorded in the case with notice thereof
served upon the client and adverse party.

PAGE 40
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Retaining lien Charging lien Judicial actions to recover attorney’s fees:

(1) An appropriate motion or petition as an
Nature incident in the main action where he
Passive lien. It cannot be Active lien. It can be rendered legal services;
actively enforced. It is a enforced by (2) A separate civil action for collection of
general lien. execution. It is a attorney’s fees.
special lien.
Basis Suits to collect fees should be avoided and only
when the circumstances imperatively require
Lawful possession of Securing of a should a lawyer resort to lawsuit to enforce
funds, papers, favorable money payment of fees. This is but a logical
documents, property judgment for client consequence of the legal profession not
belonging to client primarily being for economic compensation
Coverage [Agpalo].
Covers only funds, Covers all
CONCEPTS OF ATTORNEY’S FEES
papers, documents, and judgments for the
Ordinary concept
property in the lawful payment of money
An attorney’s fee is the reasonable
possession of the and executions
compensation paid to a lawyer for the legal
attorney by reason of his issued in pursuance
services he has rendered to a client. Its basis of
professional of such judgment
this compensation is the fact of employment by
employment
the client.
Effectivity
As soon as the lawyer As soon as the claim Extraordinary concept
gets possession of the for attorney’s fees An attorney’s fee is an indemnity for damages
funds, papers, had been entered ordered by the court to be paid by the losing
documents, property into the records of party to the prevailing party in a litigation. The
the case basis of this is any of the cases authorized by
law and is payable not to the lawyer but to the
Notice client – unless they have agreed that the award
Client need not be Client and adverse shall pertain to the lawyer as additional
notified to make it party need to compensation or as part thereof [Traders Royal
effective notified to make it Bank Employees Union-Independent v. NLRC
effective (1997)].
Applicability
PRESERVATION OF CLIENT’S CONFIDENCES
May be exercised before Generally, it is Canon 21. A lawyer shall preserve the confidence
judgment or execution, exercisable only and secrets of his client even after the attorney-
or regardless thereof when the attorney client relation is terminated.
had already secured
a favorable
judgment for his Ratio: This duty exists:
client (1) Because unless the client knows that his
attorney cannot be compelled to reveal what
is told to him, he will suppress what he
FEES AND CONTROVERSIES WITH CLIENTS thinks to be unfavorable and the advice
Rule 20.04. A lawyer shall avoid controversies which follows will be useless if not
with clients concerning his compensation and misleading;
shall resort to judicial action only to prevent (2) To encourage a client to make full disclosure
imposition, injustice or fraud. to his attorney and to place unrestricted
confidence in him in matters affecting his
rights or obligations.

PAGE 41
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Related Statues
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 20(3). It is the duty
of an attorney to maintain inviolate the
confidence, and at every peril to himself to
preserve, the secrets of his client and to accept
no compensation in connection with his client’s
business except from him or with his knowledge
and approval.
Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 21(b). An attorney
cannot, without the consent of his client, be
examined as to any communication made by
the client to him or his advice given thereon in
the course of professional employment; nor can
an attorney’s secretary stenographer or clerk be
examined without the consent of the client and
his employer concerning any fact the knowledge
of which has been acquired in such capacity.
Revised Penal Code, Art. 209. Criminal liability is
imposed upon any lawyer who, by any malicious
breach of professional duty or of inexcusable
negligence or ignorance, reveals any of the
secrets of the latter learned by him in his
professional capacity. The same liability is
imposed upon a lawyer who, having undertaken
the defense of a client or having received
confidential information from said client in a
case, undertakes the defense of the opposing
party in the same case, without the consent of
his first client.
PROHIBITED DISCLOSURES AND USE
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.
A lawyer must have the fullest confidence of his
client. If confidence is abused, as by the use by
the lawyer of the client’s secrets against his
client, the profession will suffer by the loss
thereof [Maturan v. Gonzales (1998)].
PAGE 42
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
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.
The work and product of a lawyer, such as his
effort, research, and thought, and the records of
his client, contained in his files are privileged
matters.
Neither the lawyer nor, after his death, his heir,
or legal representative may properly disclose
the contents of such file cabinet without client’s
consent.
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.
Professional employment of a law firm is
equivalent to retainer of the members thereof
even though only one partner is consulted.
When one partner tells another about the
details of the case, it is not considered as
disclosure to third persons because members of
a law firm are considered as one entity.
The client’s secrets which clerical aids of lawyers
learn of in the performance of their services are
covered by privileged communication. It is the
duty of lawyer to ensure that this is being
followed (e.g., execution of confidentiality
agreements).
The prohibition against a lawyer from divulging
the confidences and secrets of his clients will
become futile exercise if his clerical aids are
given liberty to do what is prohibited of the
lawyer.
Rule 21.06. A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet
conversation about a client’s affairs even with
members of his family.
UP LAW BOC
A lawyer must not only preserve the confidences
and secrets of his clients in his law office but
also outside including his home. He should
avoid committing calculated indiscretion, that
is, accidental revelation of secrets obtained in
his professional employment. Reckless or
imprudent disclosure of the affairs of his clients
may jeopardize them. Not every member of the
lawyer’s family has the proper orientation and
training for keeping client’s confidences and
secrets.
Rule 21.07. A lawyer shall not reveal that he has
been consulted about a particular case except
to avoid possible conflict of interest.
This rule clarifies that privilege communication
applies even to prospective clients.
The disclosure and the lawyer’s opinion thereon
create an attorney-client relationship, even
though the lawyer does not eventually accept
the employment or the prospective client did
not thereafter actually engage the lawyer. By
the consultation, the lawyer already learned of
the secrets of prospective client. It is not fair if
he will not be bound by the rule on privileged
communication in respect of matters disclosed
to him by a prospective client. This rule, of
course, is subject to exception of representation
of conflicting interests.
In relation to conflict of interest, the lawyer
should ascertain as soon as practicable whether
the matter would involve a conflict of interest
with his other client or with his own.
DISCLOSURE, WHEN ALLOWED
Rule 21.01. A lawyer shall not reveal the
confidences or secrets of his client except:
(a) When authorized by the client after
acquainting 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 21.04. A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a
client of the firm to partners or associates
thereof unless prohibited by the client.
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES
Canon 22. A lawyer shall withdraw his services
only for good cause and upon notice
appropriate in the circumstances.
Causes of termination of attorney-client
relationship:
(1) Withdrawal of the lawyer;
(2) Death of the lawyer;
(3) Disbarment or suspension of the lawyer from
the practice of law;
(4) Declaration of presumptive death of the
lawyer;
(5) Conviction of a crime and imprisonment of
the lawyer;
(6) Discharge or dismissal of the lawyer by the
client;
(7) Appointment or election of a lawyer to a
government position which prohibits private
practice of law;
(8) Death of the client;
(9) Intervening incapacity or incompetence of
the client during pendency of case;
(10) Full termination of the case.
General rule: The client has the right to
terminate at any time with or without just cause.
Limitations:
(1) The client cannot deprive his counsel of right
to be paid services if the dismissal is without
cause.
(2) The client cannot discharge his counsel as an
excuse to secure repeated extensions of
time.
(3) Notice of discharge is required for both the
court and the adverse party.
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;
PAGE 43
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
(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.
Although a lawyer may withdraw his services
when the client deliberately fails to pay the fees
for the services, withdrawal is unjustified if client
did not deliberately fail to pay [Montano v. IBP
(2001)]
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.
The following must be complied with for
substitution of counsel:
(1) Written request for substitution
(2) Written consent of client
(3) Written consent of the attorney to be
substituted or in the absence, proof of
service of notice of said motion to the
attorney to be substituted
At the discretion of the court, a lawyer, who has
been dismissed by a client, is allowed to
intervene in a case in order to protect the
client’s rights [Obando v. Figueras (2000)].
PAGE 44
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Suspension, Disbarment &
Discipline of Lawyers
NATURE & CHARACTERISTICS
OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
AGAINST LAWYERS
SUI GENERIS
NEITHER PURELY CIVIL NOR PURELY
CRIMINAL
(1) Disciplinary proceedings are sui generis.
(2) They are neither purely civil nor purely
criminal. They are not intended to inflict
punishment.
(3) They do not involve a trial of an action or a
suit, but is rather an investigation by the
Court into the conduct of its officers. There is
neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor.
(4) They may be initiated by the Court motu
proprio. The Court merely calls upon a
member of the Bar to account for his
actuations as an officer of the Court with the
end in view of preserving the purity of the
legal profession and the proper and honest
administration of justice in the exercise of its
disciplinary powers.
(5) Public interest is the primary objective, and
the real question for determination is
whether or not the attorney is still a fit
person to be allowed the privileges as such
[In Re: Almacen (1970), Itong v. Florenido
(2011)].
CONFIDENTIAL
Rules of Court, Rule 139-B, Sec. 18. Proceedings
against attorneys shall be private and
confidential. However, the final order of the
Supreme Court shall be published like its
decisions in other cases.
Purposes:
(1) To enable the Court to make its
investigations free from any extraneous
influence or interference;
(2) To protect the personal and professional
reputation of attorneys and judges from the
baseless charges of disgruntled, vindictive,
and irresponsible clients and litigants;
UP LAW BOC
(3) To deter the press from publishing
administrative cases or portions thereof
without authority [Saludo, Jr. v. CA (2006)].
Malicious and unauthorized publication or
verbatim reproduction of administrative
complaints against lawyers in newspapers by
editors and/or reporters may be actionable. It
constitutes contempt of court, punishable by
either a fine or imprisonment or both at the
discretion of the Court [Saludo, Jr. v. CA (2006)].
In Fortun v. Quinsayas (2013), where the
disbarment cases against Atty. Fortun in
relation to the Maguindanao Massacre were
publicized, the Court held that, since the filing
of the disbarment complaint was itself a matter
of public concern, arising from a very high-
profile case, such that public focus is on the
event, not on the lawyer himself, the media had
a right to publish such fact pursuant to the
freedom of the press.
The rule is thus restated: In the absence of a
legitimate public interest in a disbarment
complaint, members of the media must
preserve the confidentiality of disbarment
proceedings during its pendency.
In Villalon v. IAC (1986), testimonies in the
disbarment case were presented by the
respondent lawyer in said case to impeach the
testimonies of witnesses in a civil case. It was
held that confidentiality “is a privilege/right
which may be waived by the very lawyer in whom
and for the protection of whose personal and
professional reputation it is vested, pursuant to
the general principle that rights may be waived
unless the waiver is contrary to public policy,
among others.” Note that the waiver was made
ex post facto.
OTHER CHARACTERISTICS
(1) Proceedings may be taken by the Supreme
Court motu proprio, and the IBP Board of
Governors may also motu proprio initiate and
prosecute proper charges against erring
attorneys [Section 1, Rule 139-B].
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(2) Investigation is not interrupted or terminated
by reason of the desistance, settlement,
compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the
charges, or failure of the complainant to
prosecute the same [Section 5, Rule 139-B].
(3) Laws dealing with double jeopardy or
prescription or with procedure like
verification of pleadings and prejudicial
questions have no application to disbarment
proceedings [Pimentel, Jr. v. Llorente (2000)].
(4) The proceedings are distinct from and
proceeds independently of civil or criminal
cases. Thus, whatever has been decided in
the disbarment case cannot be a source of
right that may be enforced in another action.
At best, such judgment may only be given
weight when introduced as evidence, but in
no case does it bind the court in the civil
action [Esquivas v. CA (1997)].
(5) The disbarment proceeding does not violate
the due process clause. The proceeding
itself, when instituted in proper cases, is due
process of law [In Re: Montagne (1904)].
(6) In a disbarment proceeding, it is immaterial
that the complainant is in pari delicto
because the proceeding is not to grant relief
to the complainant, but to purge the law
profession of unworthy members, to protect
the public and the courts [Mortel v. Aspiras
(1956)].
(7) The rule in criminal cases that the penalty
cannot be imposed in the alternative applies
in administrative disciplinary cases, which
also involve punitive sanctions [Navarro v.
Meneses III (1998)].
(8) Monetary claims cannot be granted except
restitution and return of monies and
properties of the client given in the course of
the lawyer-client relationship
PRESCRIPTION
Calo v. Degamo (1967), citing American
Jurisprudence, stated that the ordinary statutes
of limitation have no application to disbarment
proceedings, nor does the circumstance that the
facts set up as a ground for disbarment
constitute a crime, prosecution for which in a
criminal proceeding is barred by limitation,
affect the disbarment proceedings.
PAGE 45
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Thus, in Frias v. Bautista-Lozada (2006), Section
1, Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of the
Commission on Bar Discipline, which provided
for a prescription period of two (2) years from
the date of the professional misconduct, was
struck down for being ultra vires.
In Isenhardt v. Real (2012), however, the said
prescriptive period was still construed to run
from the discovery of the misconduct.
GROUNDS
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 27. A member of
the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court:
(1) For any deceit, malpractice or other gross
misconduct in such office;
(2) For grossly immoral conduct;
(3) By reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude;
(4) For any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before admission to
practice;
(5) For willful disobedience of any lawful order
of a superior court;
(6) For corruptly or willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without
authority so to do.
Deceit
False representation of a matter of fact whether
by words or conduct, by false or misleading
allegations, or by concealment of that which
should have been disclosed which deceives or is
intended to deceive another so that he shall act
upon it to his legal injury [Alcantara v. CA
(2003)].
Malpractice
Refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty
committed by a lawyer [Tan Tek Beng v. David
(1983)].
Section 27, Rule 138 states that the practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.
PAGE 46
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Gross misconduct
Any inexcusable, shameful or flagrant unlawful
conduct on the part of a person concerned in
the administration of justice which is prejudicial
to the rights of the parties or to the right
determination of the cause. Such conduct is
generally motivated by a premeditated,
obstinate or intentional purpose [Yap v.
Inopiquez, Jr. (2003)].
Immorality
Conduct that shows indifference to the moral
norms of society and the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community. The
conduct must be “grossly immoral” (i.e., so
corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act
or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a
high degree) to warrant disciplinary action [Ui v.
Bonifacio (2000)].
Moral turpitude
Involves an act of baseness, vileness, or
depravity in the private duties which a man
owes to his fellow men, or to society in general,
contrary to the accepted and customary rule of
right and duty between man and woman, or
conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or
good morals [Barrios v. Martinez (2004)]. Section
27, Rule 138 requires conviction of the crime.
Other statutory grounds
(1) Purchase by a lawyer of his client’s property
in litigation [Article 1491, Civil Code]
constitutes a breach of professional ethics
for which a disciplinary action may be
brought against him [Bautista v. Gonzales
(1990)].
(2) Under Article 209, Revised Penal Code,
administrative and criminal sanctions may
be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or
solicitor who:
(a) By malicious breach of professional duty
or of inexcusable negligence or
ignorance, shall prejudice his client, or
reveal any of the secrets of the latter
learned by him in his professional
capacity; or
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
(b) Having undertaken the defense of a client
or having received confidential
information from said client in a case,
shall undertake the defense of the
opposing party in the same case, without
the consent of his first client.
The enumeration of the statutory grounds for
disciplinary action is not exclusive and a lawyer
may be disciplined on grounds other than those
specifically provided in the law [Marcelo v. Javier
(1992)].
The enumeration is not to be taken as a
limitation to the general power of courts to
suspend or disbar a lawyer. The inherent powers
of the court over its officers cannot be restricted
[Quingwa v. Puno (1967)].
MISCONDUCT IN PRIVATE CAPACITY
General rule: a lawyer may not be suspended or
disbarred, and the court may not ordinarily
assume jurisdiction to discipline him for
misconduct in his non-professional or private
capacity.
Exception: where the misconduct outside of the
lawyer's professional dealings is so gross a
character as to show him morally unfit for the
office and unworthy of the privilege which his
licenses and the law confer on him, the court
may be justified in suspending or removing him
from the office of attorney [Co v. Bernardino
(1998)].
MISCONDUCT PRIOR OR INCIDENT TO
ADMISSION
A lawyer may be disbarred for
misrepresentation of or false pretense relative
to the requirements for admission to practice.
Thus, the fact that a lawyer lacked any of the
qualifications for membership at the time he
took his oath is a ground for his disbarment
[Agpalo]; see In Re: Diao (1963) and Lim v.
Antonio (1971)).
PROCEEDINGS
HOW INSTITUTED
Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or
discipline of attorneys may be taken by:
(1) The Supreme Court motu proprio; or
PAGE 47
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(2) The IBP upon the verified complaint of any
person (1st par., Section 1, Rule 139-B).
(3) The complaint shall:
(4) Be verified;
(5) State clearly and concisely the facts
complained of;
(6) Be supported by affidavits of persons having
personal knowledge of the facts therein
alleged and/or by such documents as may
substantiate said facts;
(7) Be filed in six copies; and
(8) Be filed with the Secretary of the IBP or the
Secretary of any of its chapters who shall
forthwith transmit the same to the IBP Board
of Governors for assignment to an
investigator (1st and 3nd pars., Section 1, Rule
139-B).
The IBP Board of Governors may initiate and
prosecute proper charges against any erring
attorneys including the government service:
(1) Motu proprio;
(2) Upon referral by the Supreme Court;
(3) Upon referral by a Chapter Board of Officers;
or
(4) At the instance of any person (2nd par.,
Section 1, Rule 139-B).
All charges against the following shall be filed
with the Supreme Court:
(1) Justices of the Court of Appeals;
(2) Justices of the Sandiganbayan;
(3) Judges of the Court of Tax Appeals; and
(4) Judges of lower courts (2nd par., Section 1,
Rule 139-B).
Charges filed against justices and judges before
the IBP shall immediately be forwarded to the
Supreme Court for disposition and adjudication,
including those filed prior to their appointment
in the Judiciary (2nd par., Section 1, Rule 139-B).
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IBP
(1) The complaint will be referred by the IBP
Board of Governors to the National
Grievance Investigators (Section 3, Rule 139-
B).
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
(2) If the complaint appears to be meritorious,
the investigator shall direct that a copy
thereof be served upon the respondent
requiring him to answer within 15 days from
service. If the complaint is unmeritorious, or
if the answer of the respondent shows that it
is not meritorious, he shall recommend to
the Board of Governors that the same be
dismissed. A copy of the resolution of
dismissal shall be furnished to the
complainant and the Supreme Court, which
may review the case:
(a) Motu proprio; or
(b) Upon appeal of the complainant within
15 days from notice of the dismissal
(Section 5, Rule 139-B).
(3) The IBP shall appoint a counsel to assist the
complainant or the respondent (Section 7,
Rule 139-B).
(4) Upon joinder of issues or failure of the
respondent to answer, the investigation shall
proceed with deliberate speed. If the
respondent fails to appear, the investigation
shall proceed ex parte. The investigation will
terminate within three months, unless
extended for good cause by the Board of
Governors upon prior application (Section 8,
Rule 139-B).
(5) The investigator shall make a report, within
30 days from the termination of the
investigation, to the Board of Governors,
containing his findings of facts and
recommendations, transcripts and evidence
(Section 10, Rule 139-B).
(6) The Board of Governors will review the
decision of the investigator, and shall
promulgate its decision within a period not
exceeding 30 days from the next meeting of
the Board of Governors following the
submission of the report (Section 12, Rule
139-B).
(7) If the Board of Governors determines that
the responded should be suspended or
disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting
forth its findings and recommendations, and
transmit the same, with the whole record of
the case, to the Supreme Court. If the
respondent is exonerated, or the disciplinary
action less than suspension or disbarment, it
shall issue a decision exonerating
respondent or imposing such sanction
(Section 12, Rule 139-B).
PAGE 48
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(8) The complainant may appeal to the
Supreme Court within 15 days from notice of
the decision of the Board of Governors
(Section 12, Rule 139-B).
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SUPREME
COURT
(1) In proceedings initiated motu proprio by the
Supreme Court or in other proceedings when
the interest of justice so requires, the
Supreme Court may refer the case for
investigation to:
(a) The Solicitor General;
(b) Any officer of the Supreme Court;
(c) Judge of a lower court (Section 13, Rule
139-B).
(2) The appointed investigator shall then
proceed with the investigation as if the
proceedings were before the IBP, save that
the review of the report of the investigator
will be conducted directly by the Supreme
Court Sections 13 and 14, Rule 139-B.
COMMON PROVISIONS
(1) After receipt of respondent’s answer or the
lapse of the period therefor, and during the
pendency of the investigation until lifted,
the Supreme Court may suspend an
attorney:
(a) Motu proprio; or
(b) At the instance of the Board of
Governors upon the recommendation of
the investigator (Section 16, Rule 139-B).
(2) The Court of Appeals or the Regional Trial
Court may suspend an attorney from
practice for any of the causes in Section 37,
Rule 138, until further action by the Supreme
Court (Section 16, Rule 139-B).
(3) Upon such suspension by the Court of
Appeals or the Regional Trial Court, a
certified copy of the order of suspension and
a full statement of the factual basis thereof
shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court,
which, upon investigation, may revoke,
shorten, or extend such suspension, or disbar
the attorney (Section 17, Rule 139-B).
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
DISCIPLINE OF FILIPINO LAWYERS
PRACTICING ABROAD
As amended by Supreme Court Resolution dated
February 13, 1992, Section 27, Rule 138, provides,
in addition to the enumeration of the grounds
for administrative sanction, thus:
“The disbarment or suspension of a member of
the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other
disciplinary agency in a foreign jurisdiction
where he has also been admitted as an attorney
is a ground for his disbarment or suspension if
the basis of such action includes any of the acts
hereinabove enumerated.
“The judgment, resolution or order of the
foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be
prima facie evidence of the ground for
disbarment or suspension.”
DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS IN
GOVERNMENT
A lawyer who holds a government office may
not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for
misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a
government official. However, if that
misconduct as a government official is of such a
character as to affect his qualification as a
lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he
may be disciplined as a member of the bar on
such ground [Gonzales-Austria v. Abaya (1989)].
QUANTUM OF PROOF
The 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 preferred
and has performed his duty as an officer of the
court in accordance with his oath. [In Re: Tionko
(1922)].
When the evidence of the parties are evenly
balanced or there is doubt on which side the
evidence preponderates, the decision should be
against the party with the burden of proof,
according to the equipoise doctrine [Siao Aba v.
De Guzman (2011)].
PAGE 49
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
In several cases involving errant judges, res ipsa
loquitor was applied, where there was on the
face of their assailed decisions, an inexplicable
grave error bereft of any redeeming feature, a
patent railroading of a case to bring about an
unjust decision, or a manifestly deliberate intent
to wreak an injustice against a hapless party.
The facts themselves, previously proven or
admitted, were of such a character as to give
rise to a strong inference that evil intent was
present. Such intent, in short, was clearly
deducible from what was already of record [In
Re: Dizon (1989)].
DISCIPLINARY MEASURES
(1) Warning, an act or fact of putting one on his
guard against an impending danger, evil
consequences or penalties.
(2) Admonition, a gentle or friendly reproof, mild
rebuke, warning or reminder, counseling, on
a fault, error or oversight; an expression of
authoritative advice.
(3) Reprimand, a public and formal censure or
severe reproof, administered to a person in
fault by his superior officer or a body to
which he be-longs. It is imposed on a minor
infraction of the lawyer’s duty to the court or
client
(4) Suspension, a temporary withholding of a
lawyer’s right to practice his profession as a
lawyer for:
(a) A definite period; or
(b) An indefinite period, which amounts to
qualified disbarment, in which case,
lawyer determines for himself for how
long or how short his suspension shall
last by proving to court that he is once
again fit to resume practice of law.
(5) Censure, an official reprimand.
(6) Disbarment, the act of the Philippine
Supreme Court in withdrawing from an
attorney the privilege to practice law and
striking out the name of the lawyer from the
roll of attorneys.
(7) Interim suspension, the temporary
suspension of a lawyer from the practice of
law pending imposition of final discipline. It
includes:
(a) Suspension upon conviction of a serious
crime.
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
(b) Suspension when the lawyer’s continuing
conduct is likely to cause immediate and
serious injury to a client or public.
(8) Probation, a sanction that allows a lawyer to
practice law under specified conditions.
Other sanctions and remedies include:
(1) Restitution;
(2) Assessment of costs;
(3) Limitation upon practice;
(4) Appointment of a receiver;
(5) Requirement that a lawyer take the bar
examination or professional responsibility
examination;
(6) Requirement that a lawyer attend continuing
education courses;
(7) Other requirements that the Supreme
Court or disciplinary board deems consistent
with the purposes of sanctions.
The disciplinary measure imposed may vary
depending on the modifying circumstance
present.
Mitigating Circumstance:
(1) Absence of a prior disciplinary record;
(2) Absence of a dishonest or selfish motive;
(3) Personal or emotional problems;
(4) Timely good faith effort to make restitution
or to rectify consequences of misconduct;
(5) Full and free disclosure to disciplinary
board or cooperative attitude toward
proceedings;
(6) Inexperience in the practice of law;
(7) Character or reputation;
(8) Physical or mental disability or impairment;
(9) Delay in disciplinary proceedings;
(10) Interim rehabilitation;
(11) Imposition of other penalties or sanctions;
(12) Remorse;
(13) Remoteness of prior offenses;
(14) Others:
(a) Good Faith;
(b) Want of intention to commit a wrong;
(c) Lack of material damage to the
complaining witness;
(d) Desistance of complainant;
(e) Error in judgment;
(f) Honest and efficient service in various
government positions;
PAGE 50
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(g) Ready admission of the infraction
coupled with explanation and plea for
forgiveness;
(h) Clean record of professional service in
the past;
(i) Rendered professional services out of
pure generosity;
(j) Punished in another capacity for a
misconduct for which he now faces a
disbarment proceeding;
(k) Old Age & long membership (may also
be an aggravation de-pending on the
circumstance);
Aggravating Circumstances:
(1) Prior disciplinary offenses;
(2) Dishonest or selfish motive;
(3) A pattern of misconduct;
(4) Multiple offenses;
(5) Bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary
proceeding by intentionally failing to
comply with rules or orders of the
disciplinary agency;
(6) Submission of false evidence, false
statements, or other deceptive practices
during the disciplinary process;
(7) Refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of
conduct;
(8) Vulnerability of victim;
(9) Substantial experience in the practice of
law;
(10) Indifference to making restitution. (IBP
Guidelines 9.22)
(11) Others:
(a) Abuse of authority or of attorney-client
relationship;
(b) Sexual intercourse with a relative;
(c) Making the institution of marriage a
mockery;
(d) Charge of gross immorality;
(e) Previous punishment as member of the
bar;
(f) Defraud upon the government;
(g) Use of knowledge or information,
acquired in the course of a previous
professional employment, against a
former client.
EFFECT OF EXECUTIVE PARDON
(1) If the pardon is conditional, the disbarment
case will not be dismissed on the basis
thereof.
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
(2) If the pardon is absolute and granted before
conviction, the disbarment case will be
dismissed. Absolute pardon by the President
wipes out conviction as well as offense itself
and the grant thereof in favor of a lawyer is a
bar to a proceeding for disbarment against
him based solely on commission of such
offense.
(3) If the pardon is absolute but granted after
conviction, it does not automatically entitle
him to reinstatement to the bar. It must be
shown by evidence aside from absolute
pardon that he is now a person of good
moral character and fit and proper person to
practice law.
Readmission to the Bar
LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN
SUSPENDED
Guidelines in considering the lifting on an order
of suspension:
(1) Upon expiration of the period of suspension,
respondent shall file a sworn statement with
the court, through the Office of the Bar
Confidant, stating therein 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;
(2) Copies of the sworn statement shall be
furnished to the local chapter of the IBP and
to the executive judge of the courts where
the respondent has pending cases handled
by him or her, and/or where he or she has
appeared as counsel;
(3) The sworn statement shall be considered as
proof of respondent’s compliance with the
order of suspension [Maniago v. De Dios
(2010)].
LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN
DISBARRED
In order that there is reinstatement, the
following must be taken into consideration:
(1) The applicant’s character and standing prior
to disbarment;
(2) The nature or character of the misconduct
for which he is disbarred;
PAGE 51
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(3) His conduct subsequent to disbarment [Cui
v. Cui 1964];
(4) His efficient government service [In re:
Adriatico (1910)];
(5) The time that has elapsed between
disbarment and the application for
reinstatement and the circumstances that he
has been sufficiently punished and
disciplined [Prudential Bank v. Benjamin
Grecia (1986)];
(6) Applicant’s appreciation of significance of his
dereliction and his assurance that he now
possesses the requisite probity and integrity;
(7) Favorable endorsement of the IBP and local
government officials and citizens of his
community, pleas of his loved ones [Yap Tan
v. Sabandal (1989)];
Guidelines in resolving requests for judicial
clemency of disbarred lawyers:
(1) There must be proof of remorse and
reformation. These include testimonials of
credible institutions and personalities;
(2) Sufficient time must have lapsed from the
imposition of the penalty to ensure a period
of reformation;
(3) The age of the person asking for clemency
must show that he still has 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 (e.g.,
intellectual aptitude, contribution to legal
scholarship), and potential for public service;
(5) Other relevant factors to justify clemency
[Re: Letter of Judge Diaz (2007)].
A previously disbarred lawyer who is given
absolute pardon by the President is not
automatically reinstated, he must still file a
petition for reinstatement with the Supreme
Court.
LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN
REPATRIATED
Lawyers who reacquire their Philippine
citizenship should apply to the Supreme Court
for license or permit to practice their profession.
[Section 5(4) RA 9225].
UP LAW BOC
Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education (MCLE)
PURPOSE
(1) Ensure that throughout their career, they
keep abreast with law and jurisprudence;
(2) Maintain the ethics of the profession; and
(3) Enhance the standards of the practice of law
(Section 1, Rule 1, BM 850).
REQUIREMENTS
Members of the IBP, who not otherwise exempt,
shall complete, every three years, at least 36
hours of continuing legal education activities
approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36
hours:
Legal Ethics 6hrs
Trial and Pre-trial skills 4hrs
Alternative Disputes 5hrs
Substantive, Procedural, Jurisprudence 9hrs
Legal Writing % Oral Advocacy 4hrs
Int’l Laws & Conventions 2hrs
Prescribed subjects 6hrs
The legal education activities may be:
(1) Participatory:
(a) Attending approved education activities
like seminars, conferences, conventions,
symposia, in-house education programs,
workshops, dialogues or round table
discussion;
(b) Speaking or lecturing, or acting as
assigned panelist, reactor, commentator,
resource speaker, moderator, coordinator
or facilitator in approved education
activities;
(c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a
bar review class;
(2) Non-participatory:
(a) Preparing, as an author or co-author,
written materials published or accepted
for publication, e.g., in the form of an
article, chapter, book, or book review
which contribute to the legal education of
the author member, which were not
prepared in the ordinary course of the
member’s practice or employment;
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal
newsletter.
(3) Other activities credited to MCLE, such as
rendering mandatory legal aid services
pursuant to Section 8, Bar Matter No. 2012.
COMPLIANCE
COMPLIANCE GROUPS
The members of the IBP covered by the
requirement are divided into three compliance
groups:
(1) Compliance Group 1 consists of members in
the National Capital Region (NCR) or Metro
Manila;
(2) Compliance Group 2 consists members in
Luzon outside NCR; and
(3) Compliance Group 3 consists of members in
Visayas and Mindanao.
COMPLIANCE PERIOD
BM 850, Rule 3, Sec. 1. The initial compliance
period shall begin not later than three months
from the constitution of the MCLE Committee.
The compliance period shall be for 36 months
and shall begin the day after the end of the
previous compliance period.
For those admitted or readmitted after the
establishment of the program, they will be
permanently assigned to the appropriate
compliance group based on their chapter
membership on the date of admission or
readmission.
The initial compliance period after admission or
readmission shall begin on the first day of the
month of admission or readmission and shall
end on the same day as that of all other
members in the same compliance group.
However:
(1) Where four months or less remain of the
initial compliance period after admission or
readmission, the member is not required to
comply with the program requirement for
the initial compliance;
PAGE 52
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
(2) Where more than four months remain of the
initial compliance period after admission or
readmission, the member shall be required
to complete a number of hours of approved
continuing legal education activities equal to
the number of months remaining in the
compliance period in which the member is
admitted or readmitted. Such member shall
be required to complete a number of hours
of education in legal ethics in proportion to
the number of months remaining in the
compliance period. Fractions of hours shall
be rounded up to the next whole number
(Section 5, Rule 3, BM 850).
EXEMPTIONS
The following members are exempt:
(1) The President and the Vice President of the
Philippines, and the Secretaries and
Undersecretaries of Executives Departments;
(2) Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives;
(3) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of
the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired
members of the judiciary, incumbent
members of the Judicial and Bar Council and
incumbent court lawyers covered by the
Philippine Judicial Academy program of
continuing judicial education;
(4) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State
Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the
Department of Justice;
(5) The Solicitor General and the Assistant
Solicitor General;
(6) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy
and Assistant Government Corporate
Counsel;
(7) The Chairmen and Members of the
Constitutional Commissions;
(8) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy
Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsmen and
the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the
Ombudsman;
(9) Heads of government agencies exercising
quasi-judicial functions;
(10) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and
professors of law who have teaching
experience for at least ten years accredited
law schools;
PAGE 53
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(11) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and
members of the Corps of Professors and
Professorial Lectures of the Philippine
Judicial Academy;
(12) Governors and Mayors.
(13) Those who are not in law practice, private
or public; and
(14) Those who have retired from law practice
with the approval of the IBP Board of
Governors (Sections 1 and 2, Rule 7).
In addition, a member may file a verified request
setting forth good cause for exemption (e.g.,
physical disability, illness, post graduate study
abroad, proven expertise in law) from
compliance with or modification of any of the
requirements, including an extension of time for
compliance, in accordance with a procedure to
be established by the MCLE Committee (Section
3, Rule 7, BM 850).
When a member ceases to be exempt, the
compliance period begins on the first day of the
month in which he ceases to be exempt and
shall end on the same day as that of all other
members in the same Compliance Group
(Section 4, Rule 7, BM 850).
SANCTIONS
(1) A member who, for whatever reason, is in
non-compliance at the end of the
compliance period shall pay a non-
compliance fee.
(2) Any member who fails to satisfactorily
comply shall be listed as a delinquent
member by the IBP Board of Governors upon
the recommendation of the MCLE
Committee, in which case, Rule 139-A, Rules
of Court, governing the IBP, shall apply
(Sections 1 and 2, Rule 13, BM 850).
Under BM 1922 (2008), practicing members of
the bar are required to indicate in all pleadings
filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies,
the number and date of issue of their MCLE
Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of
Exemption, as may be applicable, for the
immediately preceding compliance period.
Failure to disclose the required information
would cause the dismissal of the case and the
expunction of the pleadings from the records.
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
BAR MATTER 2012
PURPOSE
The Supreme Court has promulgated The Rule
on Mandatory Legal Aid Service to enhance the
duty of lawyers to society as agents of social
change and to the courts as officers thereof by
helping improve access to justice by the less
privileged members of society and expedite the
resolution of cases involving them. Mandatory
free legal service by members of the bar and
their active support thereof will aid the efficient
and effective administration of justice especially
in cases involving indigent and pauper litigants
[Section 2, Bar Matter No. 2012 (2009)].
SCOPE
The rule governs the mandatory requirement for
practicing lawyers to render free legal aid
services in all cases (whether, civil, criminal or
administrative) involving indigent and pauper
litigants where the assistance of a lawyer is
needed. It shall also govern the duty of other
members of the legal profession to support the
legal aid program of the IBP.
DEFINITIONS
The Section 4, BM 2012, defines:
(1) Practicing lawyers as members of the
Philippine Bar who appear for and in behalf
of parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial
agencies, excluding the following:
(a) Government employees and incumbent
elective officials not allowed by law to
practice;
(b) Lawyers who by law are not allowed to
appear in court;
(c) Supervising lawyers of students enrolled
in law student practice in duly accredited
legal clinics of law schools and lawyers of
non-governmental organizations and
peoples’ organizations, who by the nature
of their work already render free legal aid
to indigent and pauper litigants; and
(d) Lawyers do not appear for and in behalf
of parties in courts of law and quasi-
judicial agencies.
(2) Indigent and pauper litigants as those
defined in Algura v. City of Naga (2006) and
Section 19, Rule 141, which includes those:
PAGE 54
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(a) Whose gross income and that of their
immediate family do not exceed an
amount double the monthly minimum
wage of an employee; and
(b) Who do not own real property with a fair
market value as stated in the current tax
declaration of more than three hundred
thousand (P300,000.00) pesos.
REQUIREMENTS
The rule requires every practicing lawyer to:
(1) Render a minimum of 60 hours of free legal
aid services to indigent litigants in a year.
Said 60 hours shall be spread within a
period of twelve 12 months, with a minimum
of five hours of free legal aid services each
month
(2) Coordinate with the Clerk of Court for cases
where he may render free legal aid service
and shall be required to secure and obtain a
certificate from the Clerk of Court attesting
to the number of hours spent rendering free
legal aid services in a case (Section 5, BM
2012).
PENALTIES
Should a lawyer fail to do so, he shall be
required to explain why he was unable to render
the minimum prescribed number of hours. If no
explanation has been given or if the National
Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA) finds the
explanation unsatisfactory, the NCLA shall
make a report and recommendation to the IBP
Board of Governors for the erring lawyer to be
declared a member of the IBP who is not in
good standing.
After acceptance of the recommendation, the
lawyer shall be declared a member not in good
standing. He will be furnished a notice that
includes a directive to pay P4000.00 penalty
which shall accrue to the special fund for the
legal aid program of the IBP.
Any lawyer who fails to comply with these duties
for at least three consecutive years shall be the
subject of disciplinary proceedings to be
instituted motu proprio by the Committee on
Bar Discipline (Section 7, BM 2012).
UP LAW BOC
Notarial Practice
QUALIFICATIONS OF NOTARY
PUBLIC
(1) Must be a Filipino citizen;
(2) Must be over 21 years old;
(3) Must be a resident of the Philippines for at
least one year;
(4) Must maintain a regular place of work or
business in the city or province where
commission is to be issued;
(5) Must be a member of the Philippine Bar in
good standing, with clearances from:
(a) The Office of the Bar Confidant of the
Supreme Court; and
(b) The IBP;
(6) Must not have been convicted in the first
instance of any crime involving moral
turpitude (Section 1, Rule III, Notarial Rules).
TERM OF OFFICE OF NOTARY
PUBLIC
Notarial Rules, Rule 111, Sec. 11. 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 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.
Notarial Rules, Rule 111, Sec. 13. A notary public
may file a written application with the Executive
Judge for the renewal of his commission within
45 days before the expiration thereof.
POWERS AND LIMITATIONS
A notary public can perform the following
notarial acts:
(1) Acknowledgments;
(2) Oaths and affirmations;
(3) Jurats;
(4) Signature witnessings; and
(5) Copy certifications (Section 1(a), Rule III,
Notarial Rules).
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
In addition, the notary public may perform any
act authorized by the Notarial Rules, such as:
(1) Certifying the affixing of signature by thumb
or other mark on an instrument or document
presented for notarization (Section 1(b), Rule
III);
(2) Signing on behalf of a person who is
physically unable to sign or make a mark on
an instrument or document (Section 1(c), Rule
III, Notarial Rules).
POWERS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
An acknowledgment refers to an act in which an
individual on a single occasion:
(1) Appears in person before the notary public
and presents an integrally complete
instrument or document;
(2) Is attested to be personally known to the
notary public or identified by the notary
public through competent evidence of
identity as defined by the Notarial Rules; and
(3) Represents to the notary public that the
signature on the instrument or document
was voluntarily affixed by him for the
purposes stated in the instrument or
document, declares that he has executed the
instrument or document as his free and
voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a
particular representative capacity, that he
has the authority to sign in that capacity
(Section 1, Rule II, Notarial Rules).
OATH OR AFFIRMATION
Affirmation or oath refers to an act in which an
individual on a single occasion:
(1) Appears in person before the notary public;
(2) Is personally known to the notary public or
identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by
these Rules; and
(3) Avows under penalty of law to the whole
truth of the contents of the instrument or
document (Section 2, Rule II, Notarial Rules).
JURAT
Jurat refers to an act in which an individual on a
single occasion:
(1) Appears in person before the notary public
and presents an instrument or document;
PAGE 55
UP LAW BOC
(2) Is personally known to the notary public or
identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by
the Notarial Rules;
(3) Signs the instrument or document in the
presence of the notary; and
(4) Takes an oath or affirmation before the
notary public as to such instrument or
document (Section 6, Rule II, Notarial Rules).
In jurat, the principal has to sign the instrument
or document in the presence of the notary
public, unlike in acknowledgment (Uy, The 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice: A Primer for Notaries
Public (2004)).
SIGNATURE WITNESSING
Signature witnessing refers to a notarial act in
which an individual on a single occasion:
(1) Appears in person before the notary public
and presents an instrument or document;
(2) Is personally known to the notary public or
identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by
these Rules; and
(3) Signs the instrument or document in the
presence of the notary public (Section 14,
Rule II, Notarial Rules).
Copy Certification
Copy certification refers to a notarial act in
which a notary public:
(1) Is presented with an instrument or document
that is neither a vital record, a public record,
nor publicly recordable;
(2) Copies or supervises the copying of the
instrument or document;
(3) Compares the instrument or document with
the copy; and
(4) Determines that the copy is accurate and
complete (Section, Rule II, Notarial Rules).
This assists litigators in doing away with the
requirement of proving that a copy is a faithful
reproduction of an original instrument or
document (Uy (2004)).
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Certifying the Affixing of Signature by Thumb
or Other Mark
A notary public is authorized to certify the
affixing of a signature by thumb or other mark
on an instrument or document presented for
notarization if:
(1) The thumb or other mark is affixed in the
presence of the notary public and of two (2)
disinterested and unaffected witnesses to
the instrument or document;
(2) Both witnesses sign their own names in
addition to the thumb or other mark;
(3) The notary public writes below the thumb or
other mark: “Thumb or Other Mark affixed by
(name of signatory by mark) in the presence
of (names and addresses of witnesses) and
undersigned notary public;” and
(4) The notary public notarizes the signature by
thumb or other mark through an
acknowledgment, jurat, or signature
witnessing (Section 1(b), Rule IV, Notarial
Rules).
Signing on Behalf of a Person Who is
Physically Unable to Sign or Make a Mark
A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf
of a person who is physically unable to sign or
make a mark on an instrument or document if:
(1) The notary public is directed by the person
unable to sign or make a mark to sign on his
behalf;
(2) The signature of the notary public is affixed
in the presence of two disinterested and
unaffected witnesses to the instrument or
document;
(3) Both witnesses sign their own names ;
(4) The notary public writes below his signature:
“Signature affixed by notary in presence of
(names and addresses of person and two
witnesses);” and
(5) The notary public notarizes his signature by
acknowledgment or jurat (Section 1(c), Rule
IV, Notarial Rules).
The term “physically unable to sign” does not
include the situation where a person is
physically unable to sign because he is in
another place (Uy (2004)).
PAGE 56
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
LIMITATIONS
RELATING TO NOTARIAL ACTS
(1) A notary public shall not perform a notarial
act outside his regular place of work or
business; provided, however, that on certain
exceptional occasions or situations, a notarial
act may be performed at the request of the
parties in the following sites located within
his territorial jurisdiction:
(a) Public offices, convention halls, and
similar places where oaths of office may
be administered;
(b) Public function areas in hotels and similar
places for the signing of instruments or
documents requiring notarization;
(c) Hospitals and other medical institutions
where a party to an instrument or
document is confined for treatment; and
(d) Any place where a party to an instrument
or document requiring notarization is
under detention (Section 2(a), Rule IV,
Notarial Rules);
(2) A person shall not perform a notarial act if
the person involved as signatory to the
instrument or document:
(a) Is not in the notary's presence personally
at the time of the notarization; and
(b) Is not personally known to the notary
public or otherwise identified by the
notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by the
Notarial Rules;
(3) A notary public is disqualified from
performing a notarial act if he:
(a) Is a party to the instrument or document
that is to be notarized;
(b) Will receive, as a direct or indirect result,
any commission, fee, advantage, right,
title, interest, cash, property, or other
consideration, except as provided by the
Notarial Rules and by law; or
(c) A notary public is disqualified from
performing is a spouse, common-law
partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative
by affinity or consanguinity of the
principal within the fourth civil degree
(Section 3, Rule IV, Notarial Rules).
(4) A notary public shall not perform any
notarial act described in the Notarial Rules if:
(a) The notary knows or has good reason to
believe that the notarial act or transaction
is unlawful or immoral;
PAGE 57
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(b) The signatory shows a demeanor which
engenders in the mind of the notary
public reasonable doubt as to the
former's knowledge of the consequences
of the transaction requiring a notarial act;
and
(c) In the notary's judgment, the signatory is
not acting of his or her own free will
(Section 4, Rule IV, Notarial Rules);
(5) A notary public shall not:
(a) Execute a certificate containing
information known or believed by the
notary to be false;
(b) Affix an official signature or seal on a
notarial certificate that is incomplete
(Section 5, Rule IV, Notarial Rules);
(6) A notary public shall not notarize:
(a) A blank or incomplete instrument or
document; or
(b) An instrument or document without
appropriate notarial certification (Section
6, Rule IV, Notarial Rules).
RELATING TO NOTARIAL REGISTER
(1) In the notary's presence, any person may
inspect an entry in the notarial register,
during regular business hours, provided;
(a) The person's identity is personally known
to the notary public or proven through
competent evidence of identity as defined
in the Notarial Rules;
(b) The person affixes a signature and thumb
or other mark or other recognized
identifier, in the notarial register in a
separate, dated entry;
(c) The person specifies the month, year, type
of instrument or document, and name of
the principal in the notarial act or acts
sought; and
(d) The person is shown only the entry or
entries specified by him;
(2) The notarial register may be examined by a
law enforcement officer in the course of an
official investigation or by virtue of a court
order.
(3) If the notary public has a reasonable ground
to believe that a person has a criminal intent
or wrongful motive in requesting information
from the notarial register, the notary shall
deny access to any entry or entries therein
(Section 4, Rule VI, Notarial Rules).
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
NOTARIAL REGISTER
A notarial register refers to a permanently
bound book with numbered pages containing a
chronological record of notarial acts performed
by a notary public (Section 5, Rule II, Notarial
Rules).
ENTRIES
BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC
The following entries are required to be entered
by the notary public at the time of notarization:
(1) The entry number and page number;
(2) The date and time of day of the notarial act;
(3) The type of notarial act;
(4) The title or description of the instrument,
document or proceeding;
(5) The name and address of each principal;
(6) The competent evidence of identity as
defined by the Notarial Rules if the signatory
is not personally known to the notary;
(7) The name and address of each credible
witness swearing to or affirming the person's
identity;
(8) The fee charged for the notarial act;
(9) The address where the notarization was
performed if not in the notary's regular place
of work or business; and
(10) Any other circumstance the notary public
may deem of significance or relevance;
(11) Reasons and circumstances for not
completing a notarial act;
(12) Circumstances of any request to inspect or
copy an entry in the notarial register,
including the:
(a) Requester’s name;
(b) Requester’s address;
(c) Requester’s signature;
(d) Requester’s thumbmark or other
recognized identifier;
(e) Evidence of requester’s identity; and
(f) Reasons for refusal to allow inspection or
copying of a journal entry;
(13) Brief description of the substance of a
contract presented for notarization;
(14) In case of a protest of any draft, bill of
exchange or promissory note, a full and true
record of all proceedings in relation thereto
and shall note therein:
(a) Whether the demand for the sum of
money was made, by whom, when and
where;
PAGE 58
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(b) Whether he presented such draft, bill or
note;
(c) Whether notices were given, to whom and
in what manner; where the same was
made, when and to whom and where
directed; and
(d) Of every other fact touching the same
(Section 2, Rule VI, Notarial Rules).
BY OTHER PERSONS
At the time of notarization, the notary's notarial
register shall be signed or a thumb or other
mark affixed by each:
(1) Principal;
(2) Credible witness swearing or affirming to the
identity of a principal; and
(3) Witness to a signature by thumb or other
mark, or to a signing by the notary public on
behalf of a person physically unable to sign
(Section 3, Rule VI, Notarial Rules).
CLOSING
Notarial Rules, Rule VI, Sec. 2(g). At the end of
each week, the notary public shall certify in his
notarial register the number of instruments or
documents executed, sworn to, acknowledged,
or protested before him; or if none, this
certificate shall show this fact.
SUBMISSION
Notarial Rules, Rule VI, Sec. 2(h). A certified copy
of each month’s entries and a duplicate original
copy of any instrument acknowledged before
the notary public shall, within the first ten days
of the month following, be forwarded to the
Clerk of Court and shall be under the
responsibility of such officer. If there is no entry
to certify for the month, the notary shall forward
a statement to this effect in lieu of certified
copies herein required.
JURISDICTION OF NOTARY PUBLIC
AND PLACE OF NOTARIZATION
A person commissioned as notary public may
perform notarial acts in any place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning
court (Section 11, Rule III, Notarial Rules). This
applies even if notarization is allowed in places
other than the regular place of business of the
notary public (Section 2(a), Rule IV, Notarial
Rules).
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
REVOCATION OF COMMISSION
(1) The Executive Judge shall revoke a notarial
commission for any ground on which an
application for a commission may be denied;
(2) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke
the commission of, or impose appropriate
administrative sanctions upon, any notary
public who:
(a) Fails to keep a notarial register;
(b) Fails to make the proper entry or entries
in his notarial register concerning his
notarial acts;
(c) Fails to send the copy of the entries to the
Executive Judge within the first ten days
of the month following;
(d) Fails to affix to acknowledgments the
date of expiration of his commission;
(e) Fails to submit his notarial register, when
filled, to the Executive Judge;
(f) Fails to make his report, within a
reasonable time, to the Executive Judge
concerning the performance of his duties,
as may be required by the judge;
(g) Fails to require the presence of a principal
at the time of the notarial act;
(h) Fails to identify a principal on the basis of
personal knowledge or competent
evidence;
(i)Executes a false or incomplete certificate
under Section 5, Rule IV;
(j)Knowingly performs or fails to perform any
other act prohibited or mandated by
these Rules; and
(k) Commits any other dereliction or act
which in the judgment of the Executive
Judge constitutes good cause for
revocation of commission or imposition of
administrative sanction (Section 1(a) and
(b), Rule XI, Notarial Rules).
COMPETENT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY
Competent evidence of identity means the
identification of an individual based on:
(1) At least one current identification document
issued by an official agency bearing the
photograph and signature of the individual;
or
(2) The oath or affirmation of:
PAGE 59
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(a) One credible witness not privy to the
instrument, document or transaction who
is personally known to the notary public
and who personally knows the individual;
or
(b) Two credible witnesses neither of whom is
privy to the instrument, document or
transaction who each personally knows
the individual and shows to the notary
public documentary identification
(Section 12, Rule II, Notarial Rules).
SANCTIONS
Notarial Rules, Rule XI, Sec. 1(d). The Executive
Judge may motu proprio initiate administrative
proceedings against a notary public and impose
the appropriate administrative sanctions on the
grounds for revocation of commission
mentioned.
Also, the Executive Judge shall cause the
prosecution of any person who:
(1) Knowingly acts or otherwise impersonates a
notary public;
(2) Knowingly obtains, conceals, defaces, or
destroys the seal, notarial register, or official
records of a notary public; and
(3) Knowingly solicits, coerces, or in any way
influences a notary public to commit official
misconduct.
Canons of Professional
Ethics
ORIGIN
The Philippine Bar Association adopted the
American Bar Association’s Canons of
Professional Ethics in 1917 and 1946.
In 1980, the IBP adopted a proposed Code of
Professional Responsibility, which was later
approved and promulgated by the Supreme
Court as the present Code of Professional
Responsibility (PCGG v. Sandiganbayan (2005)).
LEGAL STATUS
UP LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

While the PBA enjoys high regard in the legal

community, the rules or canons it has adopted
are per se binding only on its members.
It would be grave error to declare that the
Canons of Professional Ethics, on their own,
serves as an indisputable source of obligations
and basis of penalties imposable upon
members of the Philippine legal profession.

This would violate the long-established

constitutional principle that it is the Supreme
Court which is tasked with the promulgation of
rules governing the admission to the practice of
law, as well as the pleading, practice and
procedure in all courts.

If provisions of the Canons of Professional Ethics

have jurisprudentially been enforced, or
acknowledged as basis for legal liability by the
Supreme Court, they may be recognized as a
binding standard imposable upon members of
the bar, but not because said canons or the PBA
itself said so, but because the Supreme Court
said so (Tinga, J., Separate Opinion, PCGG v.
Sandiganbayan (2005)).

PAGE 60
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

PAGE 61
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
Sources of Rules on
Judicial Ethics
NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL
CONDUCT FOR THE PHILIPPINE
JUDICIARY (Bangalore Draft)
In November 2002, at a Roundtable Meeting of
Chief Justices held at the Peace Palace in The
Hague, the Judicial Group on Strengthening
Judicial Integrity amended and approved the
Bangalore Draft of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Intended to be the Universal Declaration of
Judicial Standards, it is founded on the following
principles:
(1) A universal recognition that a competent,
independent and impartial judiciary is
essential if the courts are to fulfill their role
in upholding constitutionalism and the rule
of law;
(2) Public confidence in the judicial system and
in the moral authority and integrity of the
judiciary is of utmost importance in a
modern democratic society; and
(3) It is essential that judges, individually and
collectively, respect and honor judicial office
as a public trust and strive to enhance and
maintain confidence in the judicial system.
On April 27, 2004, the draft code was
promulgated as the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary through A.M.
No. 03-05-01-SC and given effect on June 1,
2004.
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
The New Code of Judicial Conduct supersedes
the Canons of Judicial Ethics (1946) and the
Code of Judicial Conduct (1989). However, in
case of deficiency or absence of specific
provisions, the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the
Code of Judicial Conduct shall be applicable in a
suppletory character (New Code of Judicial
Conduct).
PAGE 62
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
New Code of Judicial
Conduct
QUALITIES
INDEPENDENCE
Canon 1. Judicial independence is a prerequisite
to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee
of fair trial. A judge shall therefore, uphold and
exemplify judicial independence in both its
individual and institutional aspects.
INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL FUNCTION
Section 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial
function independently:
(a) On the basis of their assessment of the facts;
(b) In accordance with a conscientious
understanding of the law;
(c) Free of any extraneous influence,
inducement, pressure, threat or interference,
direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any
reason
In every case, a judge should endeavor diligently
to ascertain the facts and the applicable law
unswayed by partisan or personal interests,
public opinion or fear of criticism. The fact that
the complainant and his sympathizers had
staged a rally demanding the issuance of a
warrant of arrest against the accused is not a
sufficient excuse for the unjustified haste of
respondent judge's act of fixing bail without a
hearing [Libarios v. Dabalos (1991)]
Mass media has its duty to fearlessly but
faithfully inform the public about events and
persons. However, when a case has received
wide and sensational publicity, the trial court
should be doubly careful not only to be fair and
impartial but also to give the appearance of
complete objectivity in its handling of the case
[Gutierrez, Jr., J., Concurring Opinion, Go v. CA
(1992)].
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
OUTSIDE PRESSURE
Section 2. In performing judicial duties, judges
shall be independent from judicial colleagues in
respect of decisions which the judge is obliged
to make independently.
INFLUENCING OUTCOME OF LITIGATION
Section 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing
in any manner the outcome of litigation or
dispute pending before another court or
administrative agency.
Interference by members of the bench in-
pending suits with the end in view of influencing
the course or the result of litigation does not
only subvert the independence of the judiciary
but also undermines the people's faith in its
integrity and impartiality [Sabitsana Jr. v.
Villamor (1991)]. In this case, Judge Villamor sent
a handwritten note to Judge Pitao cautioning
him to watch out and exercise care in handling a
case. He made a side remark for the acquittal of
the accused in the case, which tended to
influence outcome of the case.
INFLUENCE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT
Section 4. Judges shall not allow family, social
or other relationships to influence judicial
conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial
office shall not be used or lent to advance the
public interests of others, nor convey or permit
others to convey the impression that they are in
a special position to influence the judge.
This gives instruction to judges not to allow
their family members, friends and associates to
influence them in their judicial conduct or
judgment. Also importantly, a judge should
ensure that his family members, friends and
associates refrain from creating the impression
that they are in a position to influence the judge.
Judges should, therefore, at all times remind
themselves that they are not in the judiciary to
give out favors but to dispense justice. They
should also make it clear to the members of
their family, friends and associates that they will
neither be influenced by anyone, nor would they
allow anyone to interfere in their judicial work.
PAGE 63
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Otherwise, the judge risks undermining public
confidence not just in him or herself, but in the
entire judicial institution [(ABA– Rule of Law
Initiative, New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary (Annotated) (2007]).
"Judge’s family" includes a judge’s spouse, son,
daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, and any
other relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the sixth civil degree, or person who is a
companion or employee of the judge and who
lives in the judge’s household [(Definitions, New
Code of Judicial Conduct]).
INDEPENDENCE FROM EXECUTIVE AND
LEGISLATIVE
Section 5. Judges shall not only be free from
inappropriate connections with, and influence
by, the executive and legislative branches of
government, but must also appear to be free
therefrom to a reasonable observer.
Granting bail because of the request of a
congressman, despite belief that the evidence of
guilt against the accused is strong, is
reprehensible [Tahil v. Eisma (1975)).
It is absolutely essential to the proper
administration of justice that courts have full
control over the official actions of those through
whom the administration of the affairs of the
court precedes.
For judicial independence to be a reality, the
least interference by or influence from other
governmental departments is of the essence.
Only this Court has the authority to order a
personnel accounting of locally-funded
employees assigned in the lower courts to
determine the necessity of their detail [Alfonso
v. Alonzo-Legasto (2002]).
It is desirable that the judge should, as far as
reasonably possible, refrain from all relations
which would normally tend to arouse the
suspicion that such relations warp or bias his
judgment, and prevent an impartial attitude of
mind in the administration of judicial duties
[ABA (2007]).
UP LAW BOC
INDEPENDENCE FROM SOCIETY AND
PARTICULAR PARTIES
Section 6. Judges shall be independent in
relation to society in general and in relation to
the particular parties to a dispute which he or
she has to adjudicate.
A judge’s act of sending a member of his staff to
talk with a complainant and show copies of his
draft decisions, and his act of meeting with
litigants outside the office premises beyond
office hours violate the standard of judicial
conduct required to be observed by members of
the bench. They constitute gross misconduct
which is punishable under Rule 140, Rules of
Court [Tan v. Rosete (2004]).
SAFEGUARDS FOR JUDICIAL
INDEPENDENCE
Section 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold
safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties in
order to maintain and enhance the institutional
and operational independence of the judiciary.
PROMOTE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE
Section 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote
high standards of judicial conduct in order to
reinforce public confidence in the judiciary
which is fundamental to the maintenance of
judicial independence.
Sections 7 and 8 are intended to serve as catch-
all provisions for all other acts that would
guarantee the independence of the judiciary,
but which may not have been covered in the
specific instances mentioned in the earlier
provisions [ABA (2007]).
The judge should always be imbued with a high
sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge
of his obligation to promptly and properly
administer justice. He must view himself as a
priest, for the administration of justice is akin to
a religious crusade [Dimatulac v. Villon (1998]).
JUDICIAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
INTEGRITY
Canon 2. Integrity is essential not only to the
proper discharge of the judicial office but also to
the personal demeanor of judges.
CONDUCT ABOVE REPROACH
Section 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is
their conduct above reproach, but that it is
perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable
observer.
The exacting standards of conduct demanded
from judges are designed to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of
the judiciary because the people’s confidence in
the judicial system is founded not only on the
magnitude of legal knowledge and the
diligence of the members of the bench, but also
on the highest standard of integrity and moral
uprightness they are expected to possess. It is
therefore paramount that a judge’s personal
behavior both in the performance of his duties
and his daily life, be free from any appearance
of impropriety as to be beyond reproach [Tan v.
Rosete (2004)].
With regard to professional integrity, judges
have been penalized for:
(1) Demanding and/or accepting bribes [Tan v.
Rosete (2004)];
(2) Fraternizing with litigants and/or lawyers
[Dela Cruz v. Bersamin (2000]);
(3) Altering orders [Rallos v. Gako (2000)];
(4) Delay in rendering decisions [Fernandez v.
Hamoy (2004]);
(5) Sexual harassment of employees [Dawa v.
De Asa (1998]);and
(6) Ignorance of the law [Macalintal v. The
(1997]).
With respect to personal integrity, judges have
been penalized for transgressions in their
private lives such as:
(1) Keeping and/or flaunting a mistress [In Re:
Judge Marcos (2001]);
(2) Inebriated/drunk behavior [Lachica v.
Flordeliza (1996)];and
(3) Frequenting casinos and cockfights [City of
Tagbilaran v Hontanosas (2002)].
PAGE 64
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
REAFFIRM PEOPLE'S FAITH
Section 2. The behavior and conduct of judges
must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity
of the judiciary. Justice must not only merely be
done but must also be seen to be done.
A judge has the duty to not only render a just
and impartial decision, but also render it in such
a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to
its fairness and impartiality, and also as to the
judge’s integrity. It is obvious, therefore, that
while judges should possess proficiency in law
in order that they can competently construe and
enforce the law, it is more important that they
should act and behave in such a manner that
the parties before them should have confidence
in their impartiality [Sibayan-Joaquin v. Javellana
(2001]).
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
Section 3. Judges should take or initiate
appropriate disciplinary measures against
lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional
conduct of which the judge may have become
aware.
The inclination to leniency in the administrative
supervision of court employees is an
undesirable trait. Oftentimes, such leniency
provides the court employees the opportunity to
commit minor transgressions of the laws and
slight breaches of official duty ultimately
leading to vicious delinquencies. A judge should
constantly keep a watchful eye on the conduct
of his employees. He should realize that big
start small. His constant scrutiny of the behavior
of his employees would deter any abuse on the
part of the latter in the exercise of their duties.
Then, his subordinates would know that any
misdemeanor will not remain unchecked. The
slightest semblance of impropriety on the part
of the employees of the court, in the
performance of their official duties stirs ripples
of public suspicion and public distrust of the
judicial administrators. The slightest breach of
duty by and the slightest irregularity in the
conduct of court officers and employees detract
from the dignity of the courts and erode the
faith of the people in the judiciary [Buenaventura
v. Benedicto (1971]).
PAGE 65
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
IMPARTIALITY
Canon 3. Impartiality is essential to the proper
discharge of the judicial office. It applies not
only to the decision itself but also to the process
by which the decision is made.
The judge must render service with impartiality
commensurate with the public trust and
confidence reposed in him [Dimatulac v. Villon
(1998]).
JUDICIAL DUTIES FREE FROM BIAS
Section 1. Judges shall perform their judicial
duties without favor, bias, or prejudice.
Bare allegations of partiality and prejudgment
will not suffice [Dimo Realty & Dev. Inc. v.
Dimaculangan (2004]). A judge's conduct must
be clearly indicative of arbitrariness and
prejudice before it can be stigmatized as biased
and partial [Cruz v. Iturralde (2003]).
Bias and prejudice must be shown to have
resulted in an opinion on the merits on the basis
of an extrajudicial source, not on what the judge
learned from participating in the case. As long
as opinions formed in the course of judicial
proceedings are based on the evidence
presented and the conduct observed by the
magistrate, such opinion – even if later found to
be erroneous – will not prove personal bias or
prejudice on the part of the judge. While
palpable error may be inferred from the decision
or the order itself, extrinsic evidence is required
to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt
purpose [Gochan v. Gochan (2003]). This is
known as the extrajudicial source rule.
PROMOTE CONFIDENCE, IMPARTIALITY
Section 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her
conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and
enhances the confidence of the public, the legal
profession and litigants in the impartiality of the
judge and of the judiciary.
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
A judge may not be legally prohibited from
sitting in a litigation. But when suggestion is
made of record that he might be induced to act
in favor of one party or with bias or prejudice
against a litigant arising out of circumstance
reasonably capable of inciting such a state of
mind, he should conduct a careful self-
examination. He should exercise his discretion
in a way that the people's faith in the courts of
justice is not impaired [Pimentel v. Salanga
(1967]).
MINIMIZE INSTANCES OF
DISQUALIFICATIONS
Section 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable,
so conduct themselves as to minimize the
occasions on which it will be necessary for them
to be disqualified from hearing or deciding
cases.
The underlying reason for the rules on
disqualification is to ensure that a judge, sitting
in a case, will at all times be free from
inclinations or prejudices and be well capable to
render a just and independent judgment.
A litigant is entitled to nothing less than the
cold neutrality of a judge. Due process requires
it [Parayno v. Meneses (1994]).
The rule of disqualification of judges must yield
to demands of necessity. Simply stated, the rule
of necessity means that a judge is not
disqualified to sit in a case if there is no other
judge available to hear and decide the case [46
Am. Jur. 2d Judges § 89 (1969]).
PUBLIC COMMENTS; PENDING AND
IMPENDING CASE
Section 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a
proceeding is before, or could come before
them, make any comment that might
reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of
such proceeding or impair the manifest fairness
of the process. Nor shall judges make any
comment in public or otherwise that might
affect the fair trial of any person or issue.
PAGE 66
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
In Martinez v. Gironella (1975), a judge was
disqualified from trying a murder case against
the accused (as principal), because, in a decision
in a prior case involving an alleged accessory, he
stated that the accused in the present case
committed the crime.
In Palang v. Zosa (1974), the judge, in deciding a
previous estafa case, stated that the charge was
a “clear concocted story” which caused great
damage to the accused. When a case for
damages was filed by the accused against the
complainant in the estafa case, the judge
voluntary inhibited himself. The Supreme Court
stated that the judge’s inhibition reinforced
public faith in the impartial administration of
justice.
DISQUALIFICATIONS
Section 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves
from participating in any proceedings in which
they are unable to decide the matter impartially
or in which it may appear to a reasonable
observer that they are unable to decide the
matter impartially. Such proceedings include,
but are not limited to, instances where:
(a) The judge has actual bias or prejudice
concerning a party or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceedings;
(b) The judge previously served as a lawyer or
was a material witness in the matter in
controversy;
(c) The judge, or a member of his or her family,
has an economic interest in the outcome of
the matter in controversy;
(d) The judge served as executor, administrator,
guardian, trustee, or lawyer in the case or
matter in controversy, or a former associate
of the judge served as counsel during their
association, or the judge or lawyer was a
material witness therein;
(e) The judge's ruling in a lower court is the
subject of review;
(f) The judge is related by consanguinity or
affinity to a party litigant within the 6th civil
degree or to counsel within the fourth civil
degree; or
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
(g) The judge knows that his or her spouse or
child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee,
creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject
matter in controversy or in a party to the
proceeding, or any other interest that could
be substantially affected by the outcome of
the proceedings.
In Umale v. Villaluz (1973), a judge inhibited
himself from trying a robbery case due to his
personal knowledge of the case. The Supreme
Court stated that it is possible that the
respondent Judge might be influenced by his
personal knowledge of the case when he tries
and decides the same on the merits, which
would certainly constitute a denial of due
process to the party adversely affected by his
judgment or decision. Thus, it is best that, after
some reflection, the judge, on his own initiative
disqualified himself from hearing the robbery
case and thereby rendering himself available as
witness to any of the parties subject to cross-
examination.
In People v. Gomez (1967), the judge dismissed
criminal informations on the suspicion, arising
from a dinner invitation from a stranger and a
subsequent personal investigation, that the
court was being used as a forum for extortion
and exploitation of the persons charged.
The Supreme Court found this unstated
extraneous matter makes the dismissal as one
affected with partiality and bias. The prayer of
the judge to be disqualified in hearing the case
because he has lost all respect in the manner in
which the prosecutor has been prosecuting the
case was granted.
PAGE 67
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
In Oktubre v. Velasco (2004), a municipal judge,
as private complainant, caused three criminal
complaints to be filed before his own court. He
also issued a warrant of arrest and subpoenas
before finally inhibiting himself from hearing
the cases. The Supreme Court found him guilty
of grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law
and grave abuse of authority, and dismissed
him from service. It stated that the idea that a
judge can preside over his own case is
anathema to the notion of impartiality and that
his subsequent inhibition from the three cases
does not detract from his culpability for he
should not have taken cognizance of the cases
in the first place.
In Sandoval v. CA (1996), the Supreme Court
that an Associate Justice who only partly
presided over a case in the trial court and who
did not render the final decision cannot be said
to have been placed in a position where he had
to review his own decision and, as such, was not
legally bound, on this ground, to inhibit himself
as ponente of the case. Nevertheless, it was held
that he should have voluntarily inhibited himself
for his earlier involvement in the case
constitutes just or valid reason under Section 1,
Rule 137. A judge should not handle a case in
which he might be perceived, rightly or wrongly,
to be susceptible to bias and partiality.
PERMITTAL OF DISQUALIFICATIONS
Section 6. A judge disqualified as stated above
may, instead of withdrawing from the
proceeding, disclose on the records the basis of
disqualification. If based on such disclosure, the
parties and lawyers independently of a judge's
participation, all agree in writing that the reason
for the inhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial,
the judge may then participate in the
proceeding. The agreement, signed by all
parties and lawyers, shall be incorporated in the
record of the proceedings.
UP LAW BOC
The decision to continue hearing the case,
despite the existence of reasons for
disqualification should be: (1) coupled with a
bona fide disclosure to the parties-in-litigation,
and (2) subject to express acceptance by all the
parties of the cited reason as not material or
substantial. The basis of the disqualification
should be disclosed, not mere “personal
reasons” [ABA (2007]).
PROPRIETY
Canon 4. Propriety and the appearance of
propriety are essential to the performance of all
the activities of a judge.
AVOIDANCE OF IMPROPRIETY
Section 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of their
activities.
By prohibiting not only impropriety but even the
appearance of impropriety, the Code recognizes
that even acts that are not per se improper can
nevertheless be perceived by the larger
community as such [ABA (2007)].
Thus, acts of judges which are not illegal may
still violate the Code:
(1) Hearing cases on the day when the judge
was supposed to be on official leave [Re:
Anonymous Complaint Against Acuña
(2005]);
(2) Hearing a motion while on vacation in the
judge’s room dressed in a polo jacket
[Ignacio v. Valenzuela (1982]);
(3) Coming out of a hotel together with a
subordinate, even when there is no clear
evidence of sexual congress [Liwanag v.
Lustre (1999]);
(4) Making a joking remark to a litigant
suggesting for the latter to prove that he
harbored no ill feelings toward the judge [Co
v. Plata (2005]);
(5) Admonishing the bride and the groom, after
conducting a marriage ceremony, to sexually
satisfy each other so that they will not go
astray [Hadap v. Lee (1982]).
JUDICIAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Violent action in a public place, whatever the
motive, constitutes serious misconduct and
resultant outrage of the community [Arban v.
Boraha (1989]).
It is highly improper for a judge to wield a high-
powered firearm in public and besieged the
house of a perceived defamer of character and
honor in warlike fashion, berating the object of
his ire with his firearm aimed at him [Saburnido
v. Madrano (2001]).
ACCEPTANCS OF PERSONAL
RESTRICTIONS
Section 2. As a subject of constant public
scrutiny, judges must accept personal
restrictions that might be viewed as
burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should
do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges
shall conduct themselves in a way that is
consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
Judges are also human beings, with their own
burdens and private affairs. However, having
accepted the esteemed position of judge, they
ought to have known that more is expected of
them than an ordinary citizen.
As subjects of constant public scrutiny, personal
restrictions that might be viewed as
burdensome by the ordinary citizen should be
freely and willingly accepted by a judge.
In particular, he or she must exhibit conduct
consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
Indeed, a judge’s personal behavior, not only
while in the performance of official duties, must
be beyond reproach, being the visible
personification of law and of justice [Re:
Anonymous Complaint Against Acuña (2005)].
Thus, judges have been rebuked for:
(1) Sexually suggestive advances to women
[Mariano v. Gonzales (1982]);
(2) Writing letters asking a married woman to
come to the judge’s sala afterfive o’clock in
the evening [Hadap v. Lee (1982]);
(3) Assigning a female stenographer to the
judge’s chambers [Ritual v. Valencia (1978]).
PAGE 68
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
AVOIDANCE OF CONTROVERSY
Section 3. Judges shall, in their personal
relations with individual members of the legal
profession who practice regularly in their court,
avoid situations which might reasonably give
rise to the suspicion or appearance of favoritism
or partiality.
A judge, who is commanded at all times to be
mindful of his high calling and his mission as a
dispassionate and impartial arbiter of justice, is
expected to be “a cerebral man who
deliberately holds in check the tug and pull of
purely personal preferences which he shares
with his fellow mortals” [OCA v. Paderanga
(2005)].
Constant company [or fraternizing] with a
lawyer tends to breed intimacy and camaraderie
to the point that favors in the future may be
asked from a judge which he may find hard to
resist. The actuation of a judge of eating and
drinking in public places with a lawyer who has
pending cases in his sala may well arouse
suspicion in the public mind, thus tending to
erode the trust of the litigants in the impartiality
of the judge [Padilla v. Zantua (1994)].
NOT PARTICIPATE IN CASES WHERE HE
MAY BE IMPARTIAL
Section 4. Judges shall not participate in the
determination of a case in which any member of
their family represents a litigant or is associated
in any manner with the case.
This rule rests on the principle that no judge
should preside in a case in which the judge is
not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and
independent. A judge has both the duty of
rendering a just decision and the duty of doing it
in a manner completely free from suspicion as
to fairness and integrity. The purpose is to
preserve the people’s faith and confidence in
the courts of justice(ABA (2007)).
NOT ALLOW THE USE OF HIS RESIDENCE BY
OTHER LAWYERS
Section 5. Judges shall not allow the use of their
residence by a member of the legal profession
to receive clients of the latter or of other
members of the legal profession.
PAGE 69
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
It is grossly improper for a judge to meet with a
litigant at his home and to frequent the karaoke
bar owned by such litigant, enjoying the use
thereof for free [J. King & Sons v. Hontanosas
(2004)].
Fraternizing with litigants tarnishes the
appearance of impartiality. It is improper for a
judge to meet privately with the accused
without the presence of the complainant [De
Guzman, Jr. v. Sison (2001)].
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Section 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are
entitled to freedom of expression, belief,
association and assembly, but in exercising such
rights, they shall always conduct themselves in
such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the
judicial office and the impartiality and
independence of the judiciary.
In the exercise of their civil liberties, judges
should be circumspect and ever mindful that
their continuing commitment to upholding the
judiciary and its values places upon them
certain implied restraints to their freedom. A
judge was admonished for the appearance of
engaging in partisan politics when he
participated in a political rally sponsored by one
party, even though he only explained the
mechanics of block voting to the audience [ABA
(2007]).
BE INFORMED OF HIS FINANCIAL
INTERESTS
Section 7. Judges shall inform themselves about
their personal fiduciary financial interests and
shall make reasonable efforts to be informed
about the financial interests of members of their
family.
Under Section 7(a), RA 6713, public officials and
employees are prohibited from directly or
indirectly having any financial or material
interest in any transaction requiring the
approval of their office.
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that “a
judge shall refrain from financial and business
dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the
court’s impartiality, interfere with the proper
performance of judicial activities, or increase
involvement with lawyers or persons likely to
come before the court. A judge should so
manage investments and other financial
interests as to minimize the number of cases
giving grounds for disqualification” [Catbagan v.
Barte (2005)].
INFLUENCE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
Section 8. Judges shall not:
(a) Use or lend the prestige of the judicial office
to advance their private interests, or those of
a member of their family or of anyone else;
(b) Convey or permit others to convey the
impression that anyone is in a special
position improperly to influence them in the
performance of judicial duties.
A judge, claiming to be an administrator of an
estate, wrote demand letters to tenants using
the letterhead of his sala for them to pay their
rent in his office. The Supreme Court stated that
using the said letterhead and requiring payment
at his office is clearly intended to use the
prestige of his judicial office to advance private
interests [Oktubre v. Velasco (2004])
. system, the administration of justice or
Another judge who, as creditor, filed a collection
case in a venue where he was one of the trial
judges, was severely censured by the Supreme
Court, stating that a sense of propriety should
have impelled him to desist from filing in said
venue, even when, under the law, he had the
choice of venue. In the eyes of the public, it
arouses suspicion, rightly or wrongly, that
advantage is being taken of one’s position(Javier
v. De Guzman, Jr. (1990)).
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Section 9. Confidential information acquired by
judges in their judicial capacity shall not be used
or disclosed by, for any other purpose related to
their judicial duties.
PAGE 70
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Releasing a draft decision to a party was
considered not as a simple breach of
confidentiality of the decision-making process in
the case of Centrum Agri-Business Realty Corp.
v. Katalbas-Moscardon (1995), but a scheme to
extort money from a party.
Also, a judge’s act of personally furnishing a
party copies of orders issued, without the same
passing through the court docket, is highly
irregular, giving rise to the suspicion that the
judge is partial to one of the parties in the case
pending before him [Co v. Calimag (2000]).
Records of cases are necessarily confidential,
and to preserve their integrity and
confidentiality, access thereto ought to be
limited only to the judge, the parties or their
counsel and the appropriate court personnel in
charge of the custody thereof. It is improper to
allow a judge’s wife, who is not a court
employee, much less the employee specifically
in charge of the custody of said records, to have
access thereto [Gordon v. Lilagan (2001)].
ENGAGE IN OTHER ACTIVITIES
Section 10. Subject to the proper performance of
judicial duties, judges may:
(a) Write, lecture, teach, and participate in
activities concerning the law, the legal
related matters;
(b) Appear at a public hearing before an official
body concerned with matters relating to the
law, the legal system, the administration of
justice or related matters;
(c) Engage in other activities if such activities do
not detract from the dignity of the judicial
office or otherwise interfere with the
performance of judicial duties.
This section should be read in conjunction with
Section 12, Article VIII, Constitution, which
prohibits members of the judiciary from being
designated to any agency performing quasi-
judicial or administrative functions.
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
Thus, membership of a judge in a Provincial
Committee on Justice, which discharges
administrative functions, will be in violation of
the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court
stated that this does not mean that judges
should adopt monastic insensibility or
unbecoming indifference to such institutions
and that even as non-members, they should
render assistance to help promote the laudable
purposes for which they exist when such
assistance may be reasonably incidental to the
fulfillment of their judicial duties [In Re:
Designation of Judge Manzano (1988]).
PRACTICE OF PROFESSION
Section 11. Judges shall not practice law whilst
the holder of judicial office.
This prohibition is based on public policy
because the rights, duties, privileges and
functions of the office of an attorney-at-law are
inherently incompatible with the high official
functions, duties, powers, discretion and
privileges of a judge. It also aims to ensure that
judges give their full time and attention to their
judicial duties, prevent them from extending
special favors to their own private interests and
assure the public of their impartiality in the
performance of their functions [Carual v. Brusola
(1999]).
General rule: Municipal judges may not engage
in notarial work.
Exception: They may do so as notaries public ex-
officio, in which case, they may only notarize
documents connected with the exercise of their
official functions. As such, they may not
undertake the preparation and
acknowledgement of private documents,
contracts and other acts of conveyance, which
bear no relation to the performance of their
functions as judges.
Exception to the exception: In far-flung
municipalities which have neither lawyers nor
notaries public, municipal judges assigned to
those municipalities or circuits may, in their
capacity as notaries public ex-officio, perform
any act within the competence of a regular
notary public,provided:
PAGE 71
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(1) All notarial fees charged be for the account
of the Government and turned over to the
municipal treasurer; and
(2) A certification be made in the notarized
documents attesting to the lack of any
lawyer or notary public in such municipality
or circuit [Tabao v. Asis (1996)].
FORM ASSOCIATIONS
Section 12. Judges may form or join associations
of judges or participate in other organizations
representing the interests of judges.
This rule recognizes a difference between
membership in associations of judges and
membership in associations of other legal
professionals. While attendance at lavish events
hosted by lawyers might create an appearance
of impropriety, participation in judges-only
organizations does not [ABA (2007)].
GIFTS, REQUESTS, LOANS
Section 13. Judges and members of their families
shall neither ask for, or accept, any gift, bequest,
loan or favor in relation to anything done or to
be done or omitted to be done by him or her in
connection with the performance of judicial
duties.
Under Section 7(d), RA 6713, prohibits
solicitation or acceptance by public officials and
employees, directly or indirectly, of any gift,
gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything
of monetary value from any person in the course
of their official duties or in connection with any
operation being regulated by, or any transaction
which may be affected by the functions of their
office.
The act of a judge in demanding and receiving
money from a party-litigant before his court
constitute serious misconduct in office. It is this
kind of gross and flaunting misconduct on the
part of those who are charged with the
responsibility of administering the law and
rendering justice that so quickly and surely
corrodes the respect for law and the courts
without which government cannot continue and
that tears apart the very bonds of our polity
[Haw Tay v. Singayao (1987]).
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
FIFTS, REQUESTS, LOANS BY STAFF
Section 14. Judges shall not knowingly permit
court staff of others subject to their influence,
direction or authority, to ask for, or accept any
gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to
anything done or to be done or omitted to be
done in connection with their duties of
functions.
This section complements the previous section
and assures that what the judge cannot do
directly may not be done indirectly through the
use of employees or staff members [ABA
(2007]).
PERMISSIBLE TOKENS AND AWARDS
Section 15. Subject to law and to any legal
requirements of public disclosure, judges may
receive a token, gift, award, or benefit as
appropriate to the occasion on which it is made
provided that such gift, award of benefit might
not reasonably be perceived as intended to
influence the judge in the performance of
judicial duties or otherwise give rise to an
appearance of partiality.
General rule: Judges and members of their
families are prohibited from accepting any
token, gift, award or benefit.
Exception: Subject to legal requirements like
public disclosure, they may accept gifts
provided that it might not reasonably be
perceived as intended to influence judge.
As to gifts or grants from foreign governments,
Section 7(d),RA 6713 allows:
(a) A gift of nominal value tendered and
received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy;
(b) A gift in the nature of a scholarship or
fellowship grant or medical treatment; or
(c) Travel grants or expenses for travel taking
place entirely outside the Philippine of more
than nominal value if such acceptance is:
(i) Appropriate or consistent with the
interests of the Philippines; and
(ii) Permitted by the head of office, branch or
agency to which he belongs.
PAGE 72
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
EQUALITY
Canon 5. Ensuring equality of treatment to all
before the courts is essential to the due
performance of the judicial office.
This is a new canon not found in the previous
codes of judicial conduct. It expands the
measures to promote equality required by
international human rights agreements [ABA
(2007]).
UNDERSTAND THE DIVERSITY IN SOCIETY
Section 1. Judges shall be aware of, and
understand, diversity in society and differences
arising from various sources, including but not
limited to race, color, sex, religion, national
origin, caste, disability, age, marital status,
sexual orientation, social and economic status
and other like causes.
To render substantial justice and maintain
public confidence in the judicial system, judges
are expected to be aware of the diversity in
society that results from an increased worldwide
exchange of people and ideas. Judges must be
able to avoid the infiltration of preconceptions
into their decisions. They should be mindful of
the various international instruments and
treaties ratified by the Philippines, which affirm
the equality of all human beings and establish a
norm of non-discrimination without distinction
as to race, sex, language or religion [ABA
(2007)].
NOT TO MANIFEST BIAS OR PREJUDICE
Section 2. Judges shall not, in the performance
of judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest
bias or prejudice towards any person or group
on irrelevant grounds.
In every litigation, perhaps much more so in
criminal cases, the manner and attitude of a
trial judge are crucial to everyone concerned,
the offended party, no less than the accused.
It is not for him to indulge or even to give the
appearance of catering to the at times human
failing of yielding to first impressions.
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
He is to refrain from reaching hasty conclusions
or prejudging matters. It would be deplorable if
he lays himself open to the suspicion of reacting
to feelings rather than to facts, of being
imprisoned in the net of his own sympathies and
predilections [Castillo v. Juan (1975)].
NOT TO DIFFERENTIATE
Section 3. Judges shall carry out judicial duties
with appropriate consideration for all persons,
such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court
staff and judicial colleagues, without
differentiation on any irrelevant ground,
immaterial to the proper performance of such
duties.
Unequal and disparate treatment in the
courthouse, whether intentional or perceived, is
unacceptable and can negatively impact the
professional lives of attorneys and employees,
the assessment of claims of litigants, and the
respect and credibility of the justice system
[ABA (2007]).
NOT TO INFLUENCE STAFF
Section 4. Judges shall not knowingly permit
court staff or others subject to his or her
influence, direction or control to differentiate
between persons concerned, in a matter before
the judge, on any irrelevant ground.
Judges should organize their courts to ensure
the prompt and convenient dispatch of business
and should not tolerate misconduct by clerks,
sheriffs and other assistants who are sometimes
prone to expect favors or special treatment due
to their professional relationship with the judge.
Court personnel shall not discriminate by
dispensing special favors to anyone. They shall
not allow kinship, rank, position or favors from
any party to influence their official acts or duties
[Section 3, Canon 1, Code of Conduct for Court
Personnel].
PAGE 73
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
ATTITUDE TO PARTIES APPEARING IN
COURT
Section 5. Judges shall require lawyers in
proceedings before the court to refrain from
manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or
prejudice based on irrelevant grounds, except
such as are legally relevant to an issue in
proceedings and may be the subject of
legitimate advocacy.
Judges should conduct proceedings in court
with dignity and in a manner that reflects the
importance and seriousness of proceedings.
They should maintain order and proper
decorum in the court [Rule 3.03, Canon 3, 1989
Code of Judicial Conduct].
The effect is the same when the insensitive act
or comment is made by a lawyer appearing in
the court and the judge does not admonish the
lawyer for the insensitivity [ABA (2007)]
.
Thus, judges have the duty to prevent lawyers
from violating the rights of witnesses. This
complements Rule 12.07, Canon 12, which
directs that a lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat
or harass a witness nor needlessly
inconvenience him.
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Canon 6. Competence and diligence are
prerequisites to the due performance of judicial
office.
A judge must be the embodiment of
competence, integrity and independence, and
should be studiously careful to avoid even the
slightest infraction of the law, lest it be a
demoralizing example to others [OCA v. Gines
(1993)].
DUTIES TAKE PRECEDENCE
Section 1. The judicial duties of a judge take
precedence over all other activities.
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
Verily, a judge may, in the exercise of his sound
discretion, inhibit himself voluntarily from
sitting in a case, but it should be based on good,
sound or ethical grounds, or for just and valid
reasons. No less than imperative is that it is the
judge’s sacred duty to administer justice without
fear or favor [Parayno v. Meneses (1994)].
PERFORM ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES
Section 2. Judges shall devote their professional
activity to judicial duties, which include not only
the performance of judicial functions and
responsibilities in court and the making of
decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the
judicial office or the court's operations.
Failure to speedily dispose of cases on account
of missing records of cases reflects an inefficient
and disorderly system in the recording of cases
assigned to a judge’s sala. Proper and efficient
court management is as much the judge’s
responsibility, for the court personnel are not
the guardians of a judge’s responsibilities. A
judge is expected to ensure that the records of
cases assigned to his sala are intact. There is no
justification for missing records save fortuitous
events. The loss of not one but eight records is
indicative of gross misconduct and inexcusable
negligence unbecoming of a judge [Longboan v.
Polig (1990]).
MAINTAIN PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE
Section 3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to
maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills,
and personal qualities necessary for the proper
performance of judicial duties, taking advantage
for this purpose of the training and other
facilities which should be made available, under
judicial control, to judges.
When a judge accepts his position, he owes it to
the dignity of the court, to the legal profession,
and to the public, to know the very law he is
supposed to apply to a given controversy. Even
in the remaining years of his stay in the judiciary
he should keep abreast with the changes in the
law and with the latest decisions and
precedents.
PAGE 74
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Although a judge is nearing retirement he
should not relax in his study of the law and
court decisions. Service in the judiciary means a
continuous study and research on the law from
beginning to end [Ajeno v. Inserto (1976])
Judges are not, however, expected to be
infallible; not every error or irregularity
committed by judges in the performance of
official duties is subject to administrative
sanction. In the absence of bad faith, fraud,
dishonesty, or deliberate intent to do injustice,
incorrect rulings do not constitute misconduct
and may not give rise to a charge of gross
ignorance of the law [Cruz v. Iturralde (2003)].
Disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions
against judges are not complementary or
suppletory of, nor a substitute for, these judicial
remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary.
Resort to and exhaustion of these judicial
remedies are prerequisites for the taking of
other measures against the persons of the
judges concerned, whether of civil,
administrative, or criminal nature. It is only after
the available judicial remedies have been
exhausted and the appellate tribunals have
spoken with finality that the door to an inquiry
into his criminal, civil, or administrative liability
may be said to have opened, or closed
[Maquiran v. Grageda (2005)].
BE INFORMED ABOUT THE LAW
Section 4,. Judges shall keep themselves
informed about the relevant developments of
international law, including international
conventions and other instruments establishing
human rights norms.
This is so since, subject to the conditions set
forth in Section 2, Article II and Section 21, Article
VII, Constitution, international law, both
customary and conventional, are part of
Philippine law.
PROMPT DECISION MAKING
Section 5. Judges shall perform all judicial
duties, including the delivery of reserved
decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable
promptness.
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
Section 1, Rule 124 requires that justice be
impartially administered without unnecessary
delay. This principle permeates the whole
system of judicature, and supports the
legitimacy of the decrees of judicial tribunals
[ABA (2007)].
MAINTAIN ORDER IN PROCEEDINGS
Section 6. Judges shall maintain order and
decorum in all proceedings before the court and
be patient, dignified, and courteous in relation
to litigants, witnesses, lawyers, and others with
whom the judge deals in an official capacity.
Judges shall require similar conduct of legal
representatives, court staff and others subject to
their influence, direction and control.
A judge was found guilty of committing acts
unbecoming of a judge and abuse of authority
when he shouted invectives and threw a chair at
the complainant, resulting in wrist and other
injuries to the complainant [Briones v. Ante, Jr.
(2002]).
Another judge was found guilty of serious
misconduct and inefficiency by reason of
habitual tardiness. He was fined and suspended
for judicial indolence [Yu-Asensi v. Villanueva
(2000)].
NOT TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT CONTRARY
TO DUTIES
Section 7. Judges shall not engage in conduct
incompatible with the diligent discharge of
judicial duties.
A judge is charged with exercising extra care in
ensuring that the records of the cases and
official documents in his custody are intact. He
must adopt a system of record management
and organize their dockets in order to bolster
the prompt and efficient dispatch of business.
It is, in fact, incumbent upon him to devise an
efficient recording and filing system in his court
because he is after all the one directly
responsible for the proper discharge of his
official functions [Beso v. Daguman (2000]).
PAGE 75
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Inefficient judges are equally impermissible in
the judiciary as the incompetent and dishonest
ones. Any of them tarnishes the image of the
judiciary or brings it to public contempt,
dishonor or disrespect and must then be
administratively dealt with and punished
accordingly [Yu-Aensi v. Villanueva (2000]).
Thus, a judge who issued orders indefinitely
postponing the hearing of an election protest
was found to be inefficient and to have
transgressed the basic mandatory rules for
expeditious resolution of cases [De la Cruz v.
Pascua (2001)].
Discipline of Members of
the Judiciary
MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT
IMPEACHMENT
Members of the Supreme Court may be
removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, culpable violation of the
Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of
public trust (Section 2, Article X, Constitution).
The impeachment of public officials has been
established for removing otherwise
constitutionally tenured and independent public
officials for culpable violation of the
Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of
public trust. The power to initiate impeachment
cases rests with the House while the power to
try the same rests with the Senate.
Based on Section 3, Article VI, Constitution, the
steps leading to impeachment are as follows:
(1) A verified complaint for impeachment is filed
by a member of the House or endorsed by
him;
(2) The complaint is included in the order of
business of the House;
(3) The House refers the complaint to the proper
committee;
(4) The committee holds a hearing, approves
the resolution calling for impeachment, and
submits the same to the House;
UP LAW BOC
(5) The House considers the resolution and
votes to approve it by at least one‑third of all
its members, which resolution becomes the
article of impeachment to be filed with the
Senate when approved; and
(6) The Senate tries the public official under the
article [Abad, J., Separate Concurring
Opinion, Guttierez v. HOR Committee on
Justice (2011]).
FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE CORONA’S
IMPEACHMENT
OVERVIEW
On December 12, 2011, the House of
Representatives voted to impeach Chief Justice
Corona. They charged him with eight articles of
impeachment alleging:
(1) Betrayal of public trust;
(2) Graft and corruption; and
(3) Culpable violation of the Constitution.
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
Article I: Partiality and subservience in cases
involving the Arroyo administration;
Article II: Failure to disclose to the public his
statement of assets and liabilities;
Article III: Flip-flopping decisions in final and
executory cases, creating excessive
entanglement with Former President Arroyo,
and discussing with litigants regarding the
cases pending before the Supreme Court;
Article IV: Irregularities in issuing a quo-ante
order against the House of Representatives in
the impeachment of then Ombudsman
Merceditas Gutierrez;
Article V: Gerrymandering in the case of the 16-
newly created cities and promotion of Dinagat
into a province;
Article VI: Improper investigation in the
plagiarism case of Associate Justice Mariano del
Castillo;
JUDICIAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Article VII: Granting a temporary restraining
order to Former President Arroyo and husband
Mike Arroyo after the Department of Justice
prevented them to go out of the country;
Article VIII: Graft and corruption when he failed
and refused to account for the judiciary
development fund and special allowance for the
judiciary collections.
On January 16, 2012, the Senate, sitting as an
impeachment court, began the trial. The
prosecution dropped Articles I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII,
leaving only Articles II and III as their grounds
for impeachment.
On May 29, 2012, the Senate found Chief Justice
Corona guilty under Article II of the articles of
impeachment for his failure to declare his true
statements of assets, liabilities and net worth.
After 20 senators voted in favor of
impeachment under this ground, the Senate no
longer voted under Article III. Three senators
voted to acquit Corona on that ground.
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE USED
An impeachment proceeding is sui generis; it is
neither purely political nor criminal. Thus, it
does not require proof beyond reasonable
doubt. In the course of the impeachment trial,
the senator-judges expressed differing views.
Some argued that it requires “clear and
convincing proof,” while some argued that it
needs “preponderance of evidence.”
The Senate has traditionally left the choice of
the applicable standard of proof to each
individual Senator [Black, Impeachment: A
Handbook (1974)).
JUDGES OF THE LOWER COURTS
AND JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS AND SANDIGANBAYAN
The members of the Supreme Court and judges
of lower courts shall hold office during a good
behavior until they reach the age of seventy
years or become incapacitated to discharge the
duties of their office.
PAGE 76
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
The Supreme Court en banc shall have the
power to discipline judges of lower courts, or
order their dismissal by a vote of majority of the
Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and
voted thereon (Section 11, Article VIII,
Constitution).
General rule: A judge cannot be subjected to
liability – civil, criminal, or administrative – for
any his official acts, not matter how erroneous,
as long as he acts in good faith [Valdez v. Valera
(1978)].
Ratio: A judicial officer, in exercising the
authority vested in him, shall be free to act the
authority vested in him, and shall be free to act
upon his own convictions, without apprehension
of personal consequences to himself.
This concept of judicial immunity rests upon
consideration of public policy, its purpose being
to preserve the integrity and independence of
the judiciary [Pabalan v. Guevarra (1976)].
Exceptions: A judge may be subject to liability
based on the grounds enumerated under Rule
140.
INSTITUTION
Proceedings for the discipline of judges of
regular and special courts and justices of the
Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may
be instituted:
(1) Motu proprio by the Supreme Court;
(2) Upon the verified complaint, supported by
affidavits of persons who have personal
knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by
documents which may substantiate said
allegations; or
(3) Upon an anonymous complaint, supported
by public records of indubitable integrity.
The complaint shall be in writing and shall state
clearly and concisely the acts and omissions
constituting violations of standards of conduct
prescribed for judges (Section 1, Rule 140).
PAGE 77
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
INVESTIGATION
Upon the filing of the comment of the
respondent or upon the expiration of the period
for such filing, which is ten days from the date of
service to him of the copy of the complaint
(Section 2, Rule 140), the Supreme Court shall:
(1) Refer the matter to the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report,
and recommendation; or
(2) Assign the case for investigation, report, and
recommendation to:
(a) A retired member of the Supreme Court,
if the respondent is a justice of the Court
of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan;
(b) A justice of the Court of Appeals, if the
respondent is a judge of a Regional Trial
Court or of a special court of equivalent
rank; or
(c) A judge of the Regional Trial Court, if the
respondent is a judge of an inferior court
(Section 3, Rule 140).
HEARING AND TERMINATION
The investigating justice of judge shall set a day
for the hearing and send notice to the parties. If
the respondent fails to appear, the investigation
shall proceed ex parte.
The investigating justice or judge shall
terminate the proceedings:
(1) Within 90 days from the date of its
commencement; or
(2) Within such extension as the Supreme Court
may grant (Section 4, Rule 140).
REPORT AND ACTION
Within 30 days from termination, the
investigating justice or judge shall submit to the
Supreme Court a report containing his findings
of fact and recommendation, accompanied by
the evidence and pleadings filed by the parties.
Such report shall be confidential and shall be
for the exclusive use of the Supreme Court.
A copy of the decision or resolution of the court
shall be attached to the record of the
respondent in the OCA (Sections 5 and 12, Rule
140).
The Supreme Court shall take action on the
report as the facts and the law may warrant
(Section 6, Rule 140).
UP LAW BOC
AUTOMATIC CONVERSION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES TO DISCIPLINARY
PROCEEDINGS
Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC,
administrative cases against justices of the
Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan,
judges of regular and special courts, and court
officials who are lawyers, shall also be
considered a disciplinary action against them, if
they are based on grounds which are likewise
grounds for the disciplinary action of members
of the bar for:
(1) Violation of the Lawyer's Oath;
(2) Violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility;
(3) Violation of the Canons of Professional
Ethics; or
(4) Such other forms of breaches of conduct that
have been traditionally recognized as
grounds for the discipline of lawyers.
The respondent is required to comment on the
complaint and show cause why he should not
also be suspended, disbarred or otherwise
disciplinarily sanctioned as a member of the
bar. Judgment in both respects may be
incorporated in one decision or resolution.
EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL OR DESISTANCE
The actuations of a judge seriously affects the
public interest inasmuch as they involve the
administration of justice. It is for this reason that
a motion to withdraw a complaint will not justify
the dismissal of the administrative case against
the judge.
To condition administrative actions upon the
will of every complainant, who may, for one
reason or another, condone a detestable act, is
to strip the Supreme Court of its supervisory
power to discipline erring members of the
judiciary [Anguluan v. Taguba (1979)].
Complainant's desistance is not an obstacle to
the taking of disciplinary action against a judge
if the record reveals that he had not performed
his duties properly [Espayos v. Lee (1979)].
GROUNDS
Administrative charges are classified as serious,
less serious, or light (Section 7, Rule 140).
JUDICIAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Serious charges:
(1) Bribery, direct or indirect;
(2) Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Law (RA 3019);
(3) Gross misconduct constituting violations of
the Code of Judicial Conduct;
(4) Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or
order as determined by a competent court
in an appropriate proceeding;
(5) Conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude;
(6) Willful failure to pay a just debt;
(7) Borrowing money or property from lawyers
and litigants in a case pending before the
court;
(8) Immorality;
(9) Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;
(10) Partisan political activities; and
(11) Alcoholism and/or vicious habits (Section
8, Rule 140).
The word “misconduct” implies a wrongful
intention and not a mere error or judgment. For
serious [or gross] misconduct to exist, there
must be reliable evidence showing that the
judicial acts complained of were corrupt or
inspired by an intention to violate the law, or
were in persistent disregard of well-known legal
rules [In re: Impeachment of Horrilleno (1922)].
In the absence of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or
deliberate intent to do injustice, incorrect
rulings do not constitute misconduct and may
not give rise to a charge of gross ignorance of
the law [Cruz v. Iturralde (2003)].
Less serious charges:
(1) Undue delay in rendering a decision or order,
or in transmitting the records of a case;
(2) Frequently and unjustified absences without
leave or habitual tardiness;
(3) Unauthorized practice of law;
(4) Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives,
and circulars;
(5) Receiving additional or double
compensation unless specifically authorized
by law;
(6) Untruthful statements in the certificate of
service; and
(7) Simple misconduct (Section 9, Rule 140).
PAGE 78
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
Light charges:
(1) Vulgar and unbecoming conduct;
(2) Gambling in public;
(3) Fraternizing with lawyers and litigants with
pending case/cases in his court; and
(4) Undue delay in the submission of monthly
reports.
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES
The following have been subject to discipline by
the Supreme Court:
(1) Failure to deposit funds with the municipal
treasurer or produce them despite promise
to do so [Montemayor v. Collado (1981)];
(2) Misappropriation of fiduciary funds (i.e.,
proceeds of cash bail bond) by depositing
the check in a personal account, thus
converting the trust fund to personal use
[Barja v. Beracio (1976)];
(3) Extorting money from a party-litigant who
has a pending case [Haw Tay v. Singayao
(1988)]:
(4) Solicitation of donation for office
equipment [Lecaroz v. Garcia (1981)];
(5) Frequent unauthorized absences in office
[Municipal Council of Casiguruhan, Quezon
v. Morales (1974)];
(6) Delay in the disposition of cases in violation
of the canon that a judge must promptly
dispose of all matters submitted to him
[Balagot v. Opinion (1991)];
(7) Unduly granting repeated motions for
postponement [Araza v. Reyes (1975)];
(8) Unawareness of or unfamiliarity with the
application of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law and duration and graduation of
penalties [In re: Paulin (1980)];
(9) Reducing to a ridiculous amount (i.e.,
P6,000.00) the bail bond of the accused in
a murder case, enabling him to escape the
toils of the law [Soriano v. Mabbayad
(1975)].
(10) Imposing the penalty of subsidiary
imprisonment on a party for failure to pay
civil indemnity in violation of RA 5465
[Monsanto v. Palarca (1983)].
IMPEACHMENT (ETHICAL ASPECTS)
Former Chief Justice Corona was the first justice
of the Supreme Court to be impeached and
convicted.
PAGE 79
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
He was found guilty for culpable violation of the
Constitution and/or betrayal of public trust for
not correctly declaring his statements of assets,
liabilities and net worth.
The prosecution alleges that he inaccurately
declared his peso and dollar deports, and real
estate properties.
The defense argues that he did not declare his
dollar deposits and peso deposits because of
the banking secrecy and foreign currency
deposit laws. It was also said that some
undeclared assets are also co-mingled funds
that he does not own solely.
SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY THE SUPREME
COURT ON ERRING MEMBERS OF THE
JUDICIARY
Under Section 11, Rule 140, any of the following
sanctions may be imposed:
(1) If the respondent is guilty of a serious
charge:
(a)Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all
or part of the benefits as the Court may
determine, and disqualification from
reinstatement or appointment to any
public office, including government-
owned or controlled corporations.
Forfeiture of benefits does not include
accrued leave credits;
(b) Suspension from office without salary and
other benefits for more than three but not
exceeding six months; or
(c) A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not
exceeding P40,000.00;
(2) If the respondent is guilty of a less serious
charge:
(a) Suspension from office without salary
and other benefits for not less than one
nor more than three months; or
(b) A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not
exceeding P20,000.00;
(3) If the respondent is guilty of a light charge:
(a) A fine of not less than P1,000.00 but
not exceeding P10,000.00;and/or
(b) Censure;
(c) Reprimand;
(d) Admonition with warning.
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
Disqualification of Justices
and Judges
COMPULSORY
(Section 1, 1st par., Rule 137). No judge or judicial
officer shall sit in any case, without the written
consent of all parties in interest and entered
upon the record, in which:
(1) He, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily
interested as heir, legatee, creditor or
otherwise;
(2) He is related to either party within the sixth
degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to
counsel within the fourth degree, computed
according to the rules of the civil law;
(3) He has been executor, administrator,
guardian, trustee or counsel; or
(4) He has presided in any inferior court when
his ruling or decision is the subject of review.
 The rule on compulsory disqualification of a
judge to hear a case rests on the salutary
principle that no judge should preside in a
case in which he is not wholly free,
disinterested, impartial and independent. A
judge has both the duty of rendering a just
decision and the duty of doing it in a manner
completely free from suspicion as to its
fairness and as to his integrity.
 The law conclusively presumes that a judge
cannot objectively or impartially sit in such a
case and, for that reason, prohibits him and
strikes at his authority to hear and decide it, in
the absence of written consent of all parties
concerned. The purpose is to preserve the
people's faith and confidence in the courts'
justice (Garcia v. De La Pena 1994).
 The relationship of the judge with one of the
parties may color the facts and distort the law
to the prejudice of a just decision. Where this
is probable or even only possible, due process
demands that the judge inhibit himself, if only
out of a sense of delicadeza [Javier v.
Commission on Elections (1996)].
VOLUNTARY
(Section 1, 2nd par., Rule 137). A judge may, in the
exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself
from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons
other than those mentioned.
PAGE 80
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
 A judge must maintain and preserve the trust
and faith of the parties-litigants. He must
hold himself above reproach and suspicion. At
the very first sign of lack of faith and trust to
his actions, whether well-grounded or not, the
judge has no other alternative but inhibit
himself from the case.
 A judge may not be legally prohibited from
sitting in a litigation, but when circumstances
appear that will induce doubt to his honest
actuations and probity in favor of either party,
or incite such state of mind, he should
conduct a careful self-examination. He should
exercise his discretion in a way that the
people's faith in the courts of justice is not
impaired. The better course for the judge
under such circumstances is to disqualify
himself. That way, he avoids being
misunderstood, his reputation for probity and
objectivity is preserved [Bautista v. Rebueno
(1978)].
 Intimacy or friendship between a judge and an
attorney of record of one of the parties to a
suit is no ground for disqualification. That one
of the counsels in a case was a classmate of
the trial judge is not a legal ground for the
disqualification of the said judge.
 To allow it would unnecessarily burden other
trial judges to whom the case would be
transferred. But if the relationship between
the judge and an attorney for a party is such
that there would be a natural inclination to
prejudice the case, the judge should be
disqualified in order to guaranty a fair trial
[Query of Executive Judge Estrada (1987)].
Powers and Duties of
Courts and Judicial
Officers
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Courts of justice shall always be open, except on
legal holidays, for the:
(1) Filing of any pleadings, motion or other
papers;
(2) Trial of cases;
(3) Hearing of motions;and
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
(4) For the issuance of orders or rendition of
judgments.
Justice shall be impartially administered
without unnecessary delay(Section 1, Rule 135).
Publicity of Proceedings
General rule: The sitting of every court of justice
shall be public.
Exception: Any court may, in its discretion,
exclude the public when the evidence to be
adduced is of such nature as to require their
exclusion in the interest of morality or decency
(Section 2, Rule 135).
PUBLICITY OF RECORDS
General rule: The records of every court of
justice shall be public records and shall be
available for the inspection of any interested
person:
(1) At all proper business hours;
(2) Under the supervision of the clerk having
custody of such records.
Exception: The court may, in any special case,
forbid publicity of records, in the interest of
morality or decency (Section 2, Rule 135).
ENFORCEABILITY OF COURT PROCESS
Superior courts
Process issued from a superior court in which a
case is pending may be enforced in any part of
the Philippines:
(1) To bring in a defendant;
(2) For the arrest of any accused person; or
(3) To execute any order or judgment of the
court (Section 3, Rule 135).
Inferior courts
General rule: Process of inferior courts shall be
enforceable within the province where the
municipality or city lies.
Exceptions:
(1) It may be served outside the boundaries of
the province with the approval of the judge of
the Regional Trial Court of said province, and
only in the following cases:
(a) When an order for the delivery of personal
property lying outside the province is to
be complied with;
PAGE 81
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(b) When an attachment of real or personal
property lying outside the province is to
be made;
(c) When the action is against two or more
defendants residing in different
provinces; and
(d) When the place where the case has been
brought is that specified in a contract in
writing between the parties, or the place
of the execution of such contract as
appears therefrom;
(2) Writs of execution issued by inferior courts
may be enforced in any part of the
Philippines without any previous approval of
the judge of first instance;
(3) Criminal process may be issued by a justice
of the peace or other inferior court, to be
served outside his province, when the district
judge, or in his absence the provincial fiscal,
shall certify that in his opinion the interests
of justices require such service (Section 4,
Rule 135).
INHERENT POWERS OF COURTS:
(1) To preserve and enforce order in its
immediate presence;
(2) To enforce order in proceedings before a
person or persons empowered to conduct a
judicial investigation under its authority;
(3) To compel obedience to its judgments,
orders and processes, and to the lawful order
of judge out of court, in a case pending
therein;
(4) To control, in furtherance of justice, the
conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all
other persons in any manner connected with
a case before it, in every manner
appertaining thereto;
(5) To compel the attendance of persons to
testify in a case pending therein;
(6) To administer or cause to be administered
oaths in a case pending therein, and in all
other cases where it may be necessary in the
exercise of its powers;
(7) To amend and control its process and orders
so as to make them conformable to law and
justice;
(8) To authorize copy of a lost or destroyed
pleading or other paper to be filed and used
instead of the original, and to restore, and
supply deficiencies in its records and
proceedings (Section 5, Rule 135).
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
MEANS TO CARRY JURISDICTION INTO
EFFECT
When by law, jurisdiction is conferred on a court
or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes
and other means necessary to carry it into effect
may be employed by such court or officer; and if
the procedure to be followed in the exercise of
such jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out
by law or by these rules, any suitable process or
mode of proceeding may be adopted which
appears conformable to the spirit of said law or
rules (Section 6, Rule 135).
TRIAL, HEARINGS AND OTHER ACTS
 All trial upon the merits shall be conducted in
open court and so far as convenient in a
regular court room.
 All other acts or proceedings may be done or
conducted by a judge in chambers, without
the attendance of the clerk or other court
officials (Section 7, Rule 135).
INTERLOCUTORY
PROVINCE
ORDERS OUT OF
When within the district but without the
province, a judge of Regional Trial Court shall
nevertheless have power to hear and determine
any interlocutory motion or issue after due and
reasonable notice to the parties.
The hearing may be had at any place in the
judicial district which the judge deems
convenient on the filing, in any Regional Trial
Court:
(1) Of a petition for the writ of habeas corpus;
(2) For release upon bail or reduction of bail
(Section 8, Rule 135).
SIGNING JUDGMENTS OUT OF PROVINCE
It shall be lawful for a judge to prepare and sign
his decision anywhere within the Philippines:
(1) Whenever a judge, appointed or assigned in
any province or branch of a Regional Trial
Court in a province, shall leave the province:
(a) By transfer or assignment to another
court of equal jurisdiction; or
(b) By expiration of his temporary
assignment;
(2) Without having decided a case, which was:
(a) Totally heard by him; and
(b) Argued or an opportunity given for
argument to the parties or their counsel.
PAGE 82
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
 He shall send the same by registered mail to
the clerk of the court where the case was
heard or argued to be filed therein as of the
date when the same was received by the clerk,
in the same manner as if he had been present
in court to direct the filing of the judgment.
 If a case has been heard only in part, the
Supreme Court, upon petition of any of the
parties to the case and the recommendation
of respective district judge, may also authorize
the judge who has partly heard the case, if no
other judge had heard the case in part, to
continue hearing and to decide said case
notwithstanding his transfer or appointment
to another court of equal jurisdiction (Section
9, Rule 135).
Court Records and
General Duties of Clerks
and Stenographers
CLERK’S OFFICE
The clerk’s office, with the clerk or his deputy in
attendance, shall be open during business
hours on all days, except Sundays and legal
holidays. The clerk of the Supreme Court and
that of the Court of Appeals shall keep the office
in Manila and all papers authorized or required
to be filed therein shall be filed in Manila
(Section 3, Rule 136).
DUTIES OF THE CLERK
ISSUANCE OF PROCESS
(1) The clerk of a superior court shall issue under
the seal of the court all ordinary writs and
process incident to pending cases, the
issuance of which does not involve the
exercise of functions appertaining to the
court or judge only.
(2) The clerk may, under the direction of the
court or judge, make out and sign letters of
administration, appointments of guardians,
trustees and receivers, and all writs and
process issuing from the court.
RECEPTION OF PAPERS AND
PREPARATION OF MINUTES
The clerk of each superior court shall:
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
(1) Receive and file all pleadings and other
papers properly presented, endorsing on
each such paper the time when it was
filed;and
(2) Attend all of the sessions of the court and
enter its proceedings for each day in a
minute book to be kept by him(Section 6,
Rule 136).
SAFEKEEPING OF PROPERTY
The clerk shall safely keep all records, papers,
files, exhibits and public property committed to
his charge, including the library of the court,
and the seal and furniture belonging to his
office (Section 7, Rule 136).
KEEPING A GENERAL DOCKET
The clerk shall keep a general docket, each
page of which shall be numbered and prepared
for receiving all the entries in a single case.
The following shall be entered in the docket, so
that by reference to a single page, the history of
a case may be seen:
(1) All cases, numbered consecutively in the
order in which they were received;
(2) Under the heading of each case and a
complete title thereof:
(a) The date of each paper filed or issued;
(b) Each order or judgment entered;and
(c) Each other step taken in the case (Section
8, Rule 136).
KEEPING A JUDGMENT AND ENTRIES BOOK
The clerk shall keep:
(1) A judgment book containing a copy of each
judgment rendered by the court in order of
its date; and
(2) A book of entries of judgments containing at
length in chronological order entries of all
final judgments or orders of the court
(Section 9, Rule 136).
KEEPING OF AN EXECUTION BOOK
The clerk shall keep an execution book in which
he or his deputy shall record at length in
chronological order each execution, and the
officer’s return thereon, by virtue of which real
property has been sold (Section 10, Rule 136).
CERTIFICATION COPIES
PAGE 83
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
The clerk shall prepare, for any person
demanding the same, a copy certified under the
seal of the court of any paper, record, order,
judgment, or entry in his office, proper to be
certified, for the fees prescribed by these rules
(Section 11, Rule 136).
INDEXING BOOKS AND SEPARATING CASES
(1) The general docket, judgment book, entries
book and execution book shall each be
indexed in alphabetical order in the names
of the parties, and each of them.
(2) If the court so directs, the clerk shall keep
two or more of either or all of the books and
dockets above mentioned, separating civil
from criminal cases, or actions from special
proceedings, or otherwise keeping cases
separated by classes as the court shall deem
best (Section 13, Rule 136).
KEEPING OTHER BOOKS AND OTHER
DUTIES
The clerk shall keep such other books and
perform such other duties as the court may
direct (Section 12, Rule 136).
IN THE ABSENCE OR BY DIRECTION OF
JUDGE
(1) In the absence of the judge, the clerk may
perform all the duties of the judge in
receiving applications, petitions, inventories,
reports, and the issuance of all orders and
notices that follow as a matter of course
under the Rules of Court.
(2) The clerk may also, when directed so to do
by the judge, receive the accounts of
executors, administrators, guardians,
trustees, and receivers, and all evidence
relating to them, or to the settlement of the
estates of deceased persons, or to
guardianships, trusteeships, or receiverships,
and forthwith transmit such reports,
accounts, and evidence to the judge,
together with the findings in relation to the
same, if the judge shall direct him to make
findings and include the same in his report
(Section 5, Rule 136).
TAKING OF RECORD FROM CLERK’S OFFICE
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
 No record shall be taken from the clerk’s
office without an order of the court except as
otherwise provided by these rules.
 However, the Solicitor General or any of his
assistants, the provincial fiscal or his deputy,
and the attorneys de oficio shall be permitted,
upon proper receipt, to withdraw from the
clerk’s office the record of any case in which
they are interested (Section 14, Rule 136).
STENOGRAPHER
 It shall be the duty of the stenographer who
has attended a session of a court either in the
morning or in the afternoon, to deliver to the
clerk of court, immediately at the close of
such morning or afternoon session, all the
notes he has taken, to be attached to the
record of the case.
 It shall likewise be the duty of the clerk to
demand that the stenographer comply with
said duty. The clerk of court shall stamp the
date on which notes are received by him.
 When such notes are transcribed, the
transcript shall be delivered to the clerk, duly
initialed on each page thereof, to be attached
to the record of the case.
 Whenever requested by a party, any
statement made by a judge of first instance,
or by a commissioner, with reference to a case
being tried by him, or to any of the parties
thereto, or to any witness or attorney, during
the hearing of such case, shall be made of
record in the stenographic notes (Section 17,
Rule 136).
DOCKET AND OTHER RECORDS OF
INFERIOR COURTS
Every municipal or city judge shall keep a well-
bound labeled “docket.” He may keep two
dockets, one for civil and one for criminal cases.
In such docket, he shall enter for each case:
(1) Title of the case including the name of all
the parties;
(2) The nature of the case, whether civil or
criminal, and if the latter, the offense
charged;
(3) The date of issuing preliminary and
intermediate process including order of
arrest and subpoenas, and the date and
nature of the return thereon;
PAGE 84
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(4) The date of the appearance of default of
the defendant;
(5) The date of presenting the plea, answer, or
motion to quash, and the nature of the
same;
(6) The minutes of the trial, including the date
thereof and of all adjournments;
(7) The names and addresses of all witnesses;
(8) The date and nature of the judgment, and,
in a civil case, the relief granted;
(9) An itemized statement of the costs;
(10) The date of any execution issued, and the
date and contents of the return thereon;
(11) The date of any notice of appeal filed and
the name of the party filing the same.
He shall also:
(1) Keep all the pleadings and other papers
and exhibits in cases pending in his
court;and
(2) Certify copies of his docket entries and
other records proper to be certified, for the
fees prescribed by the Rules of Court.
 It shall not be necessary for the municipal or
city judge to reduce to writing the testimony
of witnesses, except that of the accused in
preliminary investigations.
Legal Fees
MANNER OF PAYMENT
Upon the filing of the pleading or other
application which initiates an action or
proceeding, the fees prescribed therefor shall be
paid in full (Section 1, Rule 141).
FEES IN LIEN
The party concerned shall pay additional fees,
where the court in its final judgment awards:
(1) A claim not alleged; or
(2) A relief different from, or more than that
claimed in the pleading.
The additional fees which shall constitute a lien
on the judgment. The clerk of court shall assess
and collect the corresponding fees (Section 2,
Rule 141).
UP LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT LEGAL
FEES
Except as otherwise provided in Rule 141, the
following officers and persons, together with
their assistants and deputies, may demand,
receive, and take the several fees hereinafter
mentioned and allowed for any business by
them respectively done by virtue of their several
offices, and no more:
(1) Clerks of the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax
Appeals;
(2) Clerks of Regional Trial Courts;
(3) Clerks of first level courts;
(4) Sheriffs, process servers and other persons
serving processes;
(5) Stenographers;
(6) Notaries;
(7) Other officers taking depositions.
 All fees so collected shall be forthwith
remitted to the Supreme Court. The persons
herein authorized to collect legal fees shall be
accountable officers and shall be required to
post bond in such amount as prescribed by
the law (Section 3, Rule 141).
 It is not simply the filing of the complaint or
appropriate initiatory pleading but the
payment of the prescribed docket fee that
vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the
subject matter or nature of the action. Where
the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by payment of the docket fee,
the court may allow payment of the fee within
a reasonable time but in no case beyond the
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period
[Sun Life Insurance v. Asuncion (1989)].
Recovery of Costs
PREVAILING PARTY
Unless otherwise provided in the Rules of Court,
costs shall be allowed to the prevailing party as
a matter of course, but the court shall have
power, for special reasons, to adjudge:
(1) That either party shall pay the costs of an
action; or
(2) That the same shall be divided between
them, as may be equitable.
PAGE 85
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
No costs shall be allowed against the Republic
of the Philippines, unless otherwise provided by
law(Section 1, Rule 142).
DISMISSED ACTION OR APPEAL
If an action or appeal is dismissed for want of
jurisdiction or otherwise, the court nevertheless
shall have the power to render judgment for
costs, as justice may require (Section 2, Rule
142).
FRIVOLOUS APPEAL
Where an action or an appeal is found to be
frivolous, double, or treble costs may be
imposed on the plaintiff or appellant, which
shall be paid by his attorney, if so ordered by the
court (Section 3, Rule 142).
FALSE ALLEGATIONS
An averment in a pleading made without
reasonable cause and found untrue shall
subject the offending party to the payment of
such reasonable expenses as may have been
necessarily incurred by the other party by reason
of such untrue pleading. The amount of
expenses so payable shall be fixed by the judge
in the trial, and taxed as costs (Section 4, Rule
142).
NON-APPEARANCE OF WITNESS
If a witness fails to appear at the time and place
specified in the subpoena issued by any inferior
court, the costs of the warrant of arrest and of
the arrest of the witness shall be paid by the
witness if the court shall determine that his
failure to answer the subpoena was willful or
without just excuse (Section 12, Rule 142).